Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

......ok or more so British radar systems, faulty German intellegence, poor German strategy, and British industrial power...

 

Well put it this way,if the BoB happaned over france and not over england and the enemy pilots got capture it wouldnt matter how many planes britain produced because they would have been short of pilots.

Planes are easy to replace,pilots a bit harder.

 

Again:

How many RAF pilots do you believe could have been captured - if they had landed in German hands?, or how many RAF pilots bailed out during the BoB and landed savely in Britain?

Once you find out this figure you will know if this figure is relevant to your forwardings or not.

Regards
Kruska

 

If Germany was able to afford loosing over 3,000 airmen and still fight on for 5 more years I think that in 1940 the British could surely replace way more than the 500 or so pilots they lost.

At its peak the RAF consisted of 1.2 million men

 

kruska,jagdtigerI:be fair,that 3000 airmen lost was over a six year period,how many british airmen would have been captured?lots,how are they supposed to get back across the channel?

for the sake of this arguement we can only really consider the fighters(what would a german bomber be doing getting shot down over france?).
the british had 1,547 airplanes shot down,so we can assume they would have had 1,547 less pilots to fight with.

Battle of Britain

 

The Germans lost 3,363 airmen from August 1940-March 1941

Also the number of planes you are suggesting the British lost is off by about 500. The exact number is somewhere between 915-1,023.

As for the link.......if that is you source of info it would explain a lot about your postings...

 

A lot of the german airmen lost would have been bomber crew so i didnt factor them in,
Wikipedia isnt the worst but thanks for the info.

 

Ok well if you provide the info that Kruska asked for I will listen to your case.

 

The British were training pilots at a substantially higher rate than the Germans as well. Indeed if you look at the statistics I think you will find the rates were pretty well matched especially later in the battle. As others have said this was a factor but not the only one and probably not the most important one.

 

I dont care wether my point is taken or not,just my opinion,feel free to disagree.

LWD:i wont disagree because i dont know.

 

Either way, the evidence is clear that the Spitfire was a superb single-seat fighter (and remained so throughout the war) and is not in any way over-rated.

 

Hello macker33,

the topic in this thread and Forum is:

Weapons in WWII Discussion about the weapons and war machines created during World War Two.

The Magic word is not "Weapons in WWII" but Discussion

Regards
Kruska

 

Not totally true. The biggest mistake the Luftwaffe made started in September 1939. From then on the operational side found itself repeatedly short of pilots. So, in order to pull off the invasion of Norway and the invasion of the Low Countries and France the Luftwaffe emptied their training schools of instructors, advanced student pilots and, aircrews to man up the transport squadrons and even some bomber units.
This severely disrupted the training cycle for new pilots and the number available quickly fell far below that necessary to keep up with operational losses. By the BoB this problem was clearly apparent to the Luftwaffe but they did little to fix it. Instead, they cut training hours back and rushed those pilots in the schools into service. This just added to the problem as the now more poorly trained pilots proved less capable in combat.
This cycle continues to repeat itself throughout the war with the Luftwaffe becoming more and more incapable of performing its aerial missions.

At the same time the British greatly upped the number of pilots they were training, began their basic and intermediate training in Canada and, sent new pilots to quiet areas for operational experiance. By the end of the BoB this was paying off huge dividends. British pilots were now available in good numbers. Many had alot of flight experiance on operational aircraft. Even the bomber crews had gotten better. Navigators were put through rigorous training that improved their skills to the point that Bomber Command was becoming a threat to German cities and doing so without alot of radio navigation aids at first.

This is another case of the Germans putting operational requirements and immediate circumstances ahead of a well thought out logistics plan and instead simply implementing a quick improvised fix to the problem. In the long run it cost them more than it fixed.

 

Was probably the strategic bombing campaign the German air force started against Britain during WW1 from 1915.
While the attacks were very small scale compared to those in WW2, they did cause a great deal of shock and panic, and its effects were enough to force the British to attempt to set up an effective air defence.
This defence system was still not very effective at the end of the war, but the British realised this, and they spent the next 22 years trying to improve it.

In 1940 the Luftwaffe was to discover how successful they had been.

 

I'm probably gonna get shot down for this. but I really think the P51 series was really overrated. it's a great all around plane but there are many planes that are better at it in other areas.

 

Could you expand on that?

 

Well said. I second the nomination. The AA fire control system on the Bismarck (and many other German warships) was designed to track and engage what the designers deemed to be the realistic modern threat, i.e. all-metal monoplanes. Consequently the slow flying Stringbag was almost invulnerable to the Bismarck's substantial AA firepower.

 

I think most of it was hype. but the Corsair and Hellcat both out turned it, so did the Focke-Wulf and Some of the later Messercshmitts. The corsair was faster, so was the spitfire.

The only thing in my opinion that the mustang had going for it was it's range really.


I'm not at all dissing the Mustang, it was a great fighter and probably the best all around fighter of the war but definitely overrated IMHO.

 

Hellcat15,

The latest Fighter-bomber version of the Spitfire, the Spitfire Mark XVI had a top speed for 405 mph. The Corsair had a maximum speed of 417 mph. The P-51D/K had a top speed of 437 mph.

The P-51 D was essentially on par with the Fw 190 in a turning circle and slightly better at evading an enemy aircraft in a steep turn. As for the Bf 109, if any versions were to out-maneuver the P-51 it would be the earlier Bf 109E models, not the later Bf 109G model which lost much of its famed maneuverability through the addition of weighty items like underwing cannon gondolas, rocket tubes and larger engines.

There is more to the P-51 than its range, which is not a factor to simply be pushed aside as it was built with the intention of being a long-range bomber escort, a role it fulfilled excellently. The P-51 could out-climb, out-dive, and fly higher than all of the planes you just mentioned. As for armament, the Germans chose to arm many of their planes with 20-mm and sometimes even 30-mm cannons. Although more powerful than .50 cals, the US guns have them in rate of fire and have more ammunition. As for which choice was the smarter, it is up for debate.

However, I don't want it to come off as if I am arguing against you, I understand you think it is a great fighter

 

I'm gonna have to vote spitfire.

yes it was an amazing aircraft, but it was overrated and is given too much credit, overshadowing aircraft that really did all the work like, for example, the Hurricane, the hurricane could perform more battlefield roles, could fly further and maneuvering wise there was little difference, and it was responsible for more enemy planes shot down than the spitfire could ever hope to match, especially in the Battle of Britain.

but like I say, the spitfire got all the glory, and all the fame for doing very little in comparison.