Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

Hello Iwd,

well that the Boomrang also mansged to shoot down Zeros - but this doesn't imply or proove that the Boomerang was up to a Zero.

As for a single 30mm round, or let it be two from the 20mm was in general enough to bring down a fighter plane.

How much longer would a Mustang need to follow an Fw in order to place enough rounds into the target. So I would tend to believe that the Mustang wasn't an efficient fighter such as a Fw190D9.

Regards
Kruska

 

The 50's made up at least part of that in rate of fire and ammo load. The FW went to the cannons more to shoot down heavy bombers than for fighter vs fighter combat. I think you'll find if you look at the records that the P-51 had a kill fatio vs the FW somewhat greater than 1:1. Indeed if you are talking efficieny the P-51 may have been a more efficient fight at least as far as fighter vs fighter combat is concerned.

 

Sadly I am in no way an expert on dogfights or rounds/sec, or have the practical experience of a WWII fighterpilot. However I do recall that the reason for the Bf-109 and its sucessfull Luftwaffe aces was the 30mm central cannon.

As for the kill ratio, I wouldn't know about the factors unless it was recorded just between Mustang encounters on Fw. Those bomber guards were not homogenous Mustang units but mixed with others, so how would someone know who actually shot down the Fw - since allied kills were evem 1/4 and 1/8. Also the ratio in numbers was far in favor for the Mustangs something like 4:1 so it wouldn't be a surprise that the Mustangs suffered less losses than the Fw's.

I remember my father telling me of numerous encounters were 4-6 USAAF fighters going after him and other single Luftwaffe pilots.

The Me262 I believe shot down about 300 allied planes and only 20-30 Me262's were actually shot down during dogfights. So imagine that ratio - but it wouldn't have an impact IMO on grading the Me-262 as the best due to ratio.

Regards
Kruska

 

Ok to clarify some things.

The P-51D/K had a range of about 950 miles. The 2,080 number I gave earlier was from a different source and was including drop tanks.

Also, what I meant to say when I said the Fw 190 was built as a ground attack fighter is that it was built as an interceptor (Fw 190A-8) not a long range escort. There was also the ground attack version the Fw 190D-9.

P-51D/K

Max Speed: 437 mph at 25,000 ft.
Range: 950 miles
Climb: 3,475 ft. per minute
Service Ceiling: 41,9000 ft.
Armament: six 0.50in Brownings

Fw 190A-8
Max Speed: 402 mph at 20,700 ft
Range: 658 miles
Climb: 1,826 ft. per minute
Service Ceiling: 32,700 ft.
Armament: four MG 151 20mm cannon and two MG 12.7mm machine guns

The P-51 beats the Fw 190 in every category (the armament is up for debate I suppose). But, as Iwd explained, the six .50 cals were extremely effective as they were able to carry more ammo and shoot faster. Also, the 30-mm cannons were only present in certain model Fw 190s and were not very common.

 

Wow !! Your father flew 190D-9's ... Please, do tell us more.

You are correct Kruska ... the reason behind the development of the FW-190D "Dora" or "Langnasen-Dora" (Long-Nose Dora) was to improve performance at high altitude of the 190A series against USAF Heavy Bombers. But, it was rarely used in this role as priority had shifted in 1944 meaning the 190D-9's were used in fighter vs fighter or ground attack roles.

I will refrain from entering the current debate on the P-51 vs the FW-190 on the grounds that there where a number of different variations of both fighters occupying the same air-space in the same time period for me to choose (with confidence) an overall 'superior' fighter ... I think the 'end result' speaks for itself.

 

A little clarification. I don't think the P-51 should be criticized for it's armament as it seems to be pretty well balanced vs its opposition. That doesn't mean I think it was better than the FW-190. Indeed the same armament in the FW could probably be critized. How well matched ballistically were the various FW guns?

 

I'm sorry but could you possibly rephrase the question?

Also, a factor that is sort of evident in the statistics but I failed to mention specifically is the Fw 190's engine. The power of the BMW 801 engine tended to drop off at altitudes exceeding 22,976 ft (7,000 m). This problem was worked on in later models but a solution was never really achieved in a plane that was produced in mass numbers.

 

Hello JagdtigerI,

you are certainly correct in regards to the BMW 801 engine, which is why I was trying to set the P-51D against the Fw-190D9 - even though the Jumo 213 didn't change much to overcome the lacking High altitudeTurbo boost system.

I am surely no expert or too knowledgable on aircraft issues - but to my believe the P-51 and Fw190D9 were quite evenly matched besides the armament - that is why I picked out that issue.

My father didn't get into too many dogfights whilst flying the FwD9, since he was mostly relegated to guarding the Me 262 bases. And the US boy's usually turned off going home once they noticed the Fw's. Since they already had done their job, straffing and bombing the Me 262 locations.

On some encounters he told me that the US boys were extremly eager to get one of the Luftwaffe aircraft, and usually grouped up in 4-6 aircraft to get their kill. (Which he (my father) would also have done if they would have had the numbers. However according to my father: the Luftwaffe pilots prefered the individual kill - to swoop up on enemy aircrafts on their own, so that the US approach bewildered them at the beginning.

My father felt relativley save when he flew the Fw190D11 or 12. There were only a few of those machines at hand - but they were regarded by him and his comrades to be a life-guarantee against the US and RAF fighters.

This "wrong" Luftwaffe approach (according to my father) led to many false judgements and a dangerous underestimation towards the US flyers calling or describing them as cowards or bad pilots - additionally heated up by the Nazi propaganda.

I remember him stating (translated into the english meaning something like) the American guns proved to be almost without effect in steep angles due to missing velocity) since the US boys stopped firing in steep turns for some reasons.

Regards
Kruska

 

The 50 caliber was used on U.S. fighters because of its all around hitting power and reliability. Also much easier to supply one type of gun and bullits for all types of planes. It was not replaced till the Korean war where it was found that the metal on jets was harder to penetrate and speeds were higher that cannons were better. It's hard to say Zeros were overated when one on one early in the war they could take out almost any fighter. Wildcats got kills when better tactics were used, but the zero was the better dogfighter. ME-262 was scary if u were a allied pilot in 1944/45. It was faster and sped is the number one asset in any dogfight. Maybe it was not as reliable, but as a pure fighter it was hardly overrated. eric Brown states in his book that it was the number one fighter of the war, and he flew just about everything that was made. I tend to believe what he says.

 

Hello barry8108,

I wouldn't know about Eric Brown - but I couldn't follow on this.

The Me262 might have been a powerfull and formidable Pulk destroyer - but as a fighter???

My father whilst he watched the Me262's was thinking; what a waste!

Regards
Kruska

 

The FW used mixed armament. How well matched were they ballistically? Ie did rounds from the different guns have similar impact points? Or was it a waste to fire the various guns at the same time especially at longer ranges?

I believe the navy started replacing it in the Pacific near the end of WWII. "killing" a kamikaze didn't do much good if he could still crash into a ship.

 

I'm a 109 guy and the points made against the mustang kill ratio i would agree with but its my opinion the mustang was the best most modern plane at wars end.

DA:thanks for the info on the SBD,i'm out of salutes unfortunately.

Has it struck you that you are doing the same thing you criticized me for?

I got it off the telly,for the record i dont just make things up

For much the same reason they had a mockup of sealion,The 109d used was got from the spanish and it mightnt have been a mark ix but a mark vii.

True,thats why i dont go in for kill ratios unless its remarkable.

 

You love it

The normal armament for the fighter versions of the Fw 190 was 2x20mm MG 151 and 2x13mm MG 131. The aircraft fitted with the extra 2x30mm were the bomber destroyer versions, this made them effective in bring down heavy bombers, but in fighter v fighter combat the extra weight of the weapons and ammo proved a marked disadvantage.

The Fw 190D-9 is considered the best Luftwaffe aircraft to see significant service in WW2, the only aircraft that was considered its equal in terms of all-round performance to also see signification service was the Spitfire Mk XIV.

ps. In trials by the US Navy, it was found that a 20mm cannon (of the same type as fitted to the Spitfire) had 3 times the destructive power of a .50 HGM

 

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

 

There were also tests with captured Spitfires throughout the war at Rechlin/Berlin airfield that prooved the worthyness of the Spitfire. during the war in France and later on during the BoB my father never had the imprssion that his Bf109 was superior towards the Spitfire - however he was already had some years of pre-war flying experience and as such fortunate to be more skillfull then the RAF pilots he encountered.

From my fathers viewpoint the Tempest was a very dangerous adversary to him and his comrades, and they felt more need for caution towards the Tempest then the Mustang.

Which doesn't say that the Mustang wasn't a very good aircraft - but it wasn't judged to be such a hipe by my father and other Luftwaffe pilots that encountered both allied aircraft.

Regards
Kruska

 

It is often forgotten the role played by 109G in other air forces, like finish and romanian one.

In the hand of the finnish pilots 109 G scored 667 confirmed victories with the type, losing 34 Bf 109s to enemy fighters or antiaircraft fire. A further 16 were lost in accidents and 8 aircraft were destroyed on the ground. 23 pilots were killed. a total of 159 out of 162 purchased were pressed into service

The romanian air force operated some 135 G-2/-6/-8s begining with March 1943 until the end of war; the experience of romanian pilots is almost unique amogst other air forces because the fact that did fought with 109 G against Soviet (including british made aircrafts), American and after 23 August, Luftwaffe. During the summer of 1944 the 109 G equipped 7th Fighter Group with 53rd, 57th and 58th Fighter Squadrons (it had also some IAR-81C) and 9th Fighter Group: 46th, 48th and 56th Fighter Squadrons. It was this small force that stud against almost daily USAAF raids (some 400 bombers and 100 fighters at once, mainly Mustangs) and the assaults of VVS. The majority of Romanian aces achieved their victories with the Gustav. They all spoke very highly of it. Lt. av. Teodor Greceanu (20 victories) once said "it fit him like a glove". It was by far the best fighter ARR had during the war and also the most effective. It was the only one to score confirmed kills against the Mustang.

I don't think this plane was overrated; what it seems exaggerated is the effects of allied air power (including Typhoon) against german ground combat units in Normandy: often the german attack at Mortain is used as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers. But in fact this engagement is rather an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The british 2nd tactical air force claimed to have destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area 7 - 10 August, while 9th US air force claimed 112. This actually exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation. In fact no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons. The main reason for the poor results of air attack on tanks was lack of suitable armament. Machine guns and cannons had sufficient accuracy, but lacked the power necessary to produce more than superficial damage. Heavy bombs could destroy a tank, but it took a direct hit, which was very difficult to achieve. The vaunted rockets had sufficient penetration capabilities. Trials against captured German Panther tanks showed that the rockets could penetrate the armour except on the front of the tank. The accuracy of the rockets was however alarmingly low, even when fired in salvos of eight. At trials on training ground in England the probability of achieving a hit on a tank was at most 4 %. On operations, when the aircraft was subjected to AA fire and the targets not stationary on an open field, hit rates must have been even lower. Also, in fact on the six most casualty-intensive days suffered by 12. SS-Pz.Div. during June 1944 the weather either prevented or hampered air operations. The worst day for the division was 26 June 1944, when it suffered 730 casualties. During this day it rained. Three British studies of captured Panther tanks (or wrecks of Panther tanks), two of them during Normandy and one during the Ardennes battle gave the following results:

Armour Piercing Shot -> 63 panther tanks lost
Hollow Charge Projectiles -> 8 panther tanks lost
High Explosive Shells -> 11 panther tanks lost
Aircraft Rockets -> 11 panther tanks lost
Aircraft Cannon -> 3 panther tanks lost
Destroyed by crew -> 66 panther tanks lost
Abandoned -> 43 panther tanks lost
Unknown causes -> 24 panther tanks lost

In all 96 were destroyed, disabled or damaged by allies and 133 panther tanks were abandobed and destroyed by the crews or lost to other causes;

During the '44-45' period a german panzer regiment was organized in two tank batalions one equiped with panther tanks and second with mark IV panzer tank so about the loses for panzer mk IV we could approximate same figures.

I apologize for possible errors regarding grammar or spelling, however English is not my native language and best regards.

 

Well i guess if these guys cant agree then i guess we've got no hope,good link

 

An analysis of the Spitfire and Bf 109 performance in the Battle of Britain.

Bf 109Es and Spitfires rought each other from 23 May 1940, when No. 54 Sqn engaged aircraft from I./JG 27 near Dunkirk, to 21 December 1940, when No. 92 Sqn downed a Bf 109E-4 of 7./LG 2 over Dungeness. The two types continued to engage in mortal combat well into 1941 too.

Fighter Command (and No.11 Group in particular) had done its best throughout 1940 to send its 19 Spitfire squadrons up against the Jagdwaffe's eight Jagdgeschwader, leaving units equipped with slower, less capable Hurricanes to engage the bombers. Of course both RAF types would end up 'mixing' it with Bf 109Es on a daily basis, and Spitfire pilots also downed their fair share of bombers. Nevertheless, a large proportion of the aircraft claimed destroyed by Spitfire pilots, and aces in particular, were Bf 109Es, and the same applied to the Jagdwaffe.

Fighter Command suffered significant Spitfire losses in 1940, with 72 (nearly one-third of its frontline strength of these aircraft at this time) being lost during operations to cover the evacuation from Dunkirk. August 1940 would prove to be the worst month for Spitfire losses, with 136 fighters destroyed. Overall, during the four months of the Battle of Britain, 361 Spitfires were lost and further 352 damaged. fortunately for Fighter command, and the free world, production of the aircraft far outstripped attrition, with 747 Spitfire I/IIs being delivered in the summer and autumn of 1940.

During this same period, the Jagdwaffe lost 610 Bf 109Es, which compares favorably to fighter Command's 1,023 Spitfires and Hurricanes. Of course, the only targets presented to the Jagdflieger during this period were fighters, and it appears that they claimed around 770 of the aircraft lost by Fighter Command. This gave the Bf 109E pilots a favorable kill ratio of 1.2:1, but as I already explained was nowhere near the hoped for 5:1 kill ratio that was needed for the launching of Sealion.

As the campaign ground on, the Jagdwaffe, like Fighter Command, also began to see its pilot number decrease, although production of Bf 109Es kept ahead of losses with an average of 155 being delivered per month. some 906 Emil pilots were deemed to be operational in July, and this number had fallen to 735 by September.

Both sides certainly enjoyed significant aerial successes during the course of the Battle of Britain, but the overclaiming of victories was rife in both the Jagdwaffe and Fighter Command. for example, the 19 Spitfire units claimed 1,064.5 victories between 1 July and 31 October, but exhaustive research by historian John Alcorn had shown that only 521.49 of these claims can be substantiated- an average of 27 kills per squadron- a result no doubt, of the confusion of aerial combat. The accuracy of these figures is borne out by the fact that the Luftwaffe lost 1,219 aircraft in total to fighter attacks during this period.

German kill claims were, if anything, even more wildly optimistic than those of the Fighter Command, leading senior Luftwaffe officers to believe that the RAF was literally on its knees- this of course was not the case. The post-war comparison of German kill claims with RAF losses shows that very few match up! This was partly the result of the inherent confusion associated with air combat- a number of pilots often claimed the same victim. Overclaming was also to be expected when the Luftwaffe's system of medals, promotion and profile was closely linked to a pilot's scoure. It was also virtually impossible to confirm a kill by the examination of the wreckage, as most Spitfires and Hurricanes fell either on British soil or in the Channel.

At the end of the day the Battle of Britain provided the Allies with their first victory in World War II. Although the Bf 109E Jagdgeschwader more than held their own, despite operating at the very limit of their range, the seemingly invincible Luftwaffe had been comprehensively beaten. However, Fighter Command had emerged from the 123-day campaign stronger than it had gone into it, despite losing 1,023 fighters and having 515 pilots killed. It would then eventually move onto the offensive as the threat of invasion of Britain ebbed away.

 

Jagtiger:The biggest reason for the germans losing the BoB has to because the majority of RAF pilots that were shot down and survived were able to return to their squadrons,it was like having more than one life.

 

Hello macker33,

it certainly wasn't the biggest reason - just one of many, many reasons.

How many RAF pilots do you believe could have been captured - if they had landed in German hands?.

Regards
Kruska