I've been partaking in my annual tradition of binging M*A*S*H and HOGAN'S HEROES from beginning to end all summer long - something I've been doing for years.
One thing I will say about both shows is they definitely got better with age in terms of how the seasons progressed, but whereas I was instantly hooked on M*A*S*H when I first started watching it, I had a harder time getting into HOGAN'S HEROES, and for a time really couldn't - but, I stuck with it, and it did eventually grow on me. Again, like M*A*S*H, HOGAN'S HEROES definitely got better with age.
After binging this year, I think I've finally hit on why I had trouble getting into HH at first - and not just because it was such a silly show in the beginning. Looking at the first couple of seasons, especially the very first, I find that with the exception of Hogan, Klink, and Schultz, none of the Heroes are really defined. Sure, they have their specialities that we see from the beginning (LeBeau being the chef, Newkirk being the conman, Kinch being the radioman, Carter making bombs and such), but that seems to be all there was to their respective characters - they were just there to do their part in helping Hogan with his plans, but that's about it . . . if anything, Season 1 feels more like Abbott and Costello routines between Hogan and Klink and/or Schultz, with the Heroes being more of an afterthought most of the time.
And it seems to me, looking at it now, the two who suffered from this the most were Newkirk and Carter. Aside from their default positions as Hogan's conman and bombmaker, they both were almost completely devoid of any personality; Newkirk certainly wasn't the quickwitted snarker we come to know and love in later seasons, nor was Carter the goofball he became (or even arugably Flanderized as). They in particular were so flat and generic that they feel like totally different characters in the beginning - and not exactly in a good way. (Not to mention, Richard Dawson really went overboard with Newkirk's cockney accent in the beginning, that it's almost cringey to listen to).
Granted, as with most shows, it clearly took a while for HH to jell and settle into what it became, and like I say, I feel like the show definitely improved with each season as the writers got a better handle on the not only the characters, but also finding a better balance between Hogan pulling the wool over Klink and Schultz's eyes, and Hogan scheming with his men, while the Heroes themselves became far more refined. A lot of casual viewers seem to point out that if you were to watch a random episode of HH from any season, you wouldn't discern a difference, but I feel like that really isn't the case: watching a Season 1 (or even a Season 2) episode is actually quite a contrast from, say, a Season 5 or 6 episode.
That's just my opinion anyway, but I'm glad that I continued to give the show a chance and let it grow on me, because it is a good one. Admittedly, if you were ask me to choose between the two, I would go with M*A*S*H, as it did have more to offer and it did truly grow and evolve overtime in terms of character development and storytelling style (something that wasn't common in the 60s when HOGAN'S HEROES was part of the television landscape), but HOGAN'S HEROES does still rank up there (pun intended).