MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII

[Geronimo]

Zero is definitly not overrated. It just could not fight well against the more modern fighters, like the hellcat. Japs made big mistake by only updating the zero instead of producing new airplane(yes they did create shiden and raiden later, but that was too late).Zero was not good enough to fight the hellcat, for it had little less manuverability but much higher speed and better armor(hellcats 8 machineguns could rip the zero apart very quick,while zero had to spend half of his 20mm ammo to kill it).
But zero fought its contemporaries with great succes. It, in combination with great japanese pilot flying it, was more than a mach to all fighters it fought in 39-42(I-16,P-40,P-36,P39,Wildcat).Was any of those planes beter than it?
So do not bash the zeke untill you find a historical evidence, for it was not overrated, just not well suited for operations from 43 on, because USAAF and USN pilots developed tactics and improved planes to fight it.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Geronimo

Zero is definitly not overrated. It just could not fight well against the more modern fighters, like the hellcat.

And you just helped my point. Thankyou. The Zero was overated. It may have been fast at the beginning and could maneuver well but it was very weak in armor and was outdated very early on. What you just said pretty much confirmed my overated status for the Zero, thankyou again.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Oh man RG is going to flip out, here we go again. You are burning his baby.

I think the P-51 is a very good plane just not the very best.

I just think the P-38, Spitfire, fw-190 and the F4U are shall we say Number 1. The P-51, me-109, and the P-47 1b very compettitive but a little behind.

The redesigned P-51H and P-47N/M maybe even the Ta-152 could have become the 1s and religated the P-38, Spit, fw-190 and Corsair to the 1bs or even possibly the 2s. They didn't get the chance

The P-38 needed the redesign upgrades the P-51H, P-47 and Ta-152 got - lighter weight, Laminar wings etc. to get there even the K wouldn't quite have gotten it there. P-38 would still be compettitive though.

The later models of the Spit and the Corsair were in the ballpark too.

Also remember I'm talking Fighter here where range and payload etc is not an issue.

The Zero was overated at first but once the shock wore off I think it was regaurded as just another problem to deal with.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is pretty much what I agree with what you said about the number 1 and 1b's. The zero however I think was overated by 1942.

[Udet]

I detect some confused people around.

It appears to me you are mingling concepts here. That a particular plane got defeated does not imply, at all, it was overrated; even if it performed in a superb fashion in the beginning.

Most planes facing the Zero in the early stages of the war flatly died. You name them and i will tell you they died. Whether British or USA, they perished.

The fact it did not develop well enough to keep up with the pace of newer enemy planes arriving to the front does not imply it was overrated either.


Quite actually, i am not even sure if there is anything like "the most overrated plane". Most planes which saw action in significant numbers certainly helped the side fielding it in one level or another.

The point would rather be some of the combatant nations give some of their planes characteristics they did not have, or better said, they describe them as capable of achieving things that do not fit with battle field facts.



For those tagging the Stuka as overrated, well, it can lead me to believe they have got some reading pending.

The Stuka record is proven. Hand in hand with the Wehrmacht proved to be one of the most efficient and destructive weapons ever.

The accounts of many eastern front veterans of the Wehrmacht tell that when on the march forward, after a fierce battle, they were astonished to see vast areas littered with countless enemy tanks, vehicles and artillery horribly and utterly shattered to pieces. Tons and tons of charred and twisted metallic carcasses. The authors of such destruction had been the Panzer spearheads, the STUKAS and German powerful artillery barrages moving ahead the marching infantry.

That in the end, especially in the west, the Stuka was mainly used for night harassment missions does not make it "overrated". Conditions for deploying it following the original Stuka notion had ceased to exist past half the war. Again, that does not make it overrated.


Two overrated types, that of course played their part for final victory over the enemy, are the Spitfire and the IL-2. The gold medal being awarded to the IL-2.

It was not an efficient tank destroyer as the soviets depict it. It was slow, clumsy and extremely vulnerable to enemy fighters. But hell yes, it helped the soviets a good deal.



I have stated my ideas on the Spitfire. It is one of the great fighters of the war. Glory was brief but relevant: Battle of Britain.

Yes many of my British mates here do not like it, but i will repeat it, when the Sptifire had to leave its cave and attempted going out after the enemy the type proved to be not a succesful toy.


That is one of the Victor´s drunkness symptoms: victory turns them into pretentious beings. They will not admit "well, some of our weapons were not that good; furthermore, some of the enemy toys were well ahead ours. Still our weapons helped us good in defeating the enemy." Impossible. You will not witness such a thing.

They want to make it clear their hardware was superior in every possible aspect. There are cases, however, when that turns out impossible to prove.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That is pretty much what I agree with what you said about the number 1 and 1b's. The zero however I think was overated by 1942.

Yes I agree about the Zero. It was common knowledge at the start of the war that the Japanese were short, blind and dumb. then for a year or so they were invincable. By the time Guadalcanal was in the middle of it's struggle (October or so) it was known that tenacity and tactics evened things up. New Superior planes and equipment was on the way too. The Myth was shattered.

After mid/late 42 or so I think the Zero was well respected but not considered invincable anymore. I read a comment from that time period that went this way: with a F4F-4 "Your outnumbered 1 on 1 with a Zero you have to attack in numbers". I think thats just being smart. even the early P-38s fought Dive and slash in numbers with the Zero. Even though there are a few accounts of P-38s out manuvering Zeros, it wasn't a good idea to try.

wmaxt

[Gemhorse]

I don't think the Zero was 'overrated', it WAS deadly and held ascendancy until basically the Hellcat & Lightnings came into it, but the 'dive and slash' technique was developed in the P-40's, principally by the AVG in the North Asia, and the USAAC, Aussies and Kiwis in the South-west Pacific. The Wildcat also 'held the line' on carriers against the Zeros until the Hellcat came....
It was hugely 'underestimated' initially by the British High Command, which was one of the direct causes of the loss of Singapore, but it wasn't totally indestructible, one of our guys got 3 of 'em in the Buffalo, and they weren't flukes, just spot-on timing in an inferior aircraft....
Once tactics were sorted-out to deal with them, and they held a numerical superiority for a while too, the Japanese did indeed fail to seriously improve or replace the Zero....so I don't believe it was really a case of being 'overrated' as such.......

I guess if the Stuka was THE anti-armour aircraft of the German Invasion of Europe and Russia, and in this it was successful, and then it's opposite would have to be the Il-2, which was successful in the sense that the Russians won the overall battle, but the Hs-129 wasn't so hot, although being heavily-armoured, it was slow and lacked rear defence.

The Bf-110's only area of achievement was as a NF, so I feel it WAS overrated....

Spitfires continued their work after the BoB, going on the offensive despite losses, assisted in the Invasion build-up and continued on into Europe right up to the end, Udet, so I can't see why you feel it was 'overrated'...it may have been 'over-shadowed' somewhat by the US escort fighters, but many bomber pilots were still grateful for them.....

[BombTaxi]

To be honest, the Spitfire did not have it's moment of glory in the BoB. Hurricanes equipped more squadrons and shot down more aircraft. Most BoB aces were Hurricane pilots (Bader and Stanford Tuck to name two). The Spit IS over-rated and the BoB was the start of the myth. While it's true that Spits played an important part in ops over Europe, in bomber escort and in Operation Overlord, they did not have the same dramatic effect on the air war as, say, the arrival of the P-51 in the ETO, on the first meeting with the Zero in the Pacific.

[Nonskimmer]

The Spit may have been a little over glorified in the beginning, but I don't think it was overrated really. The early marks had their troubles, but as it developed it became a worthy match for almost anything it faced. There came "better" fighters certainly, but she pulled through many an Allied ace.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes it is really quite hard to exaggerate the role of the spit in the RAF, she was in no way overrated, exept maybe during the BoB, but she was not over rated...........

they did not have the same dramatic effect on the air war as, say, the arrival of the P-51 in the ETO

ah the P-51, now she WAS over rated............

[DAVIDICUS]

This was one of the images appearing on the homepage of this site. Yes, the P-51 was certainly overrated. (Perhaps not the most overrated but quite overrated)

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

yes it is really quite hard to exaggerate the role of the spit in the RAF, she was in no way overrated, exept maybe during the BoB, but she was not over rated...........

Hmmm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the first time that I hear you say that the Spitfire was NOT overrated.

By the way, I think the Spitfire and the P-51 were may be a little overrated, but not that much. And certainly not during the last year of the war.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Udet

I detect some confused people around.

It appears to me you are mingling concepts here. That a particular plane got defeated does not imply, at all, it was overrated; even if it performed in a superb fashion in the beginning.

Most planes facing the Zero in the early stages of the war flatly died. You name them and i will tell you they died. Whether British or USA, they perished.

The fact it did not develop well enough to keep up with the pace of newer enemy planes arriving to the front does not imply it was overrated either.

The Zero was a great plane at the beginning of the war but she lacked the necessary traits to be of great effectiveness after 1942. She was outclassed by that time which to me makes her overated. The Japanese had better aircraft then the Zero after 1942 but they chose to keep there beloved aircraft. Sorry to me she was overated.

Originally Posted by Udet

For those tagging the Stuka as overrated, well, it can lead me to believe they have got some reading pending.

The Stuka record is proven. Hand in hand with the Wehrmacht proved to be one of the most efficient and destructive weapons ever.

The accounts of many eastern front veterans of the Wehrmacht tell that when on the march forward, after a fierce battle, they were astonished to see vast areas littered with countless enemy tanks, vehicles and artillery horribly and utterly shattered to pieces. Tons and tons of charred and twisted metallic carcasses. The authors of such destruction had been the Panzer spearheads, the STUKAS and German powerful artillery barrages moving ahead the marching infantry.

That in the end, especially in the west, the Stuka was mainly used for night harassment missions does not make it "overrated". Conditions for deploying it following the original Stuka notion had ceased to exist past half the war. Again, that does not make it overrated.

No sorry she was overated. The Stuka was too slow, not armored eneogh, and not maneuverable eneogh. Yes she was the best dive bomber at the beginning of the war and yes she helped to account for many victories during the Blitz's of the first 3 years of the war however she was clearly outclassed past 1942 and 1943 latest. Without sufficient aircover she was helpless on her own.

Originally Posted by Udet

Two overrated types, that of course played their part for final victory over the enemy, are the Spitfire and the IL-2. The gold medal being awarded to the IL-2.

It was not an efficient tank destroyer as the soviets depict it. It was slow, clumsy and extremely vulnerable to enemy fighters. But hell yes, it helped the soviets a good deal.



I have stated my ideas on the Spitfire. It is one of the great fighters of the war. Glory was brief but relevant: Battle of Britain.

Yes many of my British mates here do not like it, but i will repeat it, when the Sptifire had to leave its cave and attempted going out after the enemy the type proved to be not a succesful toy.


That is one of the Victor´s drunkness symptoms: victory turns them into pretentious beings. They will not admit "well, some of our weapons were not that good; furthermore, some of the enemy toys were well ahead ours. Still our weapons helped us good in defeating the enemy." Impossible. You will not witness such a thing.

They want to make it clear their hardware was superior in every possible aspect. There are cases, however, when that turns out impossible to prove.

I will agree with you on the Il-2. To me she falls in the same boat as the Stuka and was overated as much as the Stuka. But if you are going to say the Stuka was not overated for the reasons that you state above, then I think you are being nothing more then a hippocrit. The Il-2 was just as responsible for Soviet victories as the Stuka. The Il-2 was better armored then the Stuka. The Il-2 could carry more armament then the Stuka. The Il-2 was more maneauverable then the Stuka. I think you need to research this as much. The Il-2 was possibly more capable of destroying tanks then the Stuka and had a better chance of survival then the Stuka. I dont like the Il-2 but I would fly one of them before I would fly a Stuka into combat.

I do not agree on the Spitfire. I will agree she was overated in the BoB. The Hurricane was true warrior of the BoB. The Spitfire however was a great aircraft and was well matched with the Me-109. If you are going to say the Spitfire was overated then you have to say the same of the Me-109 and I will not do so.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by BombTaxi

To be honest, the Spitfire did not have it's moment of glory in the BoB. Hurricanes equipped more squadrons and shot down more aircraft. Most BoB aces were Hurricane pilots (Bader and Stanford Tuck to name two). The Spit IS over-rated and the BoB was the start of the myth. While it's true that Spits played an important part in ops over Europe, in bomber escort and in Operation Overlord, they did not have the same dramatic effect on the air war as, say, the arrival of the P-51 in the ETO, on the first meeting with the Zero in the Pacific.

The Dramatic effect of the Mustangs is crap. The Dramatic effect was Escort Fighters. For the first Three months it was P-38s only and the loss rate dropped from 9/10% to 4/5% and the first 3/4% of that was the loss rate to AAA that the fighters could not stop. This rate was never bettered even in late 44 wnen it was almost all P-51 with as many as 1,500 planes over Germany each mission.

It wasn't untill mid June '44 that P-51 numbers equaled P-38 numbers on the escort missions and the 9 months previous to that was
a) when the tide turned for the air war over Germany.
b) When the major portion of the Experten Pilots were lost.

Durring that time the P-38s outnumbered the P-51s and were as much or more instrumental by that percentage of P-38/P-51.

This is exactly why I think the P-51 is the most overrated.

One good redily available site is the "Planes and Pilots of WWII" web site. http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

wmaxt

[Udet]

Your only correct points about the IL-2:

(i) it was better armored, and
(ii) it could carry more armament.


More manouverable? I would not be so sure on that.

Point (i) was the result of a rough 1 ton of extra armor fitted to the plane.
It only made it an armored flying turkey. It turned out to be a double edged knife. While it could help well aganst rifle caliber guns greeting it from the ground, it made it helpless against interceptors.

Yes, heavily armored still German pilots found the weak spots very very fast. Yes, heavily armored and an impaired manouvering.

I have done my homework. I happen to have a good number of German guncamera footage showing the IL-2s getting shot to smithereens.
You can see some rear gunners jumping down covered in flames.

More manouverable than the Stuka? You ought to double check that. It was as clumsy as a four engine heavy bomber of the USAAF, and the soviet model was a single engine craft.

The Stuka and the IL-2 had about identical maximum speed.

Better chances of surviving than the Stuka? A "yes" would come only in theory, when reading some of the specifications, mainly the armor issue.

Battlefield records show the IL-2 not only proved highly vulnerable to interception; the loss rate for the Shturmovik was prohibitive.

So I do not think the IL-2 had better chances of surviving.

The IL-2 had its prime when the Luftwaffe stripped the jagdwaffe ost to deal with the heavy bomber threat in the west. It was only then when it could work.