Most under rated Allied aircraft.

[crsutton]

My vote is the coronado transport. 16,000 lb. payload and the ability to transport to any dot base that is on water. You only get about 50 of these gems, so use them wisely.

[spence]

Just cause it is a picture of a PB2Y-5 in action.



BTW this is indicative of level bombing the Navy Way (right from the get go though this picture was taken in 1945).

[crsutton]

Actually, the patrol bomber is only fair due to its high service rating. Catalina is a much better plane and much more useful. I am referring to the transport version of which the Allies only get a handful.

[terje439]

Maybe not underrated, but gee I want alot more of;

Mitchell Pr.II
20/25 range for an Allied early war scout



Terje

[JohnDillworth]

P40E gets a lot of crap for not being a Zero. It's perfectly adequate for the time and situation. Never great, but it's what the Allies had it I'm happy for every one. I also like the F4F-7 Wildcat. Massive range for a single engine recon plane. By the time you get them you probably have a small base in the Salomons that will allow it just to reach and recon Truk. Can these fellas be based on a Carrier?

[jeffk3510]

So long as it is "carrier capable" and "carrier trained".  Correct me if I am wrong someone..

[WLockard]

P39D, in the game it is better than the P40-E

[Shark7]

The Brewster Buffalo B.339 gets a bad rap due to the experiences the British had with them, but when flown by well trained pilots against aircraft they were not so horridly mismatched against, they did very well (talking the ones flown by the Finnish Air Force against the Russians). Let's face it, the British forces in Malaya in 1941 were stripped down in an effort to defend the homeland, they had some disadvantages.

[Nemo121]

Aye, the B339 is definitely under-rated. I'd also put in the I-15 and I-16. I've had multiple Dutch aces in the B339 and also multiple Chinese aces in the I-15s and I-16s. The Chinese avoided Zeroes but the B339s all had some Zero kills. It is all about how you use them.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

So long as it is "carrier capable" and "carrier trained".  Correct me if I am wrong someone..

It is not "carrier capable" in the game which is an oversight as it was able to fly from carriers. However, I do not think it could get off a carrier when fully loaded with fuel so the range was not as great.


But a valuable plane early in the game when the Allies have virtually no decent recon aircraft.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The Brewster Buffalo B.339 gets a bad rap due to the experiences the British had with them, but when flown by well trained pilots against aircraft they were not so horridly mismatched against, they did very well (talking the ones flown by the Finnish Air Force against the Russians). Let's face it, the British forces in Malaya in 1941 were stripped down in an effort to defend the homeland, they had some disadvantages.

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.

[LeeChard]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Aye, the B339 is definitely under-rated. I'd also put in the I-15 and I-16. I've had multiple Dutch aces in the B339 and also multiple Chinese aces in the I-15s and I-16s. The Chinese avoided Zeroes but the B339s all had some Zero kills. It is all about how you use them.

I agree, if you take the time to train the chinese pilots to a reasonable standard you can do some damage with the I-15 and I-16. The problem is getting enough planes. I tend to disband squadrons to fill out my active ones.

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The Brewster Buffalo B.339 gets a bad rap due to the experiences the British had with them, but when flown by well trained pilots against aircraft they were not so horridly mismatched against, they did very well (talking the ones flown by the Finnish Air Force against the Russians). Let's face it, the British forces in Malaya in 1941 were stripped down in an effort to defend the homeland, they had some disadvantages.

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.

It can't just be put down to good pilots.
The Brewster in Finnish service achieved a much, much higher kill \ loss ratio than either the Bf-109 or the Fw-190 in German service did against the same opponents, and I haven't seen any evidence that he Finns were substantially better pilots than the Germans.
(for the record Finnsish Brewsters scored 32:1 kill loss.)

[crsutton]

I admit that I pulled this directly from Wiki, but sometimes the people writing for Wiki know their stuff.

Yeah, I would have to say it was the pilots in this case. And the fact that the Buffalo was at least a marginally better fighter than the I15 and I16 fighters that it was facing during this period. The kill ratio that you cite is for a period early in the war. It does not apply to the whole war. The Red Air force got fairly proficient at killing both German and Finnish pilots as the war progressed. And an average pilot in a Yak 3 would probably eat up a good pilot in a Buffalo

Attacking Soviet Air Force pilots using formulaic defensive tactics, many Finnish pilots racked up enormous scores on the Finnish front. The default tactic was the four-plane "parvi" (swarm) with a pair flying low (but visible, not too close to the terrain) as the bait and a pair flying high to dive on the eventual interceptors. In the long run, the Soviet Air Force on the Finnish front never developed an efficient approach to counter this tactic. According to some reports, this tactic also inspired the German Luftwaffe's kette.[citation needed] Most of the pilots of Lentolaivue 24 were Winter War combat veterans. This squadron achieved total of 459 Soviet aircraft kills with B-239s, while losing 15 Buffalos in combat.[6]

While the remarkable Finnish accomplishments in the Buffalo are undeniable, aviation historian Dan Ford points out that Stalin's purges and recent expansion of the Soviet Air Force resulted in many new inexperienced pilots while simultaneously discouraging combat initiative. The result was pilots who failed to scan the airspace behind them, and also Soviet air formations that held their positions in defensive circles while the diving Finnish pilots picked them off one-by-one. The Soviet fighter aircraft used in the early years on the Finnish front also included some obsolescent models such as the Polikarpov I-15 and I-153. After the end of hostilities, Karhunen, the captain and commander of the 3rd flight of LeLv 24, recalled:

"The Brewster model 239 was good against the older Russian fighters, Polikarpov I-153 Chaika (Gull) and I-16. Hence the period 1941–42 was the best time for us. In 1943 it was already significantly more difficult when the Russians began to use their newer fighters against us... Later, with the Yaks, Hurricanes, Tomahawks, LaGG-3 and MiGs, it became a fight to the death."[42]


Ack, I think I am hijacking my own thread...[:D]

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: spence

Just cause it is a picture of a PB2Y-5 in action.



BTW this is indicative of level bombing the Navy Way (right from the get go though this picture was taken in 1945).

Perhaps its just my eyes but if you look off the bow of the ship, I think I see the plane that dropped the bomb or torp flying rather low. Anybody else see it

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: spence

Just cause it is a picture of a PB2Y-5 in action.



BTW this is indicative of level bombing the Navy Way (right from the get go though this picture was taken in 1945).

Perhaps its just my eyes but if you look off the bow of the ship, I think I see the plane that dropped the bomb or torp flying rather low. Anybody else see it

Probably a torpedo, PBYs were capable of using torpedoes

[Fallschirmjager]

The Bolo. It makes a good ASW plane all the way into 1942 and even into 1943 if you are short of upgrades.

In the late war I think the Twin Mustang. If the Allies allowed for player defined research I would pour resources into this plane. I have seen kill ratios of 25:1 when playing Downfall.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I admit that I pulled this directly from Wiki, but sometimes the people writing for Wiki know their stuff.

Yeah, I would have to say it was the pilots in this case. And the fact that the Buffalo was at least a marginally better fighter than the I15 and I16 fighters that it was facing during this period. The kill ratio that you cite is for a period early in the war. It does not apply to the whole war. The Red Air force got fairly proficient at killing both German and Finnish pilots as the war progressed. And an average pilot in a Yak 3 would probably eat up a good pilot in a Buffalo

Attacking Soviet Air Force pilots using formulaic defensive tactics, many Finnish pilots racked up enormous scores on the Finnish front. The default tactic was the four-plane "parvi" (swarm) with a pair flying low (but visible, not too close to the terrain) as the bait and a pair flying high to dive on the eventual interceptors. In the long run, the Soviet Air Force on the Finnish front never developed an efficient approach to counter this tactic. According to some reports, this tactic also inspired the German Luftwaffe's kette.[citation needed] Most of the pilots of Lentolaivue 24 were Winter War combat veterans. This squadron achieved total of 459 Soviet aircraft kills with B-239s, while losing 15 Buffalos in combat.[6]

While the remarkable Finnish accomplishments in the Buffalo are undeniable, aviation historian Dan Ford points out that Stalin's purges and recent expansion of the Soviet Air Force resulted in many new inexperienced pilots while simultaneously discouraging combat initiative. The result was pilots who failed to scan the airspace behind them, and also Soviet air formations that held their positions in defensive circles while the diving Finnish pilots picked them off one-by-one. The Soviet fighter aircraft used in the early years on the Finnish front also included some obsolescent models such as the Polikarpov I-15 and I-153. After the end of hostilities, Karhunen, the captain and commander of the 3rd flight of LeLv 24, recalled:

"The Brewster model 239 was good against the older Russian fighters, Polikarpov I-153 Chaika (Gull) and I-16. Hence the period 1941–42 was the best time for us. In 1943 it was already significantly more difficult when the Russians began to use their newer fighters against us... Later, with the Yaks, Hurricanes, Tomahawks, LaGG-3 and MiGs, it became a fight to the death."[42]


Ack, I think I am hijacking my own thread...[:D]

Both pilots and hardware. The Leningrad front was a kind of a secondary front to the Soviets, and they would not send their best hardware there until March 1943(the same month LeLv34 was founded and received its first Bf 109s) in the form of 3rd Guards regiment that had 1 of its 3 squadrons equipped with Lavochin La-5, and later another regiment in Leningrad air defense. And while Magnusson's LeLv24 had mostly well trained veteran pilots, same could not be said about the Soviets. Even later in the war with clearly better aircraft(La-5, P-39N and Yak-9; Yak-3 was only used against Germans and in relatively small numbers) they lacked the individual pilots' skill, tactics and organisation to fully exploit them. Even the La-5s of the 3rd Guards managed to shoot just a single 109 of the LeLv34, in a bad weather radar and GCI guided ambush...

In late Spring of 1944 the Soviets had over 1,000 aircraft between the front and Leningrad vs. 6 Finnish 109s in at Suulajärvi - and the B-239 had been pulled from frontline use as LeLv24's last wings had received Bf 109s. On the other hand, P-36s that were as numerous as Buffaloes, served in the fighter role until the end of the war, and they didnt do much worse, really. [:)]

[crsutton]

Thanks for the info.

Back to the original subject, I also favor the liberator long range transport. Once again, you only get a pitiful supply (3 per month) but it is a great plane for deep para drops.

[Sardaukar]

Some good info about Finnish fighter tactics and pilots in WW II:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/history.htm

The most important element in the fighter combat was surprise, and that was the goal which always had to be tried to reach for. A big and tight formation could very seldom achieve the surprise because it was easily seen from far away and the pilots couldn`t keep good lookout while working to maintain their positions in the formation. On the other hand, a section with the two fighters about 100 - 150 yards away from each other, or the division with 300 - 400 yards between the two sections, were found to be very effective in the search exercises. This kind of formation tactics was adopted by the FAF during 1934 and 1935 and it became the standard method in the Finnish fighter units since then. Every pilot was free to keep a good lookout to every direction and also all the time to check the six of the other pilots. In addition to that this kind of small and loose formation was seen much later because all of its aircraft were not always at the same time in the view of the opponent. The search phase was heavily emphasized in the training and the ability in that was an important factor in the evaluation of the fighter pilot`s skill.

It was also found in training that one of the most important skills of the fighter pilot was the shooting accuracy; the ability to judge the right deflection during maneuvering, to estimate the right shooting distance and to concentrate the fire on the point target, for example on some vulnerable part of the target airplane. The shooting training became an essential, and in times dominating, part of the fighter training. The Käkisalmi air gunnery camp on the coast of Lake Ladoga was a big contributor to the shooting accuracy of the Finnish fighter pilots.

The good self confidence which was acquired from the air gunnery camps and air combat training was the basis for the Finnish fighter pilots` success in the Winter War.

The Finnish fighter tactics differed before the Winter War from almost all other nations` fighter tactics. Only the Germans had during the last phase of the Spanish War began to use the similar tactical principles as the Finns.

When the FAF in the spring of 1943 got the Messerschmitt 109 G fighters, the performance balance was once again stabilized, but the Soviet numerical superiority was increasing steadily. The most air operations concentrated on the Gulf of Finland where the Brewsters still were able to fight successfully by using several divisions stacked high one above another. The pilots took advantage of the potential energy and their good flying skill and shooting accuracy.

There are three basic things which made the Finnish fighter force successful:

• The philosophy of loose and broad section and finger four formations which the FAF adopted already in 1935.
• The emphasis on individual accuracy in air-to-air gunnery which was trained for systematically. The Finnish fighter pilots didn`t just shoot at the target airplane, they shot at certain parts of the target airplane.
• The principle to attack regardless of numbers which always gives the advantage of initiative.

[blockquote] [/blockquote]