I agree. I do want to point out, however, that the "laminar airfoils" used in WWII did not produce extensive laminar flow in practice (laminar flow turned out to be extremely sensitive to small variations in profile and smoothness - even flush rivets would cause turbulent airflow). They did, however increase the speed of the aircraft by delaying compressibility issues.
The forum member "Glider" may have some more input, since gliders (sailplanes) have been the primary type of aircraft to successfully utilize laminar flow.
The supercritical airfoils were often touted as generating good lift at low speeds, but they did not catch on with slower aircraft. I recall that there was a flurry of attempts to use supercritical airfoils on some lower speed General Aviation and homebuilt aircraft in the 1970's and 1980's, but interest soon waned. As I recall, the airfoils required a disconcertingly large angle of attack at takeoff and landing as well as generating a large nose-down moment. There were likely other unfavorable characteristics of which I am not aware.
High lift is not required for high speed cruising, but it is required for the high-G maneuvers needed by fighter aircraft. The higher speed aircraft that use supercritical airfoils of which I am aware also utilize high-lift devices (leading-edge slats and slotted fowler flaps) for low speeds.
The distinguishing traits of the supercritical airfoils that I have seen are relatively large diameter leading edges, almost flat upper surfaces, and very noticeable downward cusps (curve) near the trailing edges. This was certainly not an intuitive design, especially at a time when very little was known about compressibility and the effect of shock waves. Indeed, the Whitcombe airfoil was not developed until the 1960's
Not-the-same Jim.
P.S. Wuzak, "is that all you've got", "you can do better" or "your grandma could fly better than you". I hope that you are happy now.