• 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.
Cowboy1968 said:
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losses at Midway and with the production line for the TBD already producing other types of aircraft the remainder were withdrawn from front line service.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.
Click to expand...

This is ok, but the model can be update, add more power engines, etc
why japanese make B5N kate and they are good to atack ships and no for devastators?
 
From what I understand The B-26 marauder has for the most been forgotten by history and, all of the movies show the B-17 not the B-24 carrying the warlord over fortress Europe.
 
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...

They put a Merlin and got a very small improvement, less than 10 MPH. The Hawks has a handicap: they use an outdate wing profile, the same used at A-17 Nomad dive bomber. In my opinion, P-40 is an OVERATED plane. The Flying Tigers inflated their reputation by their INFLATED victory claims. The same must be said about Brewster victories at Finn hands.

Pepe
 
Good question! My favorite is the F4F. It produced when the chips were down. It out performed French aircraft over Casablanca and mastered the excellent Zero. (The quality of the pre-war USN pilots might have had something to do with it.) Besides, I like it's looks. :woot:
 
American?
P-39 Airacobra. I know a pilot who flew both it and the P-38. He didn't have much in the way of negatives to say about the P-39, but he flew the P-38 in combat.

(BTW if you wan tot know how a P-40 perfromed with 4 .50 cal guns, look up the P-40L)

(The Buffalo as underrated? Eh, it diserved it's reputation me thinks. Finns did good with it though!)

British?
Hurricane, but its still very well respected.

French?
That's a hard one. the D.520 was seen as the best. Maybe the MB152?

Soviet?
MiG-3, It's only problem which was it's down fall is that it was not designed for combat at low latitudes. (Humm seems to be the inverse of the P-39)

Australian?
Boomerang, It just doesn't seem to be that well known. I have read a few reports where in some cases it's manuverability was better then a Spitfire MkV.

Japanese?
Humm I'd say the Ki-44. It was not operated widely in the PTO, and had a bit of a negative stigma attached to it's by it's crews as being a Hot fighter. But it really paved the way for the Ki-84. I'd also say the Ki-61 was underrated, but it's engine really gave it the black eye.

German?
Tough one. Maybe the Ju-88? Nah, it was the German swiss army knife! performing more roles then even the Fw-190.
 
Another under-served British bird: The Bristol Blenheim.

First aircraft to fly into enemy territory after Britains declaration of war. Served with all Commands of the RAF in every Theatre of WW2, in fact the only 'modern' bomber in the Far East theatre for quite a while.

All three major marks were flown by recipient of the Victoria Cross:
The MkI by Sqn Ldr Arthur Scarf of 62 Sqn on 9 Dec 1941 in Malaya (posthumous)
The MkIV by Wg Cmdr 'Hughie' Edwards of 105 Sqn on 4 July 1941 over Bremen
The MkV by Wg Cmdr Hugh Malcolm of 18 Sqn on 4 December 1942 over the Western Desert (posthumous)
 
Cowboy1968 said:
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.
...
Click to expand...

If you ask Finns they agree.:d

Pekka

:finland:
 
In an experenced hand the Buffalo was deadly, It could turn with the Zero. And when they weren't out numbered to the point of chasing one and having two on your tail the Buffalo did a good job. Yes it was at the end of its career, just as the F4F was drawing near obsolescence. The only thing that really saved the Wildcat was that the US needed a fighter that was small enough to be carried in numbers aboard the escort carriers and the Wildcat had the fortune of still being in production and was just the right size.

IN an honest evaluation of the Wildcat you discover it really wasn't that much faster or that much more nimble then the Buffalo, Both the Buffalo and Wildcat faced the same problem, the Zero could out climb them both, and the Oscar could out turn and out climb them both. But when both were used in an even fight, and using the team tactics figured out by the US Navy and USMC pilots they both could take their Japanese opponents. The Buffalo was a victim of its circumstances....out numbered and maned by inexperience of its pilots. And being a plane that was already going out of production in favor of more modern equipment the Buffalo was regulated to training duties in the USA. For an airplane that was so bad, many army and navy pilots hated having to face it in training exercises of mock combat. It was used this way tell spares started to run short and about four o fthem were still being used as squadron hacks even into 1947

Would you call the A6M5 Zero\Zeke a bad plane. In 1944, it was facing the same problems that Burralo faced. It was out numbered and facing more nimble planes then it was. If you aply the opinions applied to the Buffalo to the A6M, then i guess it was a bad plane.
 
If underrated also means forgotten I have a strong bias towards the B-26 Marauder. Able to out run most every fighter (top speed 340+) carry up to 4500 lbs of bombs (as much as most 4 engine bombers), dogfight with 4 forward 50cals, had the best combat survivability record of all allied aircraft I believe, out performed a p-38 once (Tales of the Marauders), feared and avoided by enemy pilots in every theater, not to mention a long list of aircraft construction firsts. Once you got the knack of handling her she was a true pilots aircraft. Yet despite all that the Marauder is seldom if ever mentioned or exploits recounted in any venue. Just my 2 cents.
Great thread!!! Love the other entries-now I want find them to fly!
 
Since my other favorites for this catagory have been taken, I submitt to you the SBD dauntless. It performed long range scout duties, was at the end of its, service life when it turned the tide of the war at MIdway and was even successfully flown in a dog fight against 3to1 odds. P.S. the p40 with a merlin 65 might have been better off, but if any one has noticed, the p40 has enough lift to take off without flaps, or am I full of it?:woot:
 
A good example of underrated aircraft is the series of Italian Reggiane fighters (2000, 2001 and 2002). 2005 was not underrated). The Re. 2000-2001-2002 were underrated by the own Regia Aeronautica despite performing better than their competitors (Macchi 200, Fiat G.50, Fiat CR.42,...). Many thinks helped but basically it was the strong bias of the Italian Air Ministry officials to favour bigger, more established companies and also the policy of dividing the production between different factories and models. The outcome was that only a handful of Re. 2000-2001-2002 were built (somekind of experimental or pre-series batches) so in the end there was very few ground personnel that know how to maintain and repair them. Also, spare parts were scarce as they were not produced after the end of the pre-series batch.
It is a pitty, as the designers of these aircraft (Longhi and Alessi) were of the very few in Italy at the time that had experience working on foreign aircraft industries (US, Seversky in their case) so they had a more open mind to innovations than their local competitors. In fact, looking a Re.2000 one finds some familiarity with the Seversky P.35!
It is interesting to see also that they cared of using a more powerful plant (Piaggio P.XI, 986 HP) than their competitors, that were unanimously mounting the underpowered Fiat A74 (840 HP). Just an example of common sense!
 
The Hawker Hurricane is my choice - very versatile.
A friend of Dads was a Polish pilot, who escaped from Poland, through France to England. He flew the Hurricane in England and the Med., and swore by it - preferred it ti the Spit - said it was rugged and tough.....and crashed well! (he was shot down 3 times......:Banane15:)
...and the P36 - P40 Hawks..
 
In an experenced hand the Buffalo was deadly, It could turn with the Zero. And when they weren't out numbered to the point of chasing one and having two on your tail the Buffalo did a good job. Yes it was at the end of its career, just as the F4F was drawing near obsolescence. The only thing that really saved the Wildcat was that the US needed a fighter that was small enough to be carried in numbers aboard the escort carriers and the Wildcat had the fortune of still being in production and was just the right size.

IN an honest evaluation of the Wildcat you discover it really wasn't that much faster or that much more nimble then the Buffalo, Both the Buffalo and Wildcat faced the same problem, the Zero could out climb them both, and the Oscar could out turn and out climb them both. But when both were used in an even fight, and using the team tactics figured out by the US Navy and USMC pilots they both could take their Japanese opponents. The Buffalo was a victim of its circumstances....out numbered and maned by inexperience of its pilots. And being a plane that was already going out of production in favor of more modern equipment the Buffalo was regulated to training duties in the USA. For an airplane that was so bad, many army and navy pilots hated having to face it in training exercises of mock combat. It was used this way tell spares started to run short and about four o fthem were still being used as squadron hacks even into 1947

Would you call the A6M5 Zero\Zeke a bad plane. In 1944, it was facing the same problems that Burralo faced. It was out numbered and facing more nimble planes then it was. If you aply the opinions applied to the Buffalo to the A6M, then i guess it was a bad plane.

By 1941, the Buffalo was totally unsuitable as a carrier fighter, the landing gear struts were too weak for carrier ops, probably because of the added weight. True, the Zero could easily out maneuver the Wildcat, but then what. A Zero on a Wildcat's tail did not automatical have a kill, the armor was proof agains the MG fire and would sometimes stop a canon shell. On the other hand, the six fifties of a F4f would shred a Zero. Often, particularly at Guadalcanal, the Widcats enjoyed a tactical advantage. The Zeros had flown all the way from Rabaul and would be tired from the long flight. Most of the times the Wildcats had advanced warning from coast watchers and radar and would be well placed for interception. By 1944 the Zero was still a good plane, but the quality of the pilots had really deterioted. Good tactics and good pilots made all the difference. The B-26 had relatively short wings for it's body, it was nicknamed "the flying prostitute" because it had no visible means of support.
.
 
What about some "props" (excuse the bad humor) for the Douglas A-20 Havoc? She may not have been as glamorous as the B-17 and even the B-25 Mitchell, but she was powerful, versatile, reasonably fast, (it could keep pace with a Mk. I Hurricane and a Dewoitine D-520) agile, and rugged. She was used by France, Russia, the US, UK, and several other air forces.
 
If you look at the A-20, then you have to look at its follow on the A-26 Invader. You ddn't see movies made about this Douglas gem of a plane, but it not only soldiered well in WW2, but it also was used to great effect in KOrea.

Then it was brought back again into inventory for the Vietnam War in the COIN (counter insurgency) role and supply interdiction missions. It was one hell of a light bomber that handled like a fighter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top