MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII

[cheddar cheese]

You mean the Me-262? I tend to disagree...

[trackend]

I did CC I also thought that would upset one or two

[Matt308]

Bf 110 or Ju 200

Matt

[DaveB.inVa]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

P-51 - I think the Corsair was superior. Just ask Capt. Fernando Soto of the HAF - He shot down a Mustang During the Soccer War, 1969

He also shot down a couple Corsairs as well.

[delcyros]

I will go for the Me-262, too. A damn good (pioneering) plane, yes. But hey, it could never, never, never win the war for the axis or even turn the tide as it can be read in nearly every second book. That´s what I call a overrated plane...

[mosquitoman]

I'm going to have to say B-17 aswell, it had a very light bombload for a heavy bomber

[cheddar cheese]

It could carry a fairly large bombload - Just not terribly far

[the lancaster kicks ass]

CC it never really carried it's full load in combat, most books or films will say the B-17 was one of the best bombers of the war, if not THE best, whereas that is far from the truth..............

[cheddar cheese]

I know. But I was just saying that it did have a high payload butcouldnt carry it far. I was never making any implications about its full load being used in combat or that it was the best bomber of the war.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

besides, there was no point in having a large-er then normal payload if you can't make it past Dover

The B-17 could carry 6,000 lbs of bombs to a target about 1100 miles away at 25,000 feet. However, for such a long range mission typcially only about 4000 lbs were carried to provide more form-up time at the start of a mission.

The Lancaster could carry about 12,000 lbs of bombs to a target 1100 miles away at about 15,000 feet, or 14,000 lbs of bombs at about 10,000 feet.

If the B-17 were to limit its altitude to 15,000 feet and not have to form up into a bomber box, it could carry 8,000 lbs further to a target further than 1000 miles away.

So yes, the Lancaster did carry a bigger bombload, but it also was much less durable and would have been slaughtered much worse than the B-17 had it undertaken the same daylight missions.

Some other points to be made:

First the specs of the aircraft:

The B-17F had four Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone radials rated at 1200 hp takeoff, 1000 hp @ 25,000 feet, 1380 hp WEP for brief intervals. Max. speed was 299 mph at 25,000 feet, 325 mph at 25,000 feet (war emergency). Cruising speed was ~200 mph. Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 25.7 minutes. Defensive armament: 1 x .30 M2 mg + 11 x .50 M2 hmg's. Production: ~12,750 Sorties flown: ??? Bombs dropped: 500,000 - 640,000 tons in the ETO (sources differ).

The Lancaster Mk.III had four Rolls Royce or Packard Merlin 28 or 38 inverted-Vee, rated at 1460 hp (no WEP figure given). Maximum speed was 281 mph at 11000 ft. Cruising speed was 227 mph at "optimal cruising altitude" (?). Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 41 min 24 sec. Defensive Armament: 8 x .303 Brownings. Production: 7377 Sorties flown: 156,000 Bombs dropped: 608,000 tons HE plus more than 51 million incendiary bombs.

Of the 7377 Lancasters (there may have been a few more but not many) at least 3460 used the American built Packard Merlin, and many RR Merlins used some American built parts. The Lancaster had about 1000 HP more than the B-17, and almost half of them were using American built engines which could have been used in a B-17 or B-24 variant which would have made them substantially faster.

Which brings up another point. Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 used an engine which could have reasonably powered a fighter. It could well be argued that the production of Lancasters cost the British/Americans something around 8,000 Spitfires, 8,000 Mustangs, and another 6,000 Mosquitos! Just food for thought.

=S=

Lunatic

[Nonskimmer]

But why argue it? The Merlins powered the Lancaster as beautifully as they would have any fighter, and there wasn't exactly a shortage of them. Fighters either, for that matter.

[Gemhorse]

I believe the Bf-110 was hopelessly over-rated, as it found-out during the BoB, and perhaps the Ju-87....all very well during the Blitz over European countries prior to the BoB, but both were hopeless against fighter-opposition......Furthermore, neither were particuarly developed further despite these operational setbacks, the Bf-110 worked better in the dark as a NF, but the Stuka plodded-on in spite, only good for bombing escaping refugees and outmanoeuvred infantry.......

I take exception to the Spitfire being drawn into this....The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'....read your bloody history!!...sure the Hurricane was on the scene first, but these two worked in concert during the BoB, then the Spits escorted Hurri-bombers into Europe and the MTO....and both served in various theatres respectively with distinction.....

I also feel the Corsair could've been used more extensively than it was, but the inter-service mascinations of the US Forces dictated it staying in the PTO....the Mustang earned it's rep, useful in all it's versions, excelling in the 'D' model..... again why the P-47 didn't receive more glory was it's deployment - same thing occurred with the Typhoon too....

The B-17 was a good aircraft but it's deployment as an aerial fortress was the cause of many lives lost....they refused to listen to lessons already learned by Bomber Command.... then they had to resort to Bomber Command tactics to make the B-29 viable in Japan....height and firepower aren't everything, if 'foxy-tactics' can be used........

[Nonskimmer]

Originally Posted by Gemhorse

...The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'...

The whole Empire? New Zealand, Australia, and India would be speaking Japanese and Canada would've eventually been absorbed by the USA, meaning we'd all be speaking English with a Texas drawl.

Go Spitfire!

[Soren]

Originally Posted by GermansRGeniuses

I'll start the mud throwing.

Spitfire.

I will agree that the Spitfire is overrated by some, but it was also probably the best pure fighter of WW2. So the Spitfire kinda earns its respect.

Good, but many planes were better in most categories, such as the La-7.

Now THATS an overrated plane by far !!

If the Spit XIV and La-7 ever met(Considdering both pilots are equal), the Spit would totally trash the La-7 ! (That includes below 3,000m !)

German flight-tests also proves that the Lavochkin is a VERY overrated fighter ! (During the war, German aswell as Finnish 109's walked all over them.)

Most overrated airplane of WW2= The Lavochkin series !