Most Overrated aircraft of WWII?

Almost certainly not. A larger tank or drop tanks may have even made things worse for the Germans.

 

And remember "marc780" mentioned the Gustav "G" specifically. The model which did have drop tank ability, but which were rarely used as they were more of a detriment than an aid. The Gustav could mount a 79 US gallon centerline tank. The "E" Emile series had none.

I would like to see his source on more pilots dying in landing accidents (in the G), than in combat. I find that a bit tough to swallow. If it was the little flying coffin Me-163 "Komet", I would agree. But not on the Bf-109G.

 

It would be interesting to see his source but it could be possible. Remember for most WWII aircraft operational losses equaled or exceeded combat losses and I'm pretty sure the ME-109 in the BOB followed this trend. I seem to recall that it had a tendency to "ground loop" which again as I recall is a potentially fatal "maneuver". Also combat damaged planes that crash landed could be included in this. So I wouldn't discount it completely.

 

The Bf 109's trailing edge flaps combined with the flying surfaces' small surface area (made possible by the growing power of the aero engines) made it almost unmatched in maneuverability. It fared well in the Battle of Britain with a kill ratio of 1.2:1 (however this was nowhere near the 5:1 target ratio needed for the desired air superiority the Germans wanted in order to launch Sea lion). Of course it was outclassed in 1944, it was first designed in 1934! What do you expect? It is considered a "good" plane because of what it did in the early years of the war.

As for the small 75 gallon tank...the Bf 109E-3 had a range of 410 miles and the Bf 109G had a range of 447 miles (without drop tanks). Some comparative ranges would be...the P-47D with 475 miles (without tanks), the Spitfire 1A with 415 miles, and the P-51B/C with 400 miles.

The Bf 109G was pretty much useless. The addition of weighty items like under-wing cannon gondolas, rocket tubes and larger engines to the once slight airframe of the Bf 109E eliminated much of the fighter's once legendary maneuverability, and instead served to emphasize the aircraft's poor slow-speed performance, tricky lateral control and ground handling.

 

My father flew the SBD Dauntless throughout 1942 against the Japanese in the Pacific from both carriers and land bases. His assessment: it was the best dive bomber of the war, by far; even better than it's replacement, the SB2C Helldiver. It also proved to be the most survivable carrier plane of the war, having the lowest loss ratio of pilots and aircrew. Although not designed as a fighter, it was agile enough to have shot down Zero's on more than one occasion and was usually able to put up a good fight in it's own defense. It was very popular with it's pilots and it's nom de guerre was"Slow But Deadly".

As for the B-25, what you have heard sure doesn't square with what I have read about the B-25, nor it's widespread usage in every theater of the war by every Allied belligerent. Nor does it make sense that a "useless" aircraft would be turned out in the numbers that the B-25 reached; 9,889 aircraft. The last B-25 wasn't retired from the USAF until 1960. B-25's served for four decades in one Air Force or another around the world, hardly the mark of a "useless" plane. The B-25 proved to be reliable, very rugged, and an extremely versatile aircraft, employed in roles from low-level ground attack to mediaum altitude level bombing, as well as anti-shipping, photo recconnaisance, transport, and crew training. In the SWPA theater, the B-25's of the Fifth and Thirteenth Air Forces were credited with devastaing Japanese air, naval, and ground forces, and were largely responsible for the success of MacArthur's campaign to drive the Japanese out of New Guinea.

I sure would be interested in hearing what authority rated the B-25 as "useless".

 

the thing i liked best about the ju-88? its diving capability. during BoB, it can out-dive a hurricane or even the spit mk2, especially with a full bomb load.

 

Well I hope you read my post above about the Ju 88

 

probably what he meant is the fact that medium bombers in a pure "drop-bomb" role had limited application because of their vulnerability to enemy fighters. that's why the b-25 and 26 were initially limited to night bombing in the pacific while the b-17s did their work during the day.

but your point is correct: the b-25 is a sound aircraft that can be modified for several uses like ground attack gunship, sea recconaisance / denial, and transport. versatile aircraft like the b-25, the ju-88 and me-110 cannot be overrated.

 

ME-262. Yeah, it could take out a bomber, ish. Yeah, it could fly, ish. It can also explode on the runway , as many pilots found out... it also had a limited range, which even more found out..... and it also could go fast. Sort of.

 

Ok,a few points on what i've read,the numbers of planes shot down buring the BoB is misleading for the purposes of figuring out which is the best fighter.
According to the figure the hurricane was a better plane than the spitfire because it shot down more enemy aircraft.
Also most of the RAF victories were against bombers while the majority of luftwaffe victories were against fighters,not a fair comparison.
Tactically the british fighters had a much freeier(?)hand than the 109s.
After the war the RAF conducted a test to see if the 109 or spitfire was better,the conclusion was that the spitfire was the better aircraft,a fact that seems to be lost is that the test was between a spitfire mkIX and a 109d.
So only compare planes from the same year,obviously a p51 will outperform a 109.

Also turn rate is overrated,speed and climb are far more important,just think of a sparrow and a hawk.

Anybody know how the SBD Dauntless and the stuka stacked up?

 

Of course it is. It's a measure of how many planes each air force lost, nothing more.

The only point of including it was because of the false claim about propaganda.

No, the Hurricane shot down more aircraft because there were more of them.

Can we have a source for this bizarre claim, please?

It's bizarre because the RAF tested the Spitfire against a Bf 109E in 1940. They tested against various later marks during the war.

Why on earth would they be interested in testing the Spitfire against the 109 after the war? The focus then was on jets. There was some interest in the German fighters the RAF didn't have captured examples of, but the 109 was very much a known quantity to the RAF by then.

And where on earth would they have got a 109D from?

Manoeuvrability is one of the areas the Spitfire always did better than the 109. As for kill rates during the BoB, the Germans were after RAF fighters, whereas the RAF prioritised German bombers. Stephen Bungay in The Most Dangerous Enemy:

 

It's tough to compare them directly because they fought in different wars with different environments, different pilot training, etc. Suffice it to say the SBD Dauntless was almost certainly the better carrier-based plane, and better ship-killer, if only because that's mainly how they were employed, while the Stuka was better at close air support of ground forces, probably due to pilot training. Both flew in very hostile air environments; the SBD was probably more survivable as it proved statistically in carrier warfare, but factors not related to either plane's design could easily have skewed that issue. The USN early in the war actually used SBD's as CAP in emergencies, I don't think the Stuka ever was used in that role; the SBD was probably more agile than the Stuka.

The verdict; different designs used in different wars, against different opponents, with different pilot training, and different deployment arrangements. No comparison.

 

Well put D.A., apples and oranges.

 

Hello guy's,

I know that this is going to bring heaven down on me.

But the most overrated fighterplane in WWII was the MUSTANG, after all this bird had only six measely maschineguns.
A Fw-190?? had what 2x30mm, 2x20mm and 2xMG

Now not talking about massproduction, reliability or other economic benefits but just as a fighter to fighter.

What would make a MUSTANG as a fighterplane so much better then a FW?
Besides it reflected its silver all over the sky, was easy to see for my father who flew a 190D9 and I believe a 190D11-12 towards the end.

Regards
Kruska

 

Not to agree or disagree with you but there are a few factors I hope you have not overlooked.

The P-51's tremendous range which made it the incredible asset it was to the Allies...and the fact that P-51s were still front line aircaft in some countries as late as 1977.

 

Hello JagdtigerI,

was the range of the Mustang due to the outer fuel tanks - which I believe the Fw could olso have carried (maybe?) or already active in its body design? If Hitler would have won the war, propably FW would have served in 1952 as well somewere.

Regards
Kruska

 

The P-51D had a range of about 2,080 miles without any exterior fuel tanks (I believe) The Fw 190 is considerably less with a range somewhere around 900-1000 miles without drop tanks. Now those numbers are from memory, as soon as I get home I will look up the exact figures.

However, you have to remember that the P-51 was built as a long range bomber escort while the Fw 190 was built for more of a ground attack role and the two planes therefore will have different strengths/weaknesses.

 

The mustang's armament was perfectly adequate to bring down it's foes.

 

So was the Aussie Boomerang


Hello JagdtigerI,

I don't think the Fw-190D9 was build for ground attack. 2000 miles not bad.
But the P-38 and P-47 also could follow those bombers into Germany.

Regards
Kruska

 

Rather irrelevant isn't it? You were critising the armament on the P-51 which as far as it's function goes was rather unwarrented. What does the armament on the Boomerang have to do with this?