Aircraft Judged Harshly By History

[DoubleTap]

Gents,

[mctav]

[Perfesser]

Air combat wasn't taught very well by the Allies at the start of the war.

[Cold_Gambler]

I'm going to add the Dewoitine D.520, the Armée de l'Air is generally viewed as having been overwhelmed by the Luftwaffe in 1940 but the Dewoitine actually gave more than it took and its pilots liked it. It was quite modern in 1940 and, in a different scenario (if France and the UK had attacked immediately when Poland was invaded, rather than sitting on their heels, for example), might have really put some hurt on Germany's airforce.

Mind you, I don't know if it really fits in this thread: it has been forgotten rather than judged harshly.

[DoubleTap]

I'm going to add the Dewoitine D.520, the Armée de l'Air is generally viewed as having been overwhelmed by the Luftwaffe in 1940 but the Dewoitine actually gave more than it took and its pilots liked it. It was quite modern in 1940 and, in a different scenario (if France and the UK had attacked immediately when Poland was invaded, rather than sitting on their heels, for example), might have really put some hurt on Germany's airforce.

Mind you, I don't know if it really fits in this thread: it has been forgotten rather than judged harshly.

No, I think that counts.

[Jabo]

[JensenPark]

How about the lovely Stuka?

Much maligned as a flying coffin when facing modern or determined fighter opposition - but certainly not the case on the Eastern Front...

[erco]

The Brewster was a sad case of an airplane getting worse with development, as the F2A-3 was certainly not as good an aircraft as the B239.

[BadAim]

Just to be fair, it was someone else who brought up the profile of the Sherman, I don't recall who.

As a case in point, the Sherman did several things very well and several things well enough, much like the P40. The Sherman, like the P40 was as reliable as a brick, the inevitable maintenance nightmares that any complex and large piece of machinery will give you aside. Both were extremely rugged and could put up with a great deal of battlefield abuse. Both were great gunnery platforms and were adequately armed for the job at hand. Both suffered at the hands of a capable, well equipped and determined enemy, yet did the job anyway. Where, the two diverged was that the P40 was eventually replaced (though never completely), the Sherman was not. They were both the "tool at hand" and as such "brought the greatest wounds death and destruction to the enemy" when they were needed most. Who could ask for anything more?

[DoubleTap]

Just to be fair, it was someone else who brought up the profile of the Sherman, I don't recall who.

As a case in point, the Sherman did several things very well and several things well enough, much like the P40. The Sherman, like the P40 was as reliable as a brick, the inevitable maintenance nightmares that any complex and large piece of machinery will give you aside. Both were extremely rugged and could put up with a great deal of battlefield abuse. Both were great gunnery platforms and were adequately armed for the job at hand. Both suffered at the hands of a capable, well equipped and determined enemy, yet did the job anyway. Where, the two diverged was that the P40 was eventually replaced (though never completely), the Sherman was not. They were both the "tool at hand" and as such "brought the greatest wounds death and destruction to the enemy" when they were needed most. Who could ask for anything more?

[DoubleTap]

How about the lovely Stuka?

Much maligned as a flying coffin when facing modern or determined fighter opposition - but certainly not the case on the Eastern Front...

[JensenPark]

You read Rudel's book and it sounds like they had no fear of Russian air superiority - even later war flying Stukas.

Yea, he was an unrepentant Nazi...and not kind in his book to the Slav race - and there is some 'propaganda' - but they sure didn't have probs with the Russians.

Like the P40 - flown right till the end of the way - and flown/used properly - still quite useful. 

[DD_Arthur]

Who could ask for anything more?

Wellllllll........dont know much about P40's 'cept in 'Skies of Valor' where I found the higher you go the more a 109 is gonna own you

but I do know a little about tanks.

The Sherman was designed around early war US tactical doctrine; that armoured divisions would mainly be employed in exploitation and pursuit and would seldom be called upon to engage other tanks. Unfortunately this was bollox but to conform to this reasoning the Sherman sacrificed gun and armour for speed. The Sherman was fast, reliable, had a track life some five times that of a Panther with a quick turret traverse and a high rate of fire. However, in Normandy in mid 1944

[DD_Brando]

My father spent much of the war in a battlefield rescue team whose main purpose was to extract the crew from brewed -up tanks. He was the NCO-in-charge and was proud of how his team developed a system using webbing straps to hook-and-heave the casualties out in the shortest time possible, before the ammo started exploding. Often under fire from enemy infantry or armour, and always in danger from the damaged tank, it was a thankless task that doesn't get the same kind of mention as other battlefield heroics do. I recall that he praised the Sherman for being the easiest as far as crew-extraction was concerned.

He also mentioned that one of the basic tactics in the dash across France involved flanking the enemies' armour so as to get in a killing shot on the rear where the armour was weaker. That or pinning them down and calling up an SP gun, or a tank with a 17lber gun - both considered the best tank-destroyers. But he also said that a German tank could usually knock out Allied tanks at a ratio of about 3 or 4 to 1 if they we well-sited and dug-in. He was never out of work.

B

[BadAim]

The old quote from the German tanker seems apropos here: "Our tanks are worth ten of yours! But you always have eleven."

The fact of the matter is that the Sherman was a fine motorcar, a good tank; not so much. I would certainly never put the Sherman up against the Panther (it seems more than a bit silly) except in terms of reliability and perhaps mobility (While the Panther's cross country performance was legendary, it was always a bit dicey getting the thing across a typical European bridge of the time, not to mention the Tigers). It was, however fairly evenly matched with the Pzkw IV (especially the 76mm versions) and most of the various self propelled guns the germans used in great quantity, at least in my opinion.

The real bugaboo for the Sherman was the Panzerfaust. While there were precious few Panthers and Tigers to go around in France, every pimple faced kid in a German uniform had a couple of these throw away rocket launchers strapped across his back, and they made a bloody great nuisance of themselves.

[sged]

The P-40 in many accounts seems to get an overall bad rating, basically stating that it was overmatched versus the aircraft it was pitted against at the time.

[DoubleTap]

The P-40 in many accounts seems to get an overall bad rating, basically stating that it was overmatched versus the aircraft it was pitted against at the time.

[DD_Arthur]

The old quote from the German tanker seems apropos here: "Our tanks are worth ten of yours! But you always have eleven."

No matter how you look at it though, the Sherman was outmatched on the battlefield of 1944 and the cost in human lives was high, I only look to give credit where credit is due. I suppose the real credit goes to those who climbed into these various, terrible machines of war and rode them to their destiny.

+1 BadAim.