MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII

[HealzDevo]

I would go for the Me-262 or the Me-163 Comet, sure they had a lot of speed but they also had a nasty pilots reputation for fires, and crashes due to no landing gear. They also had a relatively low aerial endurance factor, which means that they can't go too far to actively seek bombers and fighters to destroy. Also there is the He-177 Grief or the Martin Marineer I think the Allied one is, both of these had nasty nicknames, the He-177 Grief was called the Flying Coffin, the Martin Marineer was called the Flying Gas Can. These are certainly aircraft which had a potential to be said to be dangerous and bad for the pilot's health. I don't think the Me-163 and Me-262 were ever intended to serve for long periods. They were only ever intended to serve until Germany developed the better replacements that were on the drawing board back then.

[kiwimac]

B-17 and the Lancaster.

Kiwimac

[Udet]

This can be an interesting topic.

First off. I would have to say, the super gold medal as the most overrated plane of the entire conflict, ETO and PTO alike, goes flat straight to the soviet IL-2.

You name it, either the single seat or two seat versions the famous Shturmovik are as overinflated as any of those silly basketball or baseball players who by playing a game make millions and millions of dollars a year.

Perhaps the most famous flight simulator of the world bears its name.

The Germans captured numbers of intact IL-2s throughout the war, had them tested and were themselves amazed to realize such a piece of crap had been put into very massive production.

It would not be daring to say the IL-2 is the most shot down plane of the entire conflict.

Its 1 ton of armor while helped well against personal -rifle- caliber guns greeting it from the ground, was of little help against cannon equipped fighters and/or low altitude flak batteries.

It could hardly manouver. Its manouvering was not any better than that of the four engine heavy bombers of the USAAF and you are talking about a single engine plane.

Climbing was miserable, so was the turning radius. Roll was kind of out of the question.

Its only good points were (i) a powerful punch in the form of wing fitted cannons and (ii) the numbers in service, especially during 1944. Period.

Following the fashion of their western allies, the soviets credit the IL-2 with destroying "thousands" of German tanks; while soviet sources can never be expected to be objective, the outcome of the IL-2s charges against German armor, when one takes into account the capabilties of the plane and of its pilots, can not have a different outcome to that gained by the USAAF and RAF fighters committed to ground attack missions over Normandy in 1944.


To some extent, the IL-2 in the air, made the equivalent of soviet infantry: sent en mass to smash the enemy with complete disregard of the cost. A high casualty rate was gladly accepted by the soviet command.

That the shturmovik helped the soviet war effort very much is true.

But its massive production was devoted mainly to replace the horrific losses the plane suffered everywhere it operated.


The soviet claims of a "superb", "superior" ground attack plane can not withstand the most basic of the scrutinies.

IL-2 pilots were hastily trained. Even in 1944, a good number of them shturmoviks carried no radios; many crews were never issued parachutes.

Accident ratio was horrific for IL-2 crews.

The soviets never had time to create a highly trained air force as a whole. Sorry for General Aleksandr Novikov and the credit soviet official history gives him. The beatings they took in 1941-42 deprived them of the necessary timeframes to produce a new breed of pilots.

Even at Kursk, during the first day of operations at the salient, the German fighters shot down nearly 370 soviet planes, that in the first 12 hours of the battle; if you read soviet accounts, Kursk is depicted as the "first hammer" delivered to the Luftwaffe. Non sense.

Also the famous Kuban air battles of 1943, saw a VVS uncapable of gaining air superiority. The IL-2s opeated in numbers there and failed big time. The Kuban bridghead was evacuated by the Germans when the front in the Ukraine was crumbling and not because they got defeated in the northwestern tip of the Caucasus.

Stalin while demanding the opening of new fronts to his western allies, always saw the allied advance in the west as a threat to his future geo-political plans in Europe.

So, the last thing he was interest in was to give the new pilots proper training. His orders were to advance, at all cost, as fast as possible. He did not trust the western allies.

I recall reading somewhere an account, that in late 1945, well after the end of the war, the soviets conducted combat trials in the Baltic Sea. The target: a Kriegsmarine war prize -one of the German light cruisers, forgot the name-. Perfect weather. Target speed: zero. No AA fire.

The IL-2s had a terrible time in finding the mark.

The shturmovik had its prime moment when the Luftwaffe decided to strip the east of its fighter strenght sending many gruppen west to deal with the heavy bomber menace.

Originally Posted by 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.

Merlins were the limiting factor in P-51 production.

[Matt308]

Good point Udet. This was such a field expedient airplane, even the rear gunner's seat consisted of only a small strap between stringers.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

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

oh boy that was a good laugh, RG, how far could the B-17 carry it's maximum payload?? the grandslam could be hauled 1,550 miles, whereas the B-17 couldn't even lift a grandslam!! ALL the grandslam were dropped by day without loss, and the lanc did in fact bomb by day, and you think the B-17 could haved bombed by day without fighter escort?? they tried and failed, badly................

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.

awww, it's the poor little american feeling left out to the british DUDE!!! the americans weren't even producing the merlin before they were needed for the lanc, and do you actually think they were gonna use them on the B-17 and B-24!!

i'm just so pissed off with your utter ignorance at the moment i can't even argue with you anymore, go away, do some heavy reading on the lancaster, then come back and try and argue your points then...........

[Matt308]

Geez. Somebody ate a bad taco.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just insult his mother?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i would say i'm sorry but i'm not, he doesn't have a clue............

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Merlins were the limiting factor in P-51 production.

I guess Allison should have got their finger out of their anus and produced a capable engine.

The Lancaster Mk.III had four Rolls Royce or Packard Merlin 28 or 38 inverted-Vee

Inverted Vee engines?? Sure, if you say so.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

I guess Allison should have got their finger out of their anus and produced a capable engine.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

I guess Allison should have got their finger out of their anus and produced a capable engine.

Inverted Vee engines?? Sure, if you say so.

LOOK AT THIS - I THINK THE FINGER WAS REPLACED BY THEIR HEADS! v-3420 - TROUBLE 2X

[KraziKanuK]

Now that would have been some engine to stick in a P-51!!!

But since you want to play.

The Rolls-Royce Eagle 22 > 3550 hp @ 3500rpm from 2807ci

[FLYBOYJ]

But at least its a RR! IT WOULD OF WORKED

[the lancaster kicks ass]

[DAVIDICUS]

The Lancaster was certainly an excellent bomb delivery vehicle. It had a superb payload and excellent range.

I never did like it's low tolerance to damage or it's feeble defensive armament.

That and the fact that it's British. I wish there were some way for me to hack in and change that caption on Lanc's picture to:

The Lancaster Smells Like Ass - Oh wait, that's just the crew's bad breath from poor dental hygeine.