[MoMo]

The two worst planes in WW2 were the Fairey Battle and the Boulton Paul Defiant.

The Battle was a goner from the moment it entered the fray in the blitzkreig on France. Hardly any ever came back after attacking the Meuse bridges. In three or four ops against the German ground forces, they batted an average attrition rate of 80 to 90%!


The Boulton Paul Defiant was a joke plane that looked like a Hurri with a dorsal turret! It was designed to fly level with enemy bombers and shoot them down in droves. This never happened!


The B.P.D. managed to shoot down a few german aircraft when it was mistaken for a Hurricane from behind. The attacking German aircraft were surprised by the rear-firing ' Hurricanes ' and got a nasty shock! As soon as the Germans realised their mistakes, the Defiants were shot down in droves and had to be withdrawn from the BOB early in the battle.

Anyone who bad-mouths the Spitfire hasn't looked at the histories. Book after book, story after story, the Spit was treated as an expensive lover by her pilots. They adored the ladies of the skies with a passion which has never been equalled by any aircraft. The Spitfire in all its forms lived and grew through the war, gaining the benefit from advancing technology and from the experience of its pilots.

" My " Spitfire ( in the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow )



The Spit and the Hurricane saved Britain and ( bring it on! ) possibly the whole of Europe from Nazi domination. With no Britain in the war, the campaign against Russia would have been vastly different, and the ball would have been on the slates!

No, Chums, you can't even begin to over-rate the contribution and performance of the Spitfire!

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Berkut76

I have to go with P-51D. An excellent, but overrated fighter. Even when it first arrived on the battlefield, the might of Luftwaffe has already being chewed by P-47, P-51B/C, Spitfires on the Western Front, and La-5s, Yak-9s, and of course, P-39s on the Eastern Front.

P-51D did an excellent clean up job on a few still living experten and a bunch of poorly trained novices, but once again it's not what PR made o fit.

Regards,

Sergey

LoL!

Sergey, how do you come up with that stuff? This is just too funny!

Unbelievable...

All the other posts in this thread can be argued with, pro/con, but this one is just beyond rescue. I don't think I'll even waste time explaining why.

FVD

[Shamrock]

You are spot on Mo Mo regarding the Spitfire. From 1939 -1945 it did everything that was asked of it superbly. The Lancaster was an exceptional aircraft and IMHO the best of any Allied four motors. It could have even better had it been fitted (mentioned by Timbo) with a ventral turret. The armament of .303 machine guns (unless fired by an excellent gunner at close range) was of no great deterrent to the heavily armed German nightfighters. Most gunners got their captain to corkscrew left or right to avoid the fighters as they reckoned they had a better chance of survival that way. Often gunners would prefer not to open fire lest they draw attention to the aircraft.The solution I feel was .50 Brownings which were fitted later in the war. There was a shortage between 1942 - 1944 of these fine machine guns as they were needed for P-51s, P47s, P-38s etc. A 'must read' book on this topic is 'Bomber Boys' by Patrick Bishop who also wrote the fantastic 'Fighter Boys'.

[david cotton]

Just a note on crew Survival in Bombers. If a British 4 engine bomer was shot down, it was normal for 80% of the crew to persish. If a B17 or B24 was shot down, then %80 would normally survive. Source. Martin Middlebrook, The Schwieinfurt - Regensburg Mission - page 282...have a read, its a good book.

[SKUNKY]

"The day I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up." Hermann Goering

I guess 'ol Hermie didn't think the P-51 was too over-rated.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by stalag8611

Actually, if you really think about it, the Spitfire was probably the most overrated fighter the Allies had in WW II. The Darling of the Runways got all the BoB glory, while the much undervalued Hurricane did all the heavy lifting. Movies like "A Yank in the RAF" and "Reach for the Sky" glorified the plane, but even numerous modifications could not make the Spit into a great fighterplane.

Adolf Galland seems to like the Spitfire....

http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/quotes.htm

[timbo]

Originally Posted by david cotton

Just a note on crew Survival in Bombers. If a British 4 engine bomer was shot down, it was normal for 80% of the crew to persish. If a B17 or B24 was shot down, then %80 would normally survive. Source. Martin Middlebrook, The Schwieinfurt - Regensburg Mission - page 282...have a read, its a good book.

I have a tough time believing that 80% survival rate. Here's a breakdown of the 303rd BG casualties. There casualty rate was more like 50%

http://www.303rdbg.com/h-facts.html

Not as bad a 80% casualty rate though

[Berkut76]

Originally Posted by SKUNKY

"The day I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up." Hermann Goering

I guess 'ol Hermie didn't think the P-51 was too over-rated.

The phrase above refers to P-51B/Cs and not P-51D.

Regards,

Sergey

[Epapazian]

I think we should consider how some of the planes we are praising or dumping on were employed or,in some cases, misused. For example, the British Battle light attack bomber was quite an advanced design in the late 1930s, but the way the RAF used it in its desperate attempts to stem Germany's panzers in May 1940 was little less than criminal. These planes were sent in to bomb vital targets like bridges, without fighter cover and came in low on totally predictable flightpaths, allowing the waiting German flack batteries to ambush them. Suppose, instead, that squadrons of Spitfires ( which weren't even sent to France until it was too late) were there to provide cover against the BF-109s, while squadrons of Hurricanes flew in ahead of the Battles to strafe and silence the German AA guns. Under this scenario the Battles might well have destroyed those bridges and slowed down Guderian's boys. Also, regarding the dear old Hurricane which did fine work for most of the war when used in ground attack, its performance during the Battle of Britain is misleading. Yes, the Hurricane shot down more German planes than the Spitfire, but the RAF had at least twice as many Hurricanes in service and the Hurricanes were used primarily to attack German bomber formations while the far more capable Spits kept the BF-109s off their tails. Typically, the latter set of opponents was evenly matched, but the odds of a Hurricane beating a BF109 in plane to plane combat- all other factors held even- were not very high.

[jim]

Originally Posted by Epapazian

, but the odds of a Hurricane beating a BF109 in plane to plane combat- all other factors held even- were not very high.

Please understand that once the dogfighting began there was rarely any one on one dogfights, it was just a quick burst at passing opposition, constant turning diving a quick shot etc.
I think the Hurricane pilots would take great exception to your quote and the facts show just the opposite.
Use your aircraft to its strengths, the Hurricane had many and I think Bader and many others would give you a very hard time for that quote of yours.

In fighter versus fighter the Hurricane could hold its own, no problem.

As to getting up high and taking on the the Luftwaffe top cover then the Spit was undoubtably better and thats what it did.
Use your aircraft to its strengths!!!