The one most over-rated plane of WWII

[MikeMeech]

My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not have armor until after the RAF gained some combat experience.

Hi
More information from Fox's book:

From this it appears that all the original Hurricane squadrons in France had been fitted with rear armour plate before 10th May 1940, indeed all new production Hurricanes had been fitted with same from 22 February 1940. Most discussion is on retrospective fits on aircraft in service the same applies to mods like Constant Speed propellers which were introduced on 'new' production (Hurricane production from October 1939) and then there was catching up mods to do on squadrons and MUs on aircraft already delivered.
There is some discussion on Spitfire rear armour as there had to be some redesign in the cockpit (one item was the pilot's head rest) to fit it which would slow up production of the aircraft. However, decisions had been made about rear armour for both Hurricane and Spitfire prior to the experience of the Battle of France.

Mike

 

[GrauGeist]

With regards to AVG fighting the A6M, the KI-43 entered IJA service late in 1941, about the time the A6M's numbers were ramping up in IJN service.

The two not only looked similar (both found at the top left of the ID chart attached), but had a comparable performance profile, so mis-identification of the types occurred often during the early days of the war.

 

[Civettone]

I tend to get passionate about underrated aircraft, rather than the overrated ones. However, I do feel that certain attributes of aircraft are overrated, such as firepower or speed. For instance, the P-51 Mustang is generally considered to be the fastest fighter of (most of) WW2, but it is rarely mentioned that at medium altitude several aircraft were faster. Or the manoeuvrability of the Ki-100 meant very little when you cannot seize the initiative due to low speed.

That said, I do notice that the Lancaster is - at least in British public opinion - generally overrated. Or the Swordfish. Or the Wellington. Or ... Well, all British aircraft really

 

[MikeMeech]

Initially the spitfire was not supposed to be a dogfighter, it was an interceptor and at the time no SE fighter could fly from Germany to England, they did have some armour in front of the pilot, as protection from a bombers defensive fire. With the fall of France they rapidly fitted armour behind the pilot, which compensated for the variable pitch props also fitted at the front.

Hi
According to Morgan and Shacklady, page 72, Modification 140 'Fit rear armour' was incorporated into the original Spitfire design from 19 October 1939.

Mike

 

[pbehn]

My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not have armor until after the RAF gained some combat experience.

Ive just realised. The Battle of France was officially starting on 10 May. But the RAF were in France and in combat before that, the rush to fit props armour supply 100 Octane fuel and indeed make all Hurricanes have metal skinned wings was before the actual battle of France, but if you are shooting down aircraft and being shot down, you are certainly in a battle in France.

RAF Advanced Air Striking Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

February–March[edit]

More flying was possible in January but the air forces spent most of February on the ground, with many of the aircrews on leave. The weather became much better for flying and on 2 March a Dornier was shot down by two 1 Squadron Hurricanes, one of the British pilots being killed while attempting a forced landing after being hit in the engine by return fire; next day, British fighters shot down a He 111. On 3 March, two 73 Squadron pilots escorting a Potez 63 at 20,000 ft (6,100 m) spotted seven He 111s 5,000 ft (1,500 m) higher and gave chase, only to be attacked by six Bf 109s. A Bf 109 overshot one of the Hurricanes, which hit it and fell, leaving a trail of black smoke, the eleventh victory for the squadron. The Hurricane was hit by the third Bf 109 and the pilot only just managed to reach a French airfield and make an emergency landing. On the morning of 4 March, a 1 Squadron Hurricane shot down a Bf 109 over Germany and later, three other Hurricanes of the squadron attacked nine Messerschmitt Bf 110s north of Metz and shot one down. On 29 March, three Hurricanes of 1 Squadron were attacked by Bf 109 and Bf 110s over Bouzonville, a Bf 109 being shot down at Apach and a Bf 110 north-west of Bitche; a Hurricane pilot was killed trying to land at Brienne-le-Château.[34]​

 

[NTGray]

Ive just realised. The Battle of France was officially starting on 10 May. But the RAF were in France and in combat before that. . .

True, but the period from September 1939 to May 1940 saw so little action (outside of Poland, anyway) that it is often referred to as:

THE PHONEY WAR (French: Drôle de guerre; German: Sitzkrieg) was an eight-month period at the start of World War II, during which there was only one limited military land operation on the Western Front, when French troops invaded Germany's Saar district. Nazi Germany carried out the Invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939; the Phoney period began with the declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France against Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939, after which little actual warfare occurred, and ended with the German invasion of France and the Low Countries on 10 May 1940. [Wikipedia]

 

[pbehn]

True, but the period from September 1939 to May 1940 (not counting what was happening within Poland) saw so little action that it is often referred to as:

Little action is not no action, there were only 6 Hurricane squadrons in France as per the link one squadron made its 11th claim on 3 March. Overall maybe a phoney war but not as far as Hurricane squadrons were concerned.

 

[PAT303]

The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway. The Luftwaffe was armoring its planes as early as 1939. Armor was not added to the Zero until very late in the war.

No armour was fitted before the BoB.

 

[PAT303]

However, the Zero was designed to specifications and met them. Neither the Me-109, P-40, or the Spit would have been able to do what the IJN wanted or needed. It fit the SWP battle ground.

Biff, I don't agree, the RAF could have made a Spitfire do everything the A6M did they just weren't prepared to suffer the loss of the most important asset which is their pilots doing it. A PR Spit is equal to a A6M, unprotected tanks, nil armor or protection in any form, no coms, no safety gear, the A6M even had 2'' dia holes cut into the pilots seat to save weight, they then could have put aux tanks behind the pilot and slung a DT under it's belly and there you are a SpittyZero, the trouble is what happens when a plane like that flies over Europe or into Europe which is controlled airspace on both sides, it'll get butchered.

 

[Civettone]

Initially the spitfire was not supposed to be a dogfighter, it was an interceptor and at the time no SE fighter could fly from Germany to England, they did have some armour in front of the pilot, as protection from a bombers defensive fire. With the fall of France they rapidly fitted armour behind the pilot, which compensated for the variable pitch props also fitted at the front.

Were any fighters in the West designed as dogfighters?

Or even pure interceptors? The P-38 and MiG-3 come to mind but other than that, all Western fighters were meant to intercept bombers and achieve air superiority over the battlefield.

I think that concept of two types of fighters only existed in Japan which had a purely offensive policy, the Ki-44 considered a waste of resources.

 

[NTGray]

I tend to get passionate about underrated aircraft, rather than the overrated ones.

And I could have focused instead on the Wildcat as being unfairly criticized, and made a good case of it. But I think I would list the P-39 as being the *most* unfairly-maligned American fighter; after all, many of the top-scoring Allied aces got all or most of their kills with P-39s. Of course those Airacobras had red stars on them, but they were excellent planes for the job for which they were used on the Eastern Front, which did not require high-altitude capability.
But I still focus on the Zero, not because it wasn't really *quite* as good as the hype, but because it was *way* worse than its hype. It got so much hero-worship because of just one trait (maneuverability), which turned out to be not all that critical in the real world of combat. The fact that in the long run it came out second-best to the Wildcat is the most telling fact.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Were any fighters in the West designed as dogfighters?

Or even pure interceptors? The P-38 and MiG-3 come to mind but other than that, all Western fighters were meant to intercept bombers and achieve air superiority over the battlefield.

I think that concept of two types of fighters only existed in Japan which had a purely offensive policy, the Ki-44 considered a waste of resources.

It may be up to debate what 'pure' interceptor implies (or implied), but for the late war the Me 163 springs to mind, not being less specialized than the Ki-44.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Biff, I don't agree, the RAF could have made a Spitfire do everything the A6M did they just weren't prepared to suffer the loss of the most important asset which is their pilots doing it. A PR Spit is equal to a A6M, unprotected tanks, nil armor or protection in any form, no coms, no safety gear, the A6M even had 2'' dia holes cut into the pilots seat to save weight, they then could have put aux tanks behind the pilot and slung a DT under it's belly and there you are a SpittyZero, the trouble is what happens when a plane like that flies over Europe or into Europe which is controlled airspace on both sides, it'll get butchered.

There's a lot of unsubstantiated claims there if you're talking about an early Spitfire. "Could have, should have." You just don't start adding things to a basic airframe without giving something up. Didn't the Spitfire design eventually grow to meet expanded requirements? That's what needed to happen (and eventually did).

A PR spit was designed for a specific mission and shouldn't even be considered here.

I believe early Spitfires had some advantages over the Zero (of the same timeframe) and "could have" been flown effectively if proper tactics were employed, one of the reasons why RAAF Spitfires did not do well over Darwin (although it was mentioned earlier that most RAAF Spits lost over Darwin to Zeros occurred while they were attacking bombers). No, IMO you're not going to make a "SpittyZero" just by adding extra fuel and using drop tanks, a total redesign would have to be undertaken if you're going to compete in all performance areas with the Zero.

 

[Civettone]

And I could have focused instead on the Wildcat as being unfairly criticized, and made a good case of it. But I think I would list the P-39 as being the *most* unfairly-maligned American fighter; after all, many of the top-scoring Allied aces got all or most of their kills with P-39s. Of course those Airacobras had red stars on them, but they were excellent planes for the job for which they were used on the Eastern Front, which did not require high-altitude capability.
But I still focus on the Zero, not because it wasn't really *quite* as good as the hype, but because it was *way* worse than its hype. It got so much hero-worship because of just one trait (maneuverability), which turned out to be not all that critical in the real world of combat. The fact that in the long run it came out second-best to the Wildcat is the most telling fact.

Yes, it was manoeuvrable. But it also had excellent range, good firepower and climb rate. The fact that the Americans were able to overcome these traits may have had more to do with superior tactics and, gradually, better training.

But agree, the Zero was hyped and at the time, was presented as superior to anything the Americans had. If that holds merit or not, is one thing but in the end, it all depends on WHO tells the story. In my opinion, the media plays a big part in simplifying the narrative. ('Zero was better than anything we had. It was this and that ... But then we designed the Hellcat. And then ....')

 

[Shortround6]

Didn't the Spitfire design eventually grow to meet expanded requirements? That's what needed to happen (and eventually did) to meet expanded performance requirements.

We would have to define "grow"

The Spit started with a 242 sq ft wing. Fuselage length only grew to the extent of the longer engine/s (and bigger prop hubs) and broader rudder.

More power was certainly added and more armament was fitted and some airframes got more fuel. Gross weight went up considerably but the basic airframe didn't change size.

The Zero got more power and more (or better) guns. Gross weight increased.

Many planes got heavier, very few (if any?) got lighter.

Some planes ran out of room to fit more "stuff" and/or ran out of power or wing area to support more "stuff".
There was a limit to what you could cram into (or under) a 109 or Yak for example.

And yes there a lot of claims about what could have been done with the early Spitfire.

That fixed pitch prop has a lot to answer for
Had the Spitfire been designed from the start to use something other than a WW I tech level propeller perhaps they would have done things differently?
But the Spit was not a small as some people imagine. Due to luck/happenstance some of the features allowed for latter upgrades more easily than some other aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

We would have to define "grow"

The Spit started with a 242 sq ft wing. Fuselage length only grew to the extent of the longer engine/s (and bigger prop hubs) and broader rudder.

More power was certainly added and more armament was fitted and some airframes got more fuel. Gross weight went up considerably but the basic airframe didn't change size.

The Zero got more power and more (or better) guns. Gross weight increased.

Many planes got heavier, very few (if any?) got lighter.

Some planes ran out of room to fit more "stuff" and/or ran out of power or wing area to support more "stuff".
There was a limit to what you could cram into (or under) a 109 or Yak for example.

And yes there a lot of claims about what could have been done with the early Spitfire.
View attachment 648064
That fixed pitch prop has a lot to answer for
Had the Spitfire been designed from the start to use something other than a WW I tech level propeller perhaps they would have done things differently?
But the Spit was not a small as some people imagine. Due to luck/happenstance some of the features allowed for latter upgrades more easily than some other aircraft.

Everything you mentioned! Redesigns, airframe size growing (and of course weight increasing)

There was a limit to what you could cram into (or under) a 109 or Yak for example.

Exactly! Some folks don't understand that!

 

[Shortround6]

Everything you mentioned! Redesigns, airframe size growing (and of course weight increasing)


Exactly! Some folks don't understand that!

For the Spit the front D spar allowed for fuel tanks to put into the wing leading edge. I have no idea if that was planned in 1936-37 but the volume was there. On the 109 with it's much smaller wing the volume to put in wing tanks, even small ones, was much more restricted. Spitfire, once heavier engines and propellers were used, already had the volume in the rear fuselage to fit more fuel tanks (CG was still an issue).
Same with guns, The Spit wing had a lot of room between the front Spar and the rear spar/flap attachment point ( I don't want to revisit the one vs two spar debate) to fit large guns, at least lengthwise. Some air craft with multi spar wings (3-5 spars) needed a lot more hole punching and reinforcement to fit more or large wing guns than the original design. Yes the Spit went through a variety of wing versions but it didn't change basic shape or construction until the MK 22 or so.

P-40s grew 20 in in length to put give the vertical fin and rudder more authority to counter act changes up front (bigger air scoop/more power). FW 190Ds got a longer rear fuselage.

P-3* was turned into the P-63 to fit two stage supercharged engine


The Spit would need some redesign to fit some of the coulda/shoulda's but it needed less than some other designs as evidenced by the fact that a lot was done later with minimal changes.

 

[Mike Williams]

And yes there a lot of claims about what could have been done with the early Spitfire.
View attachment 648064
That fixed pitch prop has a lot to answer for
Had the Spitfire been designed from the start to use something other than a WW I tech level propeller perhaps they would have done things differently?

It may be of interest to note that the shortcomings of the early prop led, in part, to the introduction of 100 octane fuel, in order to improve take-off performance. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/24sept38-spitfire-100oct-approval.jpg (Nice Photo btw)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

For the Spit the front D spar allowed for fuel tanks to put into the wing leading edge. I have no idea if that was planned in 1936-37 but the volume was there. On the 109 with it's much smaller wing the volume to put in wing tanks, even small ones, was much more restricted. Spitfire, once heavier engines and propellers were used, already had the volume in the rear fuselage to fit more fuel tanks (CG was still an issue).
Same with guns, The Spit wing had a lot of room between the front Spar and the rear spar/flap attachment point ( I don't want to revisit the one vs two spar debate) to fit large guns, at least lengthwise. Some air craft with multi spar wings (3-5 spars) needed a lot more hole punching and reinforcement to fit more or large wing guns than the original design. Yes the Spit went through a variety of wing versions but it didn't change basic shape or construction until the MK 22 or so.

P-40s grew 20 in in length to put give the vertical fin and rudder more authority to counter act changes up front (bigger air scoop/more power). FW 190Ds got a longer rear fuselage.

P-3* was turned into the P-63 to fit two stage supercharged engine


The Spit would need some redesign to fit some of the coulda/shoulda's but it needed less than some other designs as evidenced by the fact that a lot was done later with minimal changes.

All good but remember - just because you have "volume" doesn't mean it can be filled without structural modification. Say you can put fuel tanks in the leading leading edges, what's going to happen to that wing under g loads? Heavier more powerful engines means more torque and more loads to the airframe. Strengthening will be required = more weight, but I think you know all this.

 

[NTGray]

It may be of interest to note that the shortcomings of the early prop led, in part, to the introduction of 100 octane fuel, in order to improve take-off performance. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/100-octane/24sept38-spitfire-100oct-approval.jpg

I only discovered recently that 100-octane fuel might not have happened in time had it not been for some people who pushed against the conventional wisdom of the day:

How High-Octane Gasoline Saved Untold Allied Pilots During WWII

Aviation legend Jimmy Doolittle pioneered a type of gas that made Allied planes faster and more lethal, helping us win battles and the war.

sofrep.com