• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

What do think is the most underrated Aircraft of Wrold War II

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cowboy1968

Charter Member
What do think is the most underrated Aircraft of Wrold War II

I have my personal opinion on this, so i was just wondering what yours are.

Personally I think the Brewster Buffalo, has a bad reputation it didn't deserve. IF you actually study the plane you discover several important facts.

1. It was a plane designed around 1935. by the time World War II rolled around it was approaching ihe end of its useful life. It was still competitive up to 1943.

2. With an experienced pilot flying the bird it could win in an even fight. The biggest mark against it, in the US eyes, was the lose of the Buffalos at Midway, but these were planes flown by enexperenced pilots taking on the cream of Japanese Naval Aviation. They were also outnumbered five to one. 21 Buffalos facing 108 bombers and fighters with the best naval pilots in the world flying them against USMC pilots who had never seen combat trying to down Japaneses pilots that had years of experience over China, the Philippines and Pearl Harbor. It is important to remember the Wildcats that were also with VMF-221 did not fair any better then the Buffaloes

3. In RAF service the small number of Buffaloes were still able to achieve a 2 to 1 kill ratio even with inexperienced Australian pilots flying them. Again it is important to remember they were facing odds of 4 to 1 to as high as 6 to 1 against Japanese Army pilots who had years of experience in China.

4. The Finish were able to achieve a 11 to 1 kill ratio in the Buffalo. This was in the hands of experienced pilots.

Lesson to learn was that the Buffalo was still a good plane. It was able to fight with the best of them even with inexperienced pilots in the cockpit, but you really needed hardened pilots. The aircraft was still very compeditive till 1943, but after that technology start to leave the stubby fighter behind.
 
Eclipsed by beauty.

For me, unsurprisingly perhaps, the most under-rated aircraft of WW2 was..........

The Hawker Hurricane!!!

Overshadowed by the Spitfire cos it was better looking, the Hurricane was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time at the start of World War 2. It might not have been as fast as the Spit and the 109, but it could turn inside both of them, which is what most pilots required of their fighters. It was a more stable gun platform than the Spit and the fact that it's guns were grouped together meant that it delivered a heavier concentration of fire.
It drives me nuts when people say "Oh, yeah, the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain". Like hell it did. I love the Spitfire, it's heart-breakingly beautiful (at least in the Merlin engine form) and a superb fighter, but the Hurri was a proper bomber-killer. Hurricanes accounted for nearly 70% of ALL German losses during the Battle, not just air to air victories. If any aircraft can lay claim to the title of Battle winner, it's the Hurricane. One pilot at the time was quoted as saying "We were glad to have the Spitfire, but we HAD to have the Hurricane".
The Hurricane served on all fronts during the War and scored more victories, by far, than any other allied aircraft, including the Spitfire. It was the only fighter that could fly throughout Monsoon season in the SEAC. It's construction allowed for battle repairs to be carried out quickly, so it's serviceability was always high (this was vital during the BoB and the defence of Malta) and it's wide track undercarriage allowed it to operate from the roughest of airfields and desert landing grounds behind enemy lines during the desert war (special forces fighter plane?).
The Hurricane remained in frontline service with the RAF for ten years and the last RAF operators, 6 Sqn were, apparently, very reluctant to exchange them for Tempest VIs.
Anyway, rant over. I offer you the underdog, the diamond in the rough, one of the most adaptable aircraft (next to the mosquito) that the RAF have ever possessed.

:applause:THE HAWKER HURRICANE.:applause:

(Absolutely no bias at all here, no, not me, Guv. As objective as the next bloke, I am!!)

Cheers.

PomBee:ernae:
 
Has to be the Curtiss SB2c Helldiver, ...hands down.

The "A" model (SB2C-1) got a bad rap early on...

...then she went on to become the most prolific, ...w/ the most tonnage sunk, ...of any VB in WWII service...

...and is STILL referred to as "The Beast", ...and "Son-of-a-Bitch 2nd Class."
 
yes I have to agree with you Rami The Hawks are often over looked. The P-36 is very much ignored by historians, but it was one of the few aircraft that could actually turn with the Ki-43 Oscar.

The Oscar is considered one of the bench marks for dog fighters. it can climb fast, turn tight and so on, and the P-36 has these same qualities. Most of these Qualities were transitioned into the P-40 with its Allison engine. the extra weight did slow the climb down, but this still didn't stop the P-40 from becoming a very important asset in te Pacific and the MTO. In its element the P-40 could master the BF-109. It is fact that the Germans in a lot of cases would actually decide to go up above 15,000 feet because they didn't want to face the killer that the Warhawk was at low to medium altitude.

The P-40 proved to be a very adaptable aircraft.

Even in 1944 Curtiss was able to redesign the bird into the XP-40Q. This airplane had a new Allison engine, same one mounted in the Bell P-63, that overcame the higher altitude problem. The Q also had a new laminar flow wing. with clipped ends. In fly off tests with the P-63A, P-51D and the P-59A the P-40Q showed it was just as fast and agile as the rest of the competition. The reason it wasn't produced was because it would have required a major retool of the Curtis plant and that the P-51D Mustang was already in production, and that the Bell P-63A Kingcobra was already starting up in production for the USAAF and the Soviet Union. The Bell P-59 went on to become the USAAF's first jet. Even though the XP-40Q proved it was as good as the Mustang and the Kingcobra, it just didn't offer any advantage that would lead to full production.

But yes it is a shame the Hawks are often overlooked
 
Again in its element the P-39 was one hell of a dog fighter. but once the enemy ran above 15,000 that Allison engine chocked off. It was an excellent ground attack plane. The Russians would soup up the engines and produced a very fast fighter that could turn and fight with the best of them. Problem was the engines would have to be replaced after just about every flight.

The P-39 could pull combat maneuvers other planes would tear themselves apart pulling. One being the tail stand. Slam the throttle to full put yourself into a near vertical climb once the engine started to sputter pull back the throttle and the plane would slide back down the same vertical path it just climbed. nose her back to level and throttle up again and you are behind the enemy. This move was able to be done in the Airacobra because of the Center of Gravity the center mounted engine gave the bird.

Most of the problems with the P-39 was solved when Bell introduced the P-63

I only have a sight working knowledge of the I-16

For my opinions and assessments of the SB2C look at this thread:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=8952

As for the Hurricane, i can't add nothing to PomBee's assessment. His is right on.
 
Yeah, that...

Cowboy1968 said:
....One being the tail stand. Slam the throttle to full put yourself into a near vertical climb once the engine started to sputter pull back the throttle and the plane would slide back down the same vertical path it just climbed. nose her back to level and throttle up again and you are behind the enemy...
Click to expand...

....sounds appealing in typed words, but try that move in real combat against a worthy adversary in a Zeke or Oscar, he'll chew your ass to bits in the climb. If somehow you survive his first volley of fire, he'll climb past your stall and hammer-head or loop down on you as you "slide down that vertical path" and try to lower your nose...KAPOW! This kinda stuff looks great at airshows, but will kill you quicker than a bolt of lightning in real dogfights against people who know what they're doing.

In the HC Dogfights episodes i recall an early war Jap double-ace (Zeke pilot) who made his reputation doing just this. Except he baited following Wildcats into an energy-draining climb, out-climbed them and reverse-looped over the top to fall on them as they wallowed and slid down. He later met the Maker while trying this maneuver against Hellcats. They simply out-performed his poor little Mitsubishi A6M2 in the vertical fight.
 
I agree with two most firmly.
The Hawher Hurricane and the P-40.
For reasons already stated.

When flying in dogfights, I will almost always pick one or the other of these two. I have gotten used to them and their flight dynamics and actually prefer them against all German and Japanese aircraft. They both seem to absorb more enemy hits than any other fighters I have in my installs.

But then, I like to get in close and personal in my hairballs.
 
B-29

No glamor here.
Although plagued by engine problems of one degree or another throughout it's service, the B-29 was a very advance bomber for it's time.
Also...it was the fire bombing, atomic bomb, workhorse that played a large role in Japan's capitulation. :friday:
 
My nominations have already been covered. :)
Brewster Buffalo - a bit dated for WWII but still a maneuverable fighter until it was loaded down with radios and armor plate. The Finns did pretty well with them against the Soviets.
And two planes that unfairly ended up in the "other" category...
Hurricane - the "other fighter" of the Battle of Britain.
SB2C Helldiver - the "other dive bomber" of the Pacific Theater.
 
Just for grins and giggles, I would like to know how a P-40 would have performed with 4X50s on the wings, 1 or 2X20mm cannon on the nose, and a Griffon or Merlin turbo charged engine?
 
Devastator, it has similar than the japanese kate and I sink that it can be make in more number, is a basic and good torpeder!.The vultee V11G have more speed but this is other aircraft than Usa no use for torpeders missions in china or australia
And the prototipe of P-44 rocket, is have a good performance the cost is very inferior of P-47, and have more ceiling and speed than the P-40
I am agree about they sink of P-36! it is a good aircraft I campared this with Ki-43

I have a serius opinion but about of pre WWII Second Sino-Japanese
Breda Ba.27

this aircraft fly in 1933 and produced 14 in 1934, I can´nt beliave that the reggia no make more of this aircraft! this is a advanced model for the age

Maximum speed: 380 km/h (236 mph)
This aircraft has more little speed and service ceiling than the Boeing P-26
entered service before of P-26
-- and the speed is very cool to fight in the spanish civil war!, is more good than Fiat Cr-32 and I-15!
 
AZMod7243-Web.jpg
 
The TBD Devastator wasn't really a bad airplane. It was designed around the same time as the Buffalo and found itself having some of the same problems. It was drawing near to the end of the aircraft's useful life. This Bird raised hell with the Japanese for the first six months of the war. It performed well as a horizontal bomber on the Pacific Island raids of 1942. In the Torpedo run yes it was slow into the target. This made it fighter bait at Midway, but these loses wouldn't have happened if the attack had been done as the pilots were trained. A Coordinated attack involving the TBDs coming in low on the torpedo runs, while at the same time the SBD dive bombers would be making their runs from around 10,000 ft. while the F4F Wildcats covered the whole action.

The plane was to have this battle tactic but all the squadrons got FUBAR on navigation and the planes struck at different times.

Now when he attack worked right like in the early raids the TBD did well.

But after the heavy losses at Midway and with the production line for the TBD already producing other types of aircraft the remainder were withdrawn from front line service.

This was also pretty much the same story for another great plane. Vought SB2U Vindicator.
 
Devildog73 said:
Just for grins and giggles, I would like to know how a P-40 would have performed with 4X50s on the wings, 1 or 2X20mm cannon on the nose, and a Griffon or Merlin turbo charged engine?
Click to expand...

Great, ...

...all the way to the crash-site. (right after it tore itself apart.)
 
1......the MiG-3 - Russia's best WWII fighter - the shock & awe scourge of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern front. Responsible for the attrition of a huge number of enemy aircraft. Plus the fact that it was they which kept the cream of the Luftwaffe's fighter corp divided beween two fronts. Had they not been so effective, the Western allied strategic bombing campaign would have suffered even greater losses to German fighters with a full concenteration on the Western front.

2....the IL2 Sturmovik - Russia's best tactical bomber and the ultimate dedicated WWII tank-buster.
 
I agree with everything been said with the exception of Cowboys comment:

In RAF service the small number of Buffaloes were still able to achieve a 2 to 1 kill ratio even with inexperienced Australian pilots flying them. Again it is important to remember they were facing odds of 4 to 1 to as high as 6 to 1 against Japanese Army pilots who had years of experience in China.

We have to remember that there was a lot of propaganda in those days by both sides. If that would have been true the Japanese would not have been able to conquer one quarter of World surfice area in 1942.:ernae:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top