RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft.

RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

FatR -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (6/9/2011 10:13:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar There were quite a few historical studies, like the quoted article, written by ex-CO of the Finnish Air Force. [8D] So I think he does have some insight and access to primary sources. Sorry, but unless there is a research based on comparing primary sources from both sides - ideally on combat-by-combat basis - we still should consider themselves to be in the dark. I'm not saying that materials from your links necessarily are tall tales (until the summer of 1944 the Finnish front between Leningrad and Murmansk, which defenses the Finnish aviation did not challenge, had the lowest priority for getting planes and pilots, of all active fronts, so achieving major successes against relatively low numbers of mostly obsolete planes is not unimaginable). Just that they might well be (particularly as claim-to-reality ratio often was different even within a unit, so you cannot just divide claims by the same number, to get a real picture).

FatR -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (6/9/2011 10:16:52 AM)
Returning to topic, I'm not sure if Wellingtons are actually underated by people, but I find them the most excellent ground support planes. They can fly much more often than 4Es and drop as many bombs. A very good combination, as long as you can secure air superiority.

Sardaukar -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (6/9/2011 10:44:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar There were quite a few historical studies, like the quoted article, written by ex-CO of the Finnish Air Force. [8D] So I think he does have some insight and access to primary sources. Sorry, but unless there is a research based on comparing primary sources from both sides - ideally on combat-by-combat basis - we still should consider themselves to be in the dark. I'm not saying that materials from your links necessarily are tall tales (until the summer of 1944 the Finnish front between Leningrad and Murmansk, which defenses the Finnish aviation did not challenge, had the lowest priority for getting planes and pilots, of all active fronts, so achieving major successes against relatively low numbers of mostly obsolete planes is not unimaginable). Just that they might well be (particularly as claim-to-reality ratio often was different even within a unit, so you cannot just divide claims by the same number, to get a real picture). LOL, so you are disregarding for example Hans Wind's lectures given in Air Force Academy in 1943 based on his combat experiences? You realize that those lectures were given to new pilots to prepare them to combat vs. Soviets in 1943? Just because it is Finnish primary source? Bit hard for him to have Soviet primary sources during 1943, you know! How about you giving some Soviet sources before you disregard others...which is very usual "Soviet history method". [:'(] We could also compare Finnish air victories to Soviet losses, but RELIABLE data of them is bit difficult to get from Soviet side. Note that we are discussing WHY FAF achieved lot of victories WITH Brewster vs. Soviet Union and primary tactical source for that is obviously the pilots who flew those combat missions with those planes. Would be bit strange for example Hans Wind to lie to FAF AF Academy pilot trainees, knowing he'd most likely have to fly combat missions with them later...and he was preparing them for air combat. It doesn't matter if for example Hans Wind overclaimed. Everyone did that, including Soviet pilots. It still doesn't take away that they shoot down quite a lot of Soviet planes. Top aces themselves gave the reasons why they were able to do that, and the reasons are in those articles. Hasse Wind's lecture is primary source and is scanned and digitized now. It was used in fighter pilot training in FAF for decades. Captain H. Wind's Lectures on Fighter Tactics were written in 1943 to be used in training of new pilots. Afterwards, the lecture series was used in the Finnish Air Force for several decades. The lectures have been transferred into digital format in as original and accurate a form as possible - the way they were written in 1943. The author, Hans Wind, was the second highest scoring Finnish pilot of World War II and our highest scoring Brewster ace. To our knowledge Wind's lectures have never been available in public before, and this is the first time it is fully translated to English. The Finnish Air Force and the Chief of Readiness, Colonel Jarmo Lindberg - who kindly presented the original document to the Commander of the Finnish Air Force and to the Chief of Operations, making sure that we can transfer the material into digital format and publish it. "According to the security policy of the Finnish Defence Forces, any material declared secret will become public after 25 years, unless the period is specifically extended. Applying this rule, and in the opinion of the Commander of the Air Force this material can be published." http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/kuvat/ww2history-win02.jpg If you missed it, for example: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/fintac-7.htm 4) Air Warfare Manual, Nr 185/III/6 c secr/17.12.37 6) Order of 2 Wing, Nr 13, Office II 349/II/3b 27.2.40 8) Olavi Seeve: Air War between Finland and the Soviet Union 1939 - 1940, Air Force Staff, Nr 90/III/Helsinki 17.1.1941 10) 2 Wing document 472/II/ 4 a secr 9.5.1941 12) 2 Wing document 385/II/ 3 d 4.3.1940 17) Air Staff document 31/ III L/ 2c 4.1.1942 18) Air Staff document 1406/III L/ c secr 1.9.1941 19) Air Staff document 1817/ III L/ 4c secr 29.9.1941 20) Air Staff document 2176/ III L/ 4c secr 26.10.1941 21) Air Staff document 46/ III L/ 4c secr 4.1.1942 22) 3 Wing operations 22.6.1941 - 4.9.1944 23) 1 Wing document 410/ II/ 5 10.7.42 24) 2 Wing operations, Air Staff document T 19280 25) Air Staff document 2855/III/ 2c secr 27.7.1942 26) Air Staff document 1377/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 5.4.1943 27) Air Staff document 1811/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 3.5.1943 28) Air Staff document 2313/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 5.6.1943 29) Air Staff document 3160/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 1.9.1943 30) Air Staff document 3369/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 27.9.1943 31) Air Staff document 1646/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 12.5.1844 Those are all Primary Sources, FAF official documents about issues described in articles and you could study them or order copied from Finnish National War Archives. Rest are top air commanders' and top pilots writings about same issues. Like: 2) Richard Lorentz: Strikes in the Air, summary 3) G. Magnusson: Comment about Lorentz`s summary, 3.9.1953 7) Eino A. Rahka: Flight Commander`s Memories, Helsinki 28.10.1980 9) Jorma Sarvanto: As a fighter pilot over Karelia, Vammala, 1941 11) Ilmari Juutilainen: Double Fighter Knight, Apali Oy, Tampere, 1996 13) Kyösti Karhila: Diary Nr 1, 10.12.39 - 1.5.40 15) Eino A. Rahka: 35 Training Squadrons Program, summary So if you want primary sources, there you have some.

Sardaukar -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (6/9/2011 4:03:35 PM)
BTW, if someone is interested about discussion between Finnish and Russian aviation hobbyists about accuracy of air victory claims in Winter War, here is a good 12 page discussion with lot of sources: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=151577 It's not really my cup of tea, but very interesting.

AW1Steve -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (6/9/2011 4:38:41 PM)
The B-32 Dominator. Although it was developed as an "ace in the hole" in the event that the vastly more complicated B-29 program failed, it was an excellent heavy bomber. It's unfairly compared with the B-29, but really should be judged against the B-17 and B-24s, which it was a vast improvement of, and should have been used to replace (at least in the Pacific, where it's extreme long range would have made it very , very usefull). Had not the A-bombs been deployed, it would have most likely replaced a lot of the B-17's coming over with the 8th AF for the invasion of Japan.

FatR -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (6/10/2011 1:52:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar LOL, so you are disregarding for example Hans Wind's lectures given in Air Force Academy in 1943 based on his combat experiences? This doesn't even mean he actually was correct in his assessments (see: certain Japanese aces, inluding Saburo Sakae, vocally disliking planes less maneurable than Zero, say Shiden, even though it should have been obvious that Zero was entirely inadequate by late-war). To assessment of Finnish airforce efficiency they are entirely irrelevant. We can only use them as an explanation for it, or lack thereof, once it is established. And the only way to do so is to take archive documents, or data from them, if already published, for both sides and compare. Lundstrom's First Team is a great topical example of this sole correct way of both describing air war and drawing any sort of overarching conclusions about how it went. quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar How about you giving some Soviet sources before you disregard others...which is very usual "Soviet history method". "First do it yourself!" is not a viable counterargument. Particularly when it is used to advocate anti-reason, like measuring effectiveness by one side's own claims (it is deeply ironic, in the light of this, that you accuse me of using "Soviet history method"). Besides, do you even realize that primary sources relevant to this case are massive numbers of unit reports, which can't be provided through a convenient link even if they were scanned (they aren't and aren't going to be in foreseeable future, due to the sheer volume of the surviving Soviet documents). We can only hope someone someday will be interested in the topic enough to dig through them. quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar [:'(] We could also compare Finnish air victories to Soviet losses, but RELIABLE data of them is bit difficult to get from Soviet side. Not particularly difficult for about 20 years now. It's just I can count people who care to actually dig into archives to get it on my fingers, unfortunately. And they are covering more interesting theaters. So, as I said above, I don't actually know of an adequate work on the topic (I might be missing something, of course). In Finnish-related episodes that got into focus due to involvement of VVS KBF (which actions are currently researched by Miroslav Morozov), like the destruction of Svir' hydroelectric power plant dam, or the sinking of Niobe, the Finnish aviation simply failed to show up. The lead cause of losses of Soviet naval aircraft to Finnish fighers in 1943-44, seems to be treating these fighters as nonexistent and sending torpedo bombers on free hunt alone or in pairs (which was ineffective anyway, despite very occasional intercepts...). quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Note that we are discussing WHY FAF achieved lot of victories WITH Brewster vs. Soviet Union and primary tactical source for that is obviously the pilots who flew those combat missions with those planes. While we should first ask IF they did ("everyone overclaimed" is bad escape clause, because everyone also overclaimed differently, with a strong tendency towards bigger overclaims when things were going south in reality). Do you realize that your position is not different from taking various Japanese claims at face value and then starting to search for reasons why Japanese were apparently able to fight Allies in the air until 1945?

Sardaukar -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (6/10/2011 10:20:22 AM)
FatR, you have not stated ANY source why those claims and tactical insights would not be correct. Maybe you should check that http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=151577 where some Russian aviation enthusiasts with access to archives discussed about Winter War losses/claims with similar Finnish aviation enthusiastics. Then come back after you have some Russian sources and are familiar with them. [8D] It is really a good and civil discussion there, even though it is limited to Winter War time. You have right now only your OPINION to back you up, I have stated long list of OFFICIAL SOURCES. Guess which ones' weight bit more. [8D]

Nikademus -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (6/10/2011 6:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Not necessarily an undeserved bad rap. It was not a great plane. The Finns has a lighter version but basically their great advantage came with a core of veteran pilots fighting against Soviet pilots that were woefully unprepared and under trained flying obsolete pre-war fighters. (sort of a death cocktail [;)]) Even the Finns admitted that once they came up against better Soviet fighters, (Yaks, P40s and Migs) the playing field got very level. It was not the plane in this case but the pilots. Anywhere else and the Brewster got hammered by better planes. In general, unless one or more (usually more than one) variables are seriously out of wack, one will not see a terribly disjointed kill ratio (above an exchange of 2:1 or 3:1) This is because there are simply so many factors that influence the ratios, both internal (such as plane or pilot) and external (geographical/doctrinal, battlefield, attitudes of leaders/men, organization etc) This of course is why kill ratios can be made to support just about any argument, either in favor of one side over another, or to discount the achievements of another etc. One can pick and choose on some variables and call it the key point. For a plane to be a key factor of itself requires a level of superiority not often seen. At one point even the venerable Cr-42 held it's own against modern Hurricanes as did the Ki-27 vs the P40. The Hurricane has one of the most diverse kill ratio histories of any plane.....from winning in Greece against the 109 to competetiveness against the 109 in the BoB.....to being disadvantaged over North Africa and getting an ass kicking in Burma (5:1 vs Ki-43 in favor of the Japanese) to the JG-26 staffel spanking during the first half of 41 (35:0 exchange in favor of the German squadron) In the case of the USSR, I would agree that the pilots had issues but not always or simply because of lack of training. There was also the post-Purge fear factor that inhibited many VVS pilots and officers from deviating in the slightest, from orders (preferably written for use as evidence should Beria come acalling) The opinions on the Brewster machine are mixed with some sources deriding the plane as bad from inception whilest others call the original design solid but one soon degraded as the weight increased for armor and self sealers. A key problem appears to have been Quality control issues. Brewster IIRC, was the only US aircraft firm to go OUT of business during the boom years of WWII. I believe the 339 original design was decent, it's stats compared with the early F4F and it did initially beat out the latter as the USN's new fighter. I don't consider it underrated in the end though because it's issues were legion and well documented. That the Finns did so well with it i think is more attributible to their fighting spirit and tactics against an enemy that had been recently emfeebled by it's own government and was conditioned to expect minimal resistance as were the ground troops. The claimed ratio i would discount, even during Barbarossa the Luftwaffe only achieved about a 5:1 overall ratio (though at various times against fighters, it was suggested that the local ratio was as high as 10:1) On topic, i'd nominate the Ki-43 as a good candidant. This plane gets little respect, as does the H75A, the former because well.....it's Japanese and lightly armed, the latter because its considered "obsolecent." In fairness, another reason the Falcon gets little cred is because few know that during the SRA campaign this plane did well, but often was mis-ID'd as a "Zero" and thus the A6M got all the glory, especially at home. Another factor was that the 43 (particularily the improved Ki-43-II) did it's best fighting post early 42 in Burma, which was primarily a Commonwealth Theater until later in the war. For the H75A/P-36/Mohawk.....this is a good example for a truism....."Obsolecent doesn't mean useless."

crsutton -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (6/10/2011 9:21:05 PM)
I like this interview with a former Japanese pilot. He talks about the Oscar I and II. Not a big fan. I realize that this in only one pilot but he seems to be fair in his evaluation. http://youtu.be/u-eBmnpCO18

jakla1027 -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/8/2011 11:20:04 AM)
How about the Blenhiem Mk. IV? I have been using them to great effect in the ground attack role in India & Burma. I got air superiority in the skys in that region with my Hurricanes & P-40E's so the few squadrons of Blenhiem Mk. IV's i have thier are free to bomb at will.

crsutton -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/8/2011 3:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jakla1027 How about the Blenhiem Mk. IV? I have been using them to great effect in the ground attack role in India & Burma. I got air superiority in the skys in that region with my Hurricanes & P-40E's so the few squadrons of Blenhiem Mk. IV's i have thier are free to bomb at will. If you are playing the AI then yes they will work fine. Vs a good human opponent they are flying coffins just like the Betty.

mdiehl -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/8/2011 4:43:37 PM)
Kill ratios are a very good way of comparing the plane+pilot combination of two different (hostile) a.c. types as they fought each other. One cannot say that the F2A was a good plane against the Zero, because in combat, F2A3s flown by very good pilots had a crappy record against A6M2s flown by very good pilots. It was the plane that stunk in that case, because similarly trained USN pilots in F4F4s had a superior record against the similarly trained A6M2s under similar circumstances. In Finnish hands, during the Winter War and in 1941, the Brewster was a better plane because in Finnish hands the plane+pilot combination was superior to the plane+pilot combinations thrown against them by the USSR. I suspect that most of that was due to training and doctrine, because on paper the Brewster was just not a very good plane in 1941 compared to other a.c. And of course, by 1943-44, not only were Soviet pilots using better tactics and doctrine, but they had better logistics, and better planes. I'd say the most underrated plane in a historical sense, used by the US, was the Curtiss Hawk. A really good plane for the time, and if they'd gone with upgraded radial engines instead of converting to the Allison in-line, it may have been one of those models that could last through the end of the war. Now, just to make this discussion a little less contentious, let me ask this: Does anyone else share my fascination with building models of those hopeless relics that performed so poorly in combat? I mean, the F2A3 was a pig, but as a subject, a yellow wings Brewster Buffalo is a really fun project, IMO.

pharmy -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/8/2011 9:37:16 PM)
http://www.amazon.com/Sorry-Saga-Brewster-Buffalo-ebook/dp/B0017KT5L2 just got this for my kindle, maybe I'll get an answer for 4 dollars

Sardaukar -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/9/2011 9:53:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl In Finnish hands, during the Winter War and in 1941, the Brewster was a better plane because in Finnish hands the plane+pilot combination was superior to the plane+pilot combinations thrown against them by the USSR. I suspect that most of that was due to training and doctrine, because on paper the Brewster was just not a very good plane in 1941 compared to other a.c. And of course, by 1943-44, not only were Soviet pilots using better tactics and doctrine, but they had better logistics, and better planes. It was combination of lot of things. 1941-42 Soviet AF had on Finnish front mostly older planes (I-153, I-16), second class pilots and poor tactics & doctrine. Brewster Buffalo definitely outclassed older Soviet fighters and was able to use energy fighting against them during that period. In 1943, Buffalo was already hopelessly outclassed by more advanced planes in Soviet hands, but was still able to hold it's own because of better tactics and pilot quality. From 1943 onwards only Bf 109G of FAF planes was seen as survivable and other plane types were relegated to secondary roles.

crsutton -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/9/2011 4:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Kill ratios are a very good way of comparing the plane+pilot combination of two different (hostile) a.c. types as they fought each other. One cannot say that the F2A was a good plane against the Zero, because in combat, F2A3s flown by very good pilots had a crappy record against A6M2s flown by very good pilots. It was the plane that stunk in that case, because similarly trained USN pilots in F4F4s had a superior record against the similarly trained A6M2s under similar circumstances. In Finnish hands, during the Winter War and in 1941, the Brewster was a better plane because in Finnish hands the plane+pilot combination was superior to the plane+pilot combinations thrown against them by the USSR. I suspect that most of that was due to training and doctrine, because on paper the Brewster was just not a very good plane in 1941 compared to other a.c. And of course, by 1943-44, not only were Soviet pilots using better tactics and doctrine, but they had better logistics, and better planes. I'd say the most underrated plane in a historical sense, used by the US, was the Curtiss Hawk. A really good plane for the time, and if they'd gone with upgraded radial engines instead of converting to the Allison in-line, it may have been one of those models that could last through the end of the war. Now, just to make this discussion a little less contentious, let me ask this: Does anyone else share my fascination with building models of those hopeless relics that performed so poorly in combat? I mean, the F2A3 was a pig, but as a subject, a yellow wings Brewster Buffalo is a really fun project, IMO. I made this about 15 years ago. Not to say it was a bad plane. I have always loved the late 30s aircraft. [image]local://upfiles/8095/24C70B8C03944985B37628FCE950CBD3.jpg[/image]

mdiehl -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/9/2011 4:40:50 PM)
She's a beauty!

MateDow -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/9/2011 5:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl She's a beauty! +1

JeffroK -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/9/2011 8:27:37 PM)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm Some interesting articles about various users of the Buffalo It appears the RAF Buffs had reconditioned engines, undertrained pilots, poor co-ordination from the ground, recent conversion to type etc etc. Maybe they could have been more of a fighter force if a few of these things were sorted. My 2 bob for most underated is the P40 family, never the best in the sky it was a solid performer throughout in the roles it was assigned.

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/10/2011 1:31:29 AM)
Spitfire I most underrated aircraft 360mph speed 120kg/m2 wing loading ...in 1940 revision history in 2010 says ~ "Sptifire was just a little better than the Bf-109E" "Britain would have done okay to build hurricanes and didn't need the spitfire" "sptifire couldn't dive because of it wasn't fuel injected" this is utterly nonsensical no. no fighter in the world had both speed AND maneouverability (Bf-109E was 170kg/m2, that is a MASSIVE difference) if it was armed with 20mm guns instead of the 7.7mm, the Bob would have been over much sooner the spitfire was the best dogfighter at any time throughout the war, any results to the contrary are due to pilots, numbers, or a myriad of other factors that are not related to the aircraft itself it is not meant to escort 4E in daylight, not meant to strike tanks with rockets, the Spitfire I (and other marks later) are meant to do one thing: engage the enemy fighters and shoot them down

GreyJoy -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/10/2011 2:16:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf Spitfire I most underrated aircraft 360mph speed 120kg/m2 wing loading ...in 1940 revision history in 2010 says ~ "Sptifire was just a little better than the Bf-109E" "Britain would have done okay to build hurricanes and didn't need the spitfire" "sptifire couldn't dive because of it wasn't fuel injected" this is utterly nonsensical no. no fighter in the world had both speed AND maneouverability (Bf-109E was 170kg/m2, that is a MASSIVE difference) if it was armed with 20mm guns instead of the 7.7mm, the Bob would have been over much sooner the spitfire was the best dogfighter at any time throughout the war, any results to the contrary are due to pilots, numbers, or a myriad of other factors that are not related to the aircraft itself it is not meant to escort 4E in daylight, not meant to strike tanks with rockets, the Spitfire I (and other marks later) are meant to do one thing: engage the enemy fighters and shoot them down Agree. The best plane ever, especially the MkIXe. However it was a point-defence fighter with no legs at all...and in a very complex air war its lack of legs really lowered its amazing qualities. Anyway...i'd fly a 190A4 all life long instead of a spit[8D]

YankeeAirRat -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/10/2011 3:45:01 AM)
I would vote for the N3N or the Boeing-Stearman Model 75. Think about it without the N3N or Model 75, where would all the hours we spend figuring out training would be done?

JeffroK -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/10/2011 4:27:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat I would vote for the N3N or the Boeing-Stearman Model 75. Think about it without the N3N or Model 75, where would all the hours we spend figuring out training would be done? In a Tiger Moth or Magister

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/10/2011 4:41:09 AM)
Also need the Texan, can't put pilots from Biplanes right into Spitfires.. did they really do that?

mdiehl -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/10/2011 3:31:26 PM)
I don't think most informed people have underrated the Spitfire. And yeah, it was hands down better than the ME109. I would not call it the best fighter of the era but we can agree to disagree. IMO, the F4U wins that comparison, but then I don't think anyone has undersold the F4U either. Of course, the Spitfire was both antecedent and a sufficiently great design to carry it through, with modifications as new models/blocks were produced, the entire war. IMO the F4F qualifies at least as underappreciated by revisionists. Most of its pilots rated it as a pretty good plane for the time. (Most. Thach, famously, not so much). I'd also nominate the Italian Macchi C205 and the French Dewoitine D.520. Both quite good for their times, and both mostly overlooked on account of having not saved their nations from the big hurt coming at them.

crsutton -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/10/2011 4:46:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreyJoy quote: ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf Spitfire I most underrated aircraft 360mph speed 120kg/m2 wing loading ...in 1940 revision history in 2010 says ~ "Sptifire was just a little better than the Bf-109E" "Britain would have done okay to build hurricanes and didn't need the spitfire" "sptifire couldn't dive because of it wasn't fuel injected" this is utterly nonsensical no. no fighter in the world had both speed AND maneouverability (Bf-109E was 170kg/m2, that is a MASSIVE difference) if it was armed with 20mm guns instead of the 7.7mm, the Bob would have been over much sooner the spitfire was the best dogfighter at any time throughout the war, any results to the contrary are due to pilots, numbers, or a myriad of other factors that are not related to the aircraft itself it is not meant to escort 4E in daylight, not meant to strike tanks with rockets, the Spitfire I (and other marks later) are meant to do one thing: engage the enemy fighters and shoot them down Agree. The best plane ever, especially the MkIXe. However it was a point-defence fighter with no legs at all...and in a very complex air war its lack of legs really lowered its amazing qualities. Anyway...i'd fly a 190A4 all life long instead of a spit[8D] Yep, my two favorites are the 109 and spit. But you can't win a war if you can't project air power deep into enemy air space. Neither of these could. Most underrated could be the C47. Theater commanders never stopped screaming for more....

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/10/2011 5:19:04 PM)
C-47 was in demand by commanders from USAAF, Japan, and Soviets too [:)] probably the best design of its type ever

UniformYankee -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/11/2011 2:39:22 AM)
Well we could have a good ole "B17 versus B24" debate. In this case we would have to start from the premise that the B24 is under-rated. This because most comparisons seem to decide that the B17 was the better plane. My father flew in both and felt the B24 was the better. Two cousins (brothers) flew in B17s and B24s. One died in a B17(Mairzy Doats) the other flew B24s and lived. So, at least in MY family, the B24 is the winner. Heavier bomb load is the primary reason cited.

pharmy -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/11/2011 5:12:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl I'd also nominate the Italian Macchi C205 and the French Dewoitine D.520. Both quite good for their times, and both mostly overlooked on account of having not saved their nations from the big hurt coming at them. I kept on finding the results of a German test commission http://xoomer.virgilio.it/g55/G55his.htm#his3 where they evaluated the C205, the Re2005, and the G55 and brought out the G55 on top but couldn't find any source to verify if this was just a Fiat legend. Oddly enough I did find the original German report, on a bf109 performance website :) If the chaps at Rechlin said that the G55 was the best axis fighter, against their own 109 and 190, I'd say it probably was. http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G-4_Guidonia/109G-4_vergl_Estelle-Guidonia_de.html http://kurfurst.org/

Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/11/2011 6:04:30 PM)
Fiat G55 had a lower wing loading and could be up-engined with the DB-603, so it was a good design the high man hours for production was a problem, Bf-109 was really easy to make what's amazing is that a BF-109E took 4,000 man hours to produce, a Spitfire took 15,000 and a Hurricane 10,000 just for a comparison, a piece of junk like a Hayabusa (Ki-43) took 25,000 hours to make so .. i make the point again, the ac production is out of whack (my idea is to limit the japanese ac expansion to 100 engines per month)

pharmy -> RE: Most under rated Allied aircraft. (12/11/2011 7:39:01 PM)
I think the Fiat would have been preferred for its high altitude performance. The testing was done in february of 43 when they already had the fw190A5 which at low level was the best fighter in the European theater (this was in between the Spit V and IX) The BF109 was already stretching its design limits (its small wings were always its weakpoint), and while with sufficient engines, it could climb high, performance was sluggish. But with the armistice and the impracticality of potential man hours they had nowhere to go they gradually started trying to make up this deficiency with the fw190, first with the D version, and then culminating with the Ta152. They actually instructed the retreating forces to blow up the jigs at Fiat, which they did not do by the way (and the G55 flew, sometimes with Merlin engines with the Syrian and Egyptian air forces). By the way looking for performance comparative tests I found one that I thought would have existed only in theoretical discussions. The Corsair and Hellcat vs the FW190, conducted by the US Navy. http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/index1.html I think the Spitfire production rate is from Beaverbrook times probably, or due to the high variety of different types of Spitfire being produced. I couldn't find an extensive comparison anywhere though. I think the man hours for the Hayabusa could be accurate as during 46-48 months of production only 5900 were produced. The Ki 84 Hayate took only 15000 by comparison it seems http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/compare-bf-109-fw-190-cost-production-3311.html. Shows the difference of a plane that was designed in wartime with shortages and urgency in need and plane like the Hayabusa, where no thought was given to streamlining. I think even though the Japanese never achieved the scale of production of a/c compared to the Germans, their airframe production was OK, you are right that the best way to limit out of scale production historically would be to limit them to their historically woeful engine production expansion. Frankly though the low durability/lack of armor in their early fighters and their slow pilot training process more then halves the later planes combat effectiveness. Plus factor in a lack of supply. Like the Germans, the Japanese surrendered with many intact aircraft that simply had no fuel to take off. By the way Grigsby's Bombing of the Reich does this by making Italian fighters take two engines (slow production of licence built DBs), and for example in the case of low engine life (Me262) by having 4 jet engines per a/f Edit attached BTR allied fighter table values

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.140625