Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

I second that. The Stuka was no more vunerable than any other 'dive-bomber' un-escorted.They were dive-bombers, not fighter-bombers.

The B-17. Without fighter escort, it never really was a "flying fortress."

 

And of course along with the F4U Corsair and P-51 what other fighter aircraft served into the 70s .

 

Since the thread runs six pages you can peruse it yourself. Pages 3 and 5 in particular have devastating responses by moi:

The Forum of the 1.Jagdmoroner Abteilung - Allied possibilities to counter Me 262 offensive?

 

Thanks for reminding me. I forgot about the Corsair.
The other aircraft I can think of that served well into the 1970s is the Dakota.

 

If I had to go to war in a WW2 dive bomber, I'd pick the Petlyakov Pe-2: the performance was good enough for a fighter version to be built.

See: Petlyakov Pe-2 - History, Specifications and Pictures - World Military Aircraft

 

I would say the WildCat

 

No no no noooooo. An excellent aircraft for the job, it outlasted its replacement. Hugely successful, not in the least bit over-rated.

 

What about the Wildcat? Why do you think it was overrated? If you look at the Kill Ratio that it had then it did the job it was supposed to do.

 

If anything, the Swordfish may qualify as the most under-rated aircraft of WWII - by its opponents.

 

Well, the Bismarck crew could not bring down any....

Bismarck - The History - The Fatal Torpedo Hit

Despite that the German anti-aircraft fire was very intense none of the Swordfish aircraft was shot down.

 

When you talk overrated, you are saying the hype was more than the facts. The Wildcat was a aircraft that did much more than it was designed for. The Me-262 was a plane that by virtue of its high speed and abilities when working, was very scary to its opponents. But once the initial fear was faced, they found tactics and realized that the few planes they had to deal with were not immune to group attacks. And with the level of pilots, the maintenance headaches and other problems.

The Spitfire was a good interceptor, but the reality is that the Hurricane did more yeoman work. The Spit was the pretty boy that the girls and media swoon over.

 

Since you mentioned it, I have to agree. The Swordfish is among the very few biplanes that continued to soldier on despite the advent of the streamlined single wing aircraft. In fact, its slow speed was one of its chief advantages when the aircraft went against the anti-air guns of the Bismarck.

 

i can't understand how the zero could be overrated during its period of dominance when its technical superiorities have been acknowledged, reverse-engineered and capitalized upon so that better planes were developed precisely to defeat it. i smell revisionism here.

in a different manner, i can't understand how the me-262 can be overrated when it hardly had the time and numbers to really count.

 

I think most WWII aircraft were found wanting outside their specialised tasks. Some, like the Hawker Hurricane, left behind in the development race as fighters, became very effective ground-attack planes. The Hawker Typhoon was another example of this trend later in the war. The Spitfire finished the war with technical specs & capabilities almost double those of the Mk1 - but never overcame its original specialisation as a short-range, rapid-response interceptor (a role which was virtually obsolete by 1944). Many Australian MkVIII Spits flying from Darwin, more than matched the Zeros in the air - only to crash after running out of fuel. A decidedly under-rated plane (mentioned in other posts above) was the RN's Fairey Swordfish torpedo-bomber. The gunners on German & Italian ships couldn't get a bead on it when it was so low to the sea - at times only 40ft above sea-level. And attempts to replace it failed because the replacements couldn't package all its capabilities and characteristics together. As an anti-submarine & ground-attack plane, it carried rockets, depth-charges and bombs. When they nicknamed it the "Stringbag", it wasn't a derisory nickname for a biplane design. It was meant to refer to the traditional British housewife's shopping bag - expandable & versatile. The B-17 I'd pick as one US plane with less ability than its rep implied. Bombload was less than half that of the Lancaster. What was not over-rated was the courage of their crews: flying in daylight against FW190s was immensely brave.

Klive

 

A good book I remember on the Swordfish was called "To War on a Stringbag" by Bantam Books.

 

For the Me-262, it was a revolutionary aircraft whose reputation was exaggerated. This is my personal view. It's fast, that's true but that's all it can ever really be, fast. Its engines have to be replaced every so often and its combat range is minimal, compared to the prop-driven aircraft it faced.
The 262, for me, is a beautiful plane to look at but it never lived up to the expectation that it would be a terror in the sky against Allied bombers and fighters.

As for the Zero. I feel it is an over-rated plane. Many writers and books have touted it to look like as lording it over the skies of Asia and the Pacific. In reality, it barely had any armor, didn't pack enough punch against Allied fighters. Its edge was in how the Zero was used by naval aviators early in the war. Over China, Army pilots faced the Flying Tigers, and the Flying Tigers using the P40 were able to go toe to toe against the Japanese Zero.

 

I think the B17 is also an overated plane! The B24 doesnt seem to get anywhere near the respect deserves. It was a better bomber than the B17. As said the lancaster could carry twice the payloaid. The Mossie could carry the same payload as the B17 believe it or not!

 

Not to mention that other aircraft resources had to be used to protect it when landing and taking off. A waste that could have been used somewhere else.

 

finally we come to one's specific usage of the phrase. if 'overrated' means 'thought superior in every aspect,' then yes, the zero would be considered as such. but be that as it may, it's superiority with regard to maneuverability, climb, range, and even level flight from 1940 to middle of 1942 was unquestioned, by both allies and axis countries. design intentionally sacrificed diving speed and armor because that's what happens when you make an airplane with an engine much more powerful than a p-40's but with an overall weight 2,000 pounds less.

and a diving f-4, or p-39, or p-40 isn't assured of victory against a zero. there are ways to counter such a move and japanese pilots used them.

 

works both ways. if you're going detach p-51 mustangs from bomber escort duty just to trap a few jets on take-off and landing, you're leaving your b-17s more vulnerable. and the germans posted ta-152s around the me-262 fields. the mustangs were less-than-enthusiastic about facing the long-nosed focke wulfs.