Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

The Swordfish is credited with sinking around 400,000 tons of Axis shipping in the Med, bloody big cake

 

The real question is, how much bigger could the cake have been with different aircraft?

 

any new aircraft, especially a pioneering one, would have problems. did you know the IJN nearly scrapped the zero when they discovered it was not as maneuverable as the claude?

since we're talking about combat aircraft, the more important aspect to rate is performance once deployed. so it could shoot at bombers with nary a thing to worry about from the escorts. it could fly faster than the vaunted mustang, and it could even execute faster turns. it's nose-mounted guns gave the pilot the chance to snap-shoot a target even while executing a swerve (as galand did with two b-26 bombers.) the lack of nose/cowling-mounted weapons on american fighters was one dogfighting drawback they had.

so if you cannot point out any serious deficiencies during combat on a ceteris paribus basis, i'm afraid i will have to mark this as just one of several revisionist statements i've seen of late.

 

In the case you mention with the Zero that would have been a pre-production choice for the Japanese and irrelevant here.

As for the 262; the relevance is that once deployed operationally the following are facts about its deployment: Its servicability and operational rates were astoundingly bad. Much of this was due to the engine service life of less than 10 hours. Think about this. How long would the P-51 have lasted in service if its engine had to be replaced after every mission? Either the engine would have been changed to a different model or the plane itself scrapped in favor of another design. It doesn't matter how good it is on the few occasions it gets into combat if the rest of the time its costing a small fortune to operate; especially when you don't have it.
This is the problem with alot of German wünderwaffe. They simply are not cost effective for various reasons compared to the operational value they produce. Modern war is first and foremost one of logistics. The V2 is a perfect example of Germany's myopic view on this.
Impressive; yes. A technological triumph of the time; no doubt. But each missile cost the rough equivalent of an Me 110 airframe to build plus the engine. It then required several tons of liquid oxygen and alcohol that require a massive amount of electrical power and potato crops to produce. The operational return was that this missile could deliver to a range of about 300 miles maximum a 1000 kg payload 50% of the time and just be used once.

Had the Germans decided say, a year earlier to design and build the He 162 this aircraft would have made sense. It used a much more reliable BMW 003 engine with as much as 100 hours service life (likely outlasting the plane in operation). The aircraft was primarily non-strategic material. It used a fraction of the fuel per mission. The operational drawback was the airframe was flimsy due to poor wood bonding. This was an issue that could have been handled in production.
Changing engines, the design of landing gear, the way control surfaces were hung, as but three examples of major problems with the 262 are production stoppers. They require re-tooling and re-jigging along with alot of engineering and testing.
If anything, the Germans should have done exactly that with their jet program: Designed and He 162-like aircraft in early 1944 and scrapped the Me 262 program entirely. Instead, they went with Willy's design because of politics and logistical myopia. The result was an aircraft that was grossly overrated.

 

It seems to me that various different issues are being mixed up here.

One is that some aircraft were highly rated when first introduced, but were found to be disappointing when they actually got into combat (e.g. P-39, Defiant: although even here the reasons were different. The problem with the P-39 was its performance and flying qualities, the problem with the Defiant was that it was designed for a role which turned out to be mistaken).

A second is that some aircraft were highly rated at the time they were being used but subsequent evaluation has shown that to be overstated. This particularly applies to aircraft which didn't get to see much use (e.g. the He 219).

A third issue is that some aircraft may have been devastatingly effective when they got into combat but were just too costly to maintain (e.g. Me 262).

A further complication is that some aircraft were overrated at first, but went on to redeem themselves in different roles and versions (e.g. Bf 110 as day fighter, became much more useful as a night fighter).

So which aircraft you choose to describe as "overrated" depends on how you define the term.

However, I don't think that a case can be made to include the Swordfish in any of those categories. If anything, it was underrated at the time as it was assumed that a slow biplane would be useless. In fact, it performed better than most people expected in its designed role (whether a more advanced plane might have achieved even more is an entirely separate issue), and went on to serve with distinction in a entirely different role (convoy anti-submarine escort).

 

absolutely spot on, couldnt have put it better myself!

 

t.a.:

your posts are highly detailed and very informative. i must say i enjoy coming to this forum if only to learn new things from you. that might be more complementary than you think considering i've been reading about ww2 with great interest for more than 30 years now. however, i still take exception to your stand on the me-262 since it touches mostly on nomenclature and operating performance. you understand that weapons have specific intended uses and the successful outcome of that use can easily justify whatever cost or operating deficiency it might carry.

i would also like to apologize to you and everyone here for that 'revisionist' line i dropped earlier. foolish of me.

 

if you consider that all of the samurai class moved to the navy after the army allowed non-samurai to be commissioned as officers, you'll understand why they'd say this.

 

Hello to all!

DID you know that:

The JU87 sunk the greatest number of ships in the war?(Of any plane) Yes, it's hard to believe... I will post what 'source' I read this information from. It's a plane book that I have in my library.

Thats it for now...

IntIron

 

Does this source give the tonnage sunk or even the amount of ships sunk?

 

The simple word overated usually means that more weight has been given something than it actually possessed. In fact there are hardly any aircraft besides those prototypes rejected by the various air services after their trials which meet those criteria.

If an aircraft is accepted into service it usually has passed most of the pre-requisite performance goals set by the military service. For example to say a plane like a Stuka was overrated is only the opinion of us non-participants in air combat of the war. What it also had was great propaganda behind it. History bears out the fact that the Stuka performed as advertised scoring continuous successfully against targets until it was obsolescent. By the same token we must add the Dauntless, the Val and literally all dive bombers and torpedo bombers. Yet we can't judge these classes of aircraft if their escorts or support craft fail to perform in unison in a given scenario.
If the thrust is to damn obsolescent aircraft then by all means damn the Stuka after 1941. But in all fairness it, and just about every plane named, performed adequately well in its designated role for some period of time. If the idea is to damn innovative but embryonic planes then the 262 was a failure.

Since the parameters for the thread were-
"Which aircraft do you think have achieved a popular reputation that far exceeded in reality their actual performance or capability or effect on the war? Aircraft that were thought to be the " Be all" of their class?"

Performance, capability or effect on the war. Costs or complexities were not factored in as criteria so the 262 certainly performed in its role and had a dramatic effect on the war considering the turmoil it caused in the Allied HQs and the resources expended to find out about it and combat it if nothing else. And no one at the time ever said the 262 was a savior or would turn the tide. That is all out of context rhetoric produced decades after the fact perhaps to promote some revisionist agenda. Obviously engine life was not a pre-requisite at the start of the thread as reason for success or failure so the 262 can't be judged on that anymore than we can judge the durability vs. complexity of the Bristol Centaurus. And where it appears a certain plane is a failure as the P-39, why is it the Russians excelled in it producing ace after ace. Perhaps they lived by the quintessential rule of using the plane's strengths and avoiding its weaknesses.

While JC stated this was not about most or least favorite airplane opinions I think it has diverged thata way. The topic starter in no way suggested that any plane be compared performance-wise to others, only if their popular mystique and reputation was overblown.

I look where someone mentioned the B-17. Well the B-17 did out perform the B-24 in many ways. If the criteria was comparing bomb loads then the B-24 wins....something. The strength of the B-17 was the fact that it returned its crew more often than the B-24. B-24s did not fly on 2 engines, something the B-17s did regularly and even with one occassionally. The B-24 excelled as an anti-submarine craft spanning the gaps in the North Atlantic once and for all. So how do you judge?

The B-17 has a lot of hype and hoopla surrounding it that detracts or adds to its proported reputation. I will include a couple other planes in the original parameters of excessive reputation. The P-51 and the Spitfire are two whose fame exceed good taste almost. It's not that they weren't superb aircraft its that people see them as the "Be all' of their class" as JC said.

So if only for the simple fact that these 3 planes get too many gushing tributes and eclipse other types, I suggest them.

 

Here I am only talking about the Battle of Britain in particular, but the Spitfire. Research done by Air and Space Magaine shows that more Hurricanes were available weekly to the RAF than Spitfires, there were more kills on average per week by the Hurricanes than by Spitfires, and far more Spitfires were shot down by enemy aircraft than Hurricanes. The wierd thing is, there were 8,000 more Spitfires than there were Hurricanes.

 

Everyone knows the role that the Hurricane played in the battle of Britain. The Spitfire was an excellent aircraft from the start of the war to the finish. In the Battle of Britain the Spitfires generally were involved in more combat with fighters than Hurricans. Ask any pilot during the Battle of Britain and im sure they would prefer the Spitfire. While the Hurricane was the workhorse, I think most people acknowledge this. The Spitfire was obviously the better plane and is rated as such.

 

That would be weird indeed, since this was the Order of Battle: the planes available to Fighter Command:

1st July 1940
spitfires serviceable 198
spitfires un serviceable 95
hurricanes (total) 459

1st August 1940
spitfires serviceable 229
spitfires unserviceable 75
hurricanes (total) 466

1st September 1940
spitfires serviceable 200
spitfires unserviceable 74
hurricanes (total) 475

The facts are that there were approximately twice as many Hurricanes as Spitfires throughout the BoB; that the Hurricanes shot down twice as many planes (in other words, the kills-per-plane rates were the same), but the Hurricane suffered much higher loss rates - they were more vulnerable.

 

8,000 must be some sorta misprint cause there were only 1,566 Spitfire I s built with a very few IIs in existence during the BoB though the construction of 920 followed the Battle.

 

Most overrated aircraft awards go to:

Ju-87 sturzkampf : it wasn't just a obsolete by 1942 but was responsible for a single minded approach to tactical deployment, based on early successes in western Europe

P-51 Mustang : if you go into combat thinking you're superior to anything the enemy has, you usually get shot down realising this isn't really the case. Burn off some fuel before you throw one of these around, and keep some altitude when you do because you'll be stalling a lot.

P-47 Thunderbolt : never follow the manufacturers structural ratings, listen to an independent test pilot like Charles Lindbergh or you'll be doing Mach 1 with a propeller stuffed up your nose

Yak-9 : not really superior to the Me-109G or the Fw-190A-4, so long as the pilot uses boom and zooms and avoids a turning fight it can't really get near them. Yak-9U with the VK-107 engine is a totally different case of course.

Fw-190A : this aircraft didn't sort out its serviceability and performance issues until 1943 and didn't get really good performance until 1945, when it was already outshone by the D-9 in every respect. Totally overrated by the RAF, who thought it was a much better fighter than the Germans did.

Me-109E : a nightmare to land and a death trap at lower altitudes in general, great medium altitude fighter


I think all aircraft are overrated actually. There's always something to look out for, that they don't tell you in the sales brochure.

 

Loiter time (TA said ?)....there's a biggie !

Come up shoot yer ammo, spend yer gas, come back down, and guess who's "Coming to Dinner?".... on yer tail ?

If you don't have range (and numbers, and home field support), no matter how good/bad you are, after you have no more fuel/ammo) you'll be in trouble from the ones still up there, that still do.

Some rules for hunting....find out what it eats, fuel/ammo, destroy/interrupt that & you wont have to fight him....and find out where it sleeps, destroy/damage it on the ground & you wont have to fight him.

Per the Mustang.....its center fuel tank was usually tried to be used up first (after the drop tanks). It made maneuvering odd, not to mention the danger of being right next to it. After this was done it could scrap with the best of em, per pilot quality...as always.

 

Interesting.
why do you pick the Waco ???

 

Well if they area at all decent you are probably right. But there are a few that were considered junk from the word go.