MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII - Page 4 - Aircraft of World War II

FLYBOYJ · 04-15-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

the lancaster kicks ass · 04-15-2005, 04:28 PM

hey at the time of design, the lancs armourment wasn't weak, and she could take more damage than most people realise.........

DAVIDICUS · 04-15-2005, 04:47 PM

Just like every other combatant country, the British were capable of modifying their aircraft as changing circumstances required. For example, the Lancaster II was built with radial engines when it was believed that that in lines would be in short supply. (About 300 were built but production was shut down when the shortage never materialized.)

My point is that there was no good reason to maintain a defensive armament of .303's throughout the production of the Lancaster. The British had some sort of perverted love affair with the .303. (perhaps the cartridge size made their penises look larger) The .303 was installed as an armament on fighters throughout the war as well.

An attacking German fighter pilot would most definitely rather face .303's than .50's, one round of which could really ruin his day.

Nonskimmer · 04-15-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

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

Canadians do brush our teeth, y'know.

I'm sure Australians and New Zealanders do too.

trackend · 04-15-2005, 05:07 PM

If I post them to you will you brush mine while you at it please skim

cheddar cheese · 04-15-2005, 05:08 PM

Ugh thats

ing!

Nonskimmer · 04-15-2005, 05:08 PM

GAAHHH!!!

trackend · 04-15-2005, 05:11 PM

Well 2 of them aint bad but I think he's wasting the paste on the rest ugh

DaveB.inVa · 04-15-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

Quote:

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.

Na, they should've hurried up and got a second blower stage.

FLYBOYJ · 04-15-2005, 05:12 PM

What Model Lanc did he fly

Udet · 04-15-2005, 06:10 PM

I find it interesting to discover there are guys nominating the He 177 and the Bf 110 to get the overrated tag.

First off. The He 177 never saw action in any significant numbers. Like most planes going through developtment, it had its shortcomings, most of them got corrected. Also there is absolutely no evidence that could help you affirming the Germans ever said it was a wonderful bomber.

So the overrated tag does not fit in the case of this particular bomber.

The Bf110 was certainly a plane with high expectations placed upon it.
Fared very well during Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb and the battle in Norway, to take a mauling during the Battle of Britain.

Overrated? Not at all. It was like if you were affirming the pilots, officers and commanders of the Zerstorerwaffe were idiots. They immediately learned it could not manouver the way of both Hurricanes and Spitfires.

The Germans would eventually find the hunting ground more than suitable for the Bf 110: the night fighter role. I can assure you many RAF bomber command veterans will argue the comment the Bf 110 is overrated.

It had a fearsome punch in the nose, it was fast and had a large range.

The Spitfire is certainly an overrated plane. Its glorious episode was a brief one, known as the Battle of Britain. From 1941 to early 1943, the Channel/France region became a secondary theather of operations for the Luftwaffe. 1941 was the year when the strenght of the jagdwaffe was deployed in the east.

1941 sounds likely to have been the year for RAF fighter squadrons to rest, refit and to have their suffered wounds licked after the BoB, for after all, they took a mauling there as well, and the enemy was by then working heavily in the east digesting the soviet air force.

But if you conduct a follow up research on the performance of RAF fighter squadrons from 1941 to late 1942/early 1943, when they faced the "Schlageter" boys of JG 26 and those of JG 2, they proved uncapable of repeating the deed of 1940, suffering tremendous losses at the hands of both the Bf 109s and the new Butcher bird. (i.e. The Dieppe raid and the Channel Dash of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau can help as evidence)

I am convinced the bottom of the channel contains far more carcasses of Spitfires than of any other plane who saw action in the area.

It was not until the build up of the USAAF had begun in the island when Spitfires showed any improvement.

However you can never compare the Spitfire case with that of the IL-2.
The propaganda of the soviet union took the Il-2 up to levels if insanity.

BombTaxi · 04-15-2005, 06:11 PM

As far as the Lancs defensive armament was concerned, it wasnt just weak, it was badly thought out. I know this discussion has been had, but I'll say it again...

The nose turret was pointless - if a nightfighter was daft enough to fly straight at a bomber in the dark, the gunner would hardly have enough time to fire, assuming he ever saw the fighter. Far better to remove the turret and fit some kind of vebtral mount instead. That way, the nightfighters wouldnt be able to just slide up and blow the Lanc apart with Schrage Musik. I will never understand why RAF night bombers didnt have ventral guns. Just two 303s would have been enough...it wouldnt take a lot to hit an enemy a/c thats forming up on you, after all!

the lancaster kicks ass · 04-15-2005, 06:17 PM

Quote:

It was not until the build up of the USAAF had begun in the island when Spitfires showed any improvement

so now you're claiming it's the americans that made the spit the amazing plane it was, interesting

Nonskimmer · 04-15-2005, 06:19 PM

Nah! Obviously it was the Canadians.

the lancaster kicks ass · 04-15-2005, 06:21 PM

well that still makes more sence that the americans making it waht it was..........

04-15-2005, 04:28 PM	#47
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	hey at the time of design, the lancs armourment wasn't weak, and she could take more damage than most people realise......... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

04-15-2005, 04:47 PM	#48
DAVIDICUS Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 819	Just like every other combatant country, the British were capable of modifying their aircraft as changing circumstances required. For example, the Lancaster II was built with radial engines when it was believed that that in lines would be in short supply. (About 300 were built but production was shut down when the shortage never materialized.) My point is that there was no good reason to maintain a defensive armament of .303's throughout the production of the Lancaster. The British had some sort of perverted love affair with the .303. (perhaps the cartridge size made their penises look larger) The .303 was installed as an armament on fighters throughout the war as well. An attacking German fighter pilot would most definitely rather face .303's than .50's, one round of which could really ruin his day. __________________ . -=DAVIDICUS MAXIMUS=- .

04-15-2005, 05:12 PM	#55
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,050	What Model Lanc did he fly __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

04-15-2005, 06:11 PM	#57
BombTaxi Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Brownhills, W. Mids, UK Posts: 1,189	As far as the Lancs defensive armament was concerned, it wasnt just weak, it was badly thought out. I know this discussion has been had, but I'll say it again... The nose turret was pointless - if a nightfighter was daft enough to fly straight at a bomber in the dark, the gunner would hardly have enough time to fire, assuming he ever saw the fighter. Far better to remove the turret and fit some kind of vebtral mount instead. That way, the nightfighters wouldnt be able to just slide up and blow the Lanc apart with Schrage Musik. I will never understand why RAF night bombers didnt have ventral guns. Just two 303s would have been enough...it wouldnt take a lot to hit an enemy a/c thats forming up on you, after all! __________________ Good generals think about tactics. Great generals think about logistics. "If freedom is to be saved and enlarged, poverty must be ended. There is no other solution." - Nye Bevan "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee" - John Donne, Meditation XVII

04-15-2005, 06:21 PM	#60
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	well that still makes more sence that the americans making it waht it was.......... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

04-15-2005, 05:08 PM	#51
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	Ugh thats ing!

04-15-2005, 05:08 PM	#52
Nonskimmer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 8,871	GAAHHH!!!

04-15-2005, 05:11 PM	#53
trackend Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Canvey Island, Essex Posts: 4,029	Well 2 of them aint bad but I think he's wasting the paste on the rest ugh

04-15-2005, 06:10 PM	#56
Udet Banned Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,258	I find it interesting to discover there are guys nominating the He 177 and the Bf 110 to get the overrated tag. First off. The He 177 never saw action in any significant numbers. Like most planes going through developtment, it had its shortcomings, most of them got corrected. Also there is absolutely no evidence that could help you affirming the Germans ever said it was a wonderful bomber. So the overrated tag does not fit in the case of this particular bomber. The Bf110 was certainly a plane with high expectations placed upon it. Fared very well during Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb and the battle in Norway, to take a mauling during the Battle of Britain. Overrated? Not at all. It was like if you were affirming the pilots, officers and commanders of the Zerstorerwaffe were idiots. They immediately learned it could not manouver the way of both Hurricanes and Spitfires. The Germans would eventually find the hunting ground more than suitable for the Bf 110: the night fighter role. I can assure you many RAF bomber command veterans will argue the comment the Bf 110 is overrated. It had a fearsome punch in the nose, it was fast and had a large range. The Spitfire is certainly an overrated plane. Its glorious episode was a brief one, known as the Battle of Britain. From 1941 to early 1943, the Channel/France region became a secondary theather of operations for the Luftwaffe. 1941 was the year when the strenght of the jagdwaffe was deployed in the east. 1941 sounds likely to have been the year for RAF fighter squadrons to rest, refit and to have their suffered wounds licked after the BoB, for after all, they took a mauling there as well, and the enemy was by then working heavily in the east digesting the soviet air force. But if you conduct a follow up research on the performance of RAF fighter squadrons from 1941 to late 1942/early 1943, when they faced the "Schlageter" boys of JG 26 and those of JG 2, they proved uncapable of repeating the deed of 1940, suffering tremendous losses at the hands of both the Bf 109s and the new Butcher bird. (i.e. The Dieppe raid and the Channel Dash of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau can help as evidence) I am convinced the bottom of the channel contains far more carcasses of Spitfires than of any other plane who saw action in the area. It was not until the build up of the USAAF had begun in the island when Spitfires showed any improvement. However you can never compare the Spitfire case with that of the IL-2. The propaganda of the soviet union took the Il-2 up to levels if insanity.

04-15-2005, 06:19 PM	#59
Nonskimmer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 8,871	Nah! Obviously it was the Canadians.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode