Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

He 219.

 

Perfect example to this topic ! leaves only one question for further posts: rated by who?

Regards
Kruska

 

But is an aircraft who defeated an overrated aircraft overrated himself?



I mean shooting a Zero shouldn't be that hard. Without basic protection a small salvo from the .50s would send him down in a spiral of smoke and death (just being mean )...

An underrated fighter is the Hurricane I believe. It never gets the credit it deserves. That one is trully the fighter that saved Great Britain. Everyone said it was outclassed still, it shot down more enemy planes than every other fighter type in the BoB.




Cheers...

 

The Hurri and even the old Gladiator could be a formidable weapon in the proper hands, is it the plane or the operator?

I think one must remember Marmaduke Thomas St. John ("Pat") Pattle, who was from South Africa and served in the RAF, who has been unofficially credited with about 50 victories.

In total, 26 of his victims were Italian, the rest German; 15 of his victims were downed while he was flying Gladiators, the rest while he was flying Hurricanes. Pattle did all his scoring in a period of nine short months, and never got to throw a leg into a Spitfire, and did it against Axis opponents who outnumbered the RAF fighter contingent at all times in those theaters.

Aviation historian Christopher Shores, in his book of Commonwealth fighter pilots, Aces High, by cross-checking squadron diaries, reviewing Pattle's aircraft rigger's (W.J. Ringrose) personal journal and the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica loss records, also claims Pattle's final score as 50 individual and two shared victories. Andrew Thomas reports the same score in Osprey Aircraft of Aces 57: Hurricane Aces 1941–1945.

Which was over or under rated? The Gloster Gladiator (LOL), or Pattle. The Hurricane, or Pattle.

 

at least the people here partly agree with my first and second. well, the corsair was practically an afterthought. i feel it's overrated mostly because i kept seeing it shooting down zeros with impunity in the old baa-baa blacksheep series.

having a 400mph carrier-borne fighter may be nice; one with armor, superchargers, and air-cooled engine for greater surivability, etc. but how useful was it? the hellcat can perform all of a carrier-borne fighter's role that the carsair can do --in addition to being able to mix it up with a zero, something the corsair can't do.

 

The Vought F4U Corsair was unquestionably the best shipborne fighter of the war, and gained an 11:1 kill:loss ratio in the Pacific. Designed by Rex B. Beisel, the XF4U-1 was flown on May 29 1940, the first production F4U-1 fighters being delivered to VF-12 in October 1942, although most of the early aircraft went to the US Marine Corps. It was a land-based US Marine squadron, VMF-124, that first flew the Corsair into action on 13 February 1942 over Bougainville. Additional production lines were set up by Brester and Goodyear, these companies producing the F3A-1 and FG-1 respectively. To improve the pilot's field of view, later aircraft introduced a raised cockpit, and the F4U-IC had a four 20-mm cannon armament. The F4U-ID, FG-ID, and F3A-1D were powered by water-injection boosted R-2800-8W engines, and could carry two 454-kg (1,000 lb) bombs or eight 127mm (5-in) rockets under the wings. Late in the war a night fighter version, the XF4U-2 saw limited service with VFN-75 and VFN_101. Wartime production of the Corsair (which continued until 1952 with later versions) reached 4,120 F4U-1s, 735 F2A-1s and 3,808 FG-1s; of these 2,012 were supplied to the UK's Fleet Air Arm and 370 to New Zealand. Indeed it was the Royal Navy's Corsair Mk II aircraft of No. 1834 Squadron that were the first Corsairs to operate from a carrier when on 3 April 1944, they took part in operations against the Tirpitz.

Now the Hellcat was also one of America's best wartime ship-board fighters, and ably partnering the F4U Corsair. The Grumman F6F Hellcat was the logical development of the F4F Wildcat and was first flown as the XF6F on 26 June 1943; this was given an uprated engine and flew again five weeks later. Deliveries to VF-9 aboard USS Essex started early in in 1943; night fighter versions were the F6F-3E and F6F-3N with radar in a wing pod. In 1944 the F6F-5 appeared with provision for 907 kg (2,000 lb) of bombs and two 20-mm cannon sometimes replacing the inboard wing 12.7 (0.5-in) guns: the radar-equipped night fighter version was the F6F-5N; production totaled 6,435 F6F-5Ns, while 252 F6F-3s and 930 F6F-5s served with the British Fleet Air Arm as the Hellcat Mk I and Hellcat Mk II respectively. Production of all F6Fs amounted to 12,275, and official figures credited the US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft with the destruction of 5,156 enemy aircraft in air combat, about 75 per cent of all the US Navy's air combat victories in the war. The Hellcat's greatest single victory was in that largest of all carrier operations, the Battle of the Philippine Sea, in which 15 American carriers embarked 480 F6F fighters (plus 222 dive-bombers and 199 torpedo-bombers); by the end of a week's fighting Task Force 59 had destroyed more than 400 Japanese aircraft and sunk three carriers. Hellcats were still serving with the US Navy several years after the war.

Both were good aircraft, but to say that the Corsair is useless or overated because the Hellcat can do everything it can is silly. Furthermore, I would say the Corsair was the better plane anyway because of its general specs and its longer service length; it deserves any praise it might receive within reason.

Chris Bishop

 

Another candidate here is the Fw 200. Greatly over rated as a maritime patrol aircraft.

 

That is a reasonable point. Rugged operating conditions highlighted the Fw 200's numerous structural weaknesses and there were numerous accidents in service. The five-crew production Fw 200C-1 was powered by four 830-hp BMW 132H engines, was armed with a 20-mm gun in the nose and three 7.92 mm guns in other positions and could carry four 250-kg bombs. Apart from long-range maritime patrols over the Atlantic, the Fw 200C-1s also undertook extensive mine laying in British waters during 1940, each carrying two 1000-kg mines. I would say it was a decent anti-shipping aircraft but a below par maritime reconnaissance aircraft.

Chris Bishop

 

An underrated aircraft is the Halifax. Sure it was worse than the Lancaster but it was (one of) the backbone of the bomber command. It could survive a lot of punishment and it had a good capacity for delivering bombs.

An overrated aircraft is the b-17. Up until the H model. in my personal opinion, it was not as good as people make it sound. The B-24 carried more bombs, for longer journeys and was harder to shoot down. Still, One can argue that the B17 was there while the B24 wasn't but still, I think you hear too much about the B17




Cheers...

 

I could agree the Halifax, apart from giving excellent service as a heavy-bomber, it proved adaptable as a glider-tug and transport being the only plane capable of towing the giant General Aircraft Hamilcar glider when it was later loaded with its light tank. But I am not sure how "underrated" it is, I have always respected it.

 

Spitfire was a white elephant and much overrated by the Brits (just refer to the wrong figures released after the encounter of German planes over Britain in 1940, figures basically released for propaganda reasons only by Churchill), so were the Ju-88 and the HE 111, Dauntless wasn't good either and the B 25 was pretty useless, based on what I've heard. Unfortunately I didn't fly any of the aforementioned planes and I guess neither did most of the other forum members. Therefore it appears to me guesswork to judge planes 60 years later.

 

I agree entirely.

IMHO, any plane in operational service in the 1939-1940 timeframe were first-generation semi-experimental models desperately handicapped by limited technology and practical experience. Swordfish? First flight 1934. Not surprising it was a bit puny compared to e.g. the SBD (ff mid-40). FW200? Converted airliner first flown 1937, same year as the B-17. Spitfire? first flight 1936, and IIRC Mitchells first-ever design with retracting undercarriage. Given how fast technology moved at the time, it's surprising these planes had any military use whatever beyond the first couple of years of the war. E.g. the 109 and Spitfire were built explicitly as short-range interceptors because no-one had really worked out the idea of air superiority fighters or single-engined escorts at the time - something that was corrected in the next generation.

Similarly, anything fielded by the Axis from 1944 on was hampered by industrial weakness, lack of skilled crew and overwhelming allied superiority. It seems a tad harsh to criticise the ME262 for the fact that the Reich was in such a mess it couldn't supply fuel or any decent engineering. The P-51 probably wouldn't have done well either if it had been manufactured by unskilled labour in improvised factories under constant bombing, fuelled with ersatz gasoline and sent up against 20:1 odds. The only appropriate 'fighter' for the Luftwaffe in that timeframe would have been one in the shape of a large white flag with "Yes, unconditonally!" painted on it.
The discussion is supposed to be about aircraft, not "Most overrated national system for applying the capabilities of the then exisiting military-industrial complex in the most cost-effective manner to achieve maximum combat results". (That would probably be a pretty short thread).

My personal suggestions for over-rated - Typhoon. Great things expected, kept coming apart in mid-air, when fixed proved quite poor in its designed role, ended up as a stop-gap in a role that could have been adequately filled with a cheaper and simpler aircraft.

 

Maybe the spitfire was overrated but i heard the ju88 was supposed to be the best all round airplane of the war.It could dive bomb,torpedo,level bomb,recon,nightfighter and probably one or two other things.

 

Madness. The finest single-seat fighter of the entire war could not possibly be over-rated. On what basis do you regard it as a white elephant?

German kill figures during the Battle Of Britain were also inflated, btw. Churchill had nothing to do with the figures which came from Fighter Command. I doubt there's a fighter built during the war that didn't get its kill figures exaggerated in some way, deliberately or otherwise.

 

What if it did all of those things badly?

 

Well, it wasn't bad at all those things, in fact it was quite adaptable. Also, it was one of the few pieces of equipement the Germans had who went trough really mass productioon. When the more capable Ju-188 was presented to replace the 88, the high command declined it's immediate production in order to avoid production losses and the starting months when production is bellow average. I believe it's the only case when the Germans didn't halt production of a reliable airplane in lieu of a better (if untested) one.
However, the Mosquito was better than the Ju88 in my opinion... And based on it's operational records





Cheers...

 

As Miguel B. points out, it was not too bad a unit since the Ju-88 did them passably well actually, it was the "swiss army knife" of the Luftwaffe and could be compared in many ways with the "Mosquito", I would prefer a "Mossie" myself. But it was rugged, reliable, easy to fly, pretty fast for a mid-thirties design (started in 1935), and when flown by a competent pilot could deliver bombs (both level drop and dive bombing), torpedoes, ground attack fire, take reconnaissance photos, and shoot down enemy bombers as a night fighter.

Here is a link which covers its attributes quite well:

WW2 Warbirds: the Junkers Ju 88 - Frans Bonné

Not as "good" as the Mosquito, but pretty respectable overall.

 

The RAF released to the press, every day, their own claims for enemy aircraft destroyed and their own aircraft losses. Neither was adjusted for propaganda purposes.

Of course neither was completely accurate. The figures were released by the RAF in time for the newspapers to meet the next day's deadlines, which meant not all information was in. The RAF also claimed more enemy aircraft destroyed than the enemy lost.

On the other hand the German's claims were even further from the truth, although I don't think that was anything to do with propaganda either. The Germans did release false numbers for their own losses to the press, though.

The RAF claimed about 2,500 German aircraft destroyed during the BoB, the Luftwaffe lost about 1,780 on operations.

The German fighters alone claimed 2,000 RAF single engined fighters, actual losses were a shade under 1,000 to all causes, including a fairly large proportion lost to the defensive fire of bombers.

 

In terms of versatility and long service the Ju 88 bomber matched the outstanding record of the Bf 109. First concieved as a high-speed medium bomber in 1936, the first prototype was flown on December 21 of that same year. As already mentioned the Ju 88 was very versitile and was adapted for many different roles. Construction of 10 pre-production Ju 88A-O aircrafte started in 1939, by which time the nose and cabin had been revised to accomodate a four man crew. Dive brakes were now fitted under the outer wings to enable dive attacks, and external bomb racks under the inner wings increased the bomb load from 500kg to a total of 1500kg.

New bomber varients included the Ju 88A-2 with rocket-assisted take off gear, the Ju 88A-4 with increased wing span, strengthened landing gear and a 1,380hp. The Ju 88A-6 with ballon cable fender, the Ju 88A-6/U three seat long range maritime bomber with FuG Hohentwiel search radar, the Ju 88A-9, the Ju 88A-10, and the Ju 88A-11 which were tropicalized versions of the Ju 88A-1, Ju 88A-5, Ju 88A-4 respectively. The Ju 88A-14 anti-shipping strike bomber, the Ju 88A-15 with bulged bomb by capable of enclosing 3000kg of bombs, and the Ju 88A-17 torpedo bomber.

Perhaps their most outstanding service was with III/KG 26 and KG 30 when based in northern Norway for operations against the Allied North Cape convoys in 1941-1942. In all, the 120 Ju 88As involved are estimated to have sunk 27 merchant ships and 7 naval vessels. The Ju 88As of LG 1 operated with similar success against the Malta convoys during the summer of 1942.

Towards the end of the war many Ju 88As were converted to become the unmanned, explosive-filled component of the Mistel composite aircraft weapon that was issued in the last desperate months of the war.

Also mentioned was the Ju 188. Extensively redesigned, it began making real progress before the end of 1942, and appeared in several versions as a torpedo bomber. The first Ju 188E-2 could carry two 800kg torpedos under the wings and some aircraft even carried the FuG 200 sea-search radar. This version and another, the Ju 188A-3 with water methanol boosted engines, served in smal numbers with the anti-shipping unit III/KG 26 towards the end of 1944

The Ju 188 was a popular aircraft with it's crew but, following the switch of priorities by the Germans in favor of fighters in the later half of 1944, production of the bomber and torpedo versions was halted, although they remained in fast-diminishing service until the end of the war.

 

ME-109! It was a first class aircraft when it was introduced in 1936 but totally outclassed by the mustang by 1944. The ME 109 had serious flaws that were basically unfixable: the narrow landing gear cost many a pilot the aircraft on landing (and often his life - more ME-109's were lost in landing accidents than in combat.) The plane had only a 75 gallon fuel tank (this fact alone may have cost the Germans the Battle of Britain as no one thought of fitting drop-tanks at the time.). The armament and bomb load were limited due to high wing loading caused by relatively extreme thinness of the wings (no fuel was, or could be, carried in the wings as on other designs like the P-51).

By late 1944 Adolph Galland (German General of Fighters) made serious suggestions to cease all fighter aircraft production except for the FW 190 and the ME-262! But the Germans just kept making it because they were tooled up for it and it was relatively simpler to build than most other newer designs.