Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/3/2013 6:53:26 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 22209
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer cat

You go to war with what you have, not what you want.



Yes, of course, but my main point was in regard to prewar preparations. After all, when was the Japanese invasion of China? The writing was on the wall.

(in reply to panzer cat)
Post #: 31
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/3/2013 6:58:25 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 22209
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Torpedo release speed 115 max

Glide bomb speed 200 mph

Lousy range.


I realize aircraft development was advancing quickly but that means you have to accelerate the product cycle or make some other adaptation (all SBD's for example). It may well be true the Navy could not do much between Dec 41 and June 42 but that just means there was a management failure beforehand. Seems to me they could have stolen SBD's dedicated to the Marine Corps..

Many crews were lost at Midway because of decisions made before the war. Imagine if there were a more capable torepdo bomber at Midway. All 4 IJN carriers might ahve been sunk right off the bat?
warspite1

Ditto the FAA - imagine what the RN could have done with a proper aircraft....




Not sure if this is said with a wink or not. Take the Bismarck. A stringbag jammed her rudder and doomed her but amore capable carrier force might have kept her at home.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 32
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/3/2013 7:09:05 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42185
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Torpedo release speed 115 max

Glide bomb speed 200 mph

Lousy range.


I realize aircraft development was advancing quickly but that means you have to accelerate the product cycle or make some other adaptation (all SBD's for example). It may well be true the Navy could not do much between Dec 41 and June 42 but that just means there was a management failure beforehand. Seems to me they could have stolen SBD's dedicated to the Marine Corps..

Many crews were lost at Midway because of decisions made before the war. Imagine if there were a more capable torepdo bomber at Midway. All 4 IJN carriers might ahve been sunk right off the bat?
warspite1

Ditto the FAA - imagine what the RN could have done with a proper aircraft....




Not sure if this is said with a wink or not. Take the Bismarck. A stringbag jammed her rudder and doomed her but amore capable carrier force might have kept her at home.
warspite1

A wink? No. Just as the USN could have done better at Midway (and elsewhere) with better equipment then so could the FAA.

A more capable carrier force (from the Victorious) could have sunk/damaged Bismarck earlier. A more capable carrier force could have given Cunningham the chance to properly engage the Italians at Calabria or Spartivento. The damage at Taranto could have been much worse or the outcome at Matapan even better.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 33
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/3/2013 7:36:51 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 22209
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

A wink? No. Just as the USN could have done better at Midway (and elsewhere) with better equipment then so could the FAA.

A more capable carrier force (from the Victorious) could have sunk/damaged Bismarck earlier. A more capable carrier force could have given Cunningham the chance to properly engage the Italians at Calabria or Spartivento. The damage at Taranto could have been much worse or the outcome at Matapan even better.



Agreed. Not to mention a bit less suffering on the way to Murmansk and a possible shutdown of supply convoys to North Africa.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 34
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/3/2013 11:50:51 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10376
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The US probably wouldn't have done much better at Midway with TBFs in the CV air groups. The first batch of TBFs had already been delivered to VT-8. They arrived at PH the day after the Hornet left for Midway. Because there was an operational gag order on, the TBFs could not fly out to the carrier. Most of the crews were left cooling their heels in Pearl, however 6 were sent to Midway.

In their first sortie the TBFs from Midway had an identical survivor to loss ration as the 3 TBD squadrons from the carriers. The torpedo planes were dropping a poor torpedo with only limited or no fighter cover against some of the best carrier fighter pilots in the world. The Japanese also put a priority on shooting down torpedo bombers because they saw them as the greater threat. In their own air wings the Kates were the ship killers and the Vals were primarily there to just cause damage to allow the Kates to get through (at least against large ships).

Until 1938 the US didn't have the political will to put much money into new military aircraft. When Roosevelt got money broken free for military build-up, the bulk of the first installment went into ship building. In part because of the long lead time, but also because Roosevelt liked ships. He had been Secretary of the Navy. The Navy issued the specifications for modern carrier aircraft as soon as it was able to, which was 1938. The specification showed a very forward thinking design philosophy. The fighter that came out of that specification remained in the Navy's inventory until around 1955. The torpedo bomber soldiered on in auxiliary roles almost as long.

The Navy was doing the best they could with what they could get politically.

If you want to play the "what if" game with Midway, you should look to the leadership on the Hornet. Waldron was the only really competent commander in the air group. Stanhope Ring, the CAG was someone who had risen in the ranks due to political connections and was completely out of his depth commanding an air group. At Midway Waldron asked that half the fighters cover his TBDs, but Ring refused and insisted that all fighters stay with the SBDs (Ring was flying an SBD). When they were briefing for the mission, Waldron correctly surmised where the KB was from the sighting reports, but Rang didn't believe him and insisted on a course that took him a long ways from the KB. When they set off, Waldron broke from the air group and went his own way. If Waldron had survived, ring probably would have court martialed him.

Ring flew off over empty ocean and found nothing. When his fighter commander told him they had to turn back due to low fuel, Ring ignored him and kept going until the SBDs had to turn back. By that point the Wildcats were past the point of no return. On their own initiative Wildcat pilots started turning around on their own. I believe all of VF-8's F4Fs on the strike were lost. A heroic effort after the battle rescued about half of them, though the PBYs were searching the wrong area at first because Ring lied about where he had flown off to.

If the Hornet SBDs had followed Waldron instead of Ring, they would have found themselves over the KB before the SBDs from the Yorktown and Enterprise arrived. It's unknown if they would have scored any hits. VB-8 and VS-8 scored 0 hits against the Hiryu or the Mikuma and Mogami in the battle. No AG-8 aircraft hit a ship until later in the year in the battles around Guadalcanal.

So the US could have knocked out the KB in one strike if two things that actually were possible had happened:

1) They had a better AG commander
2) One of the 36 SBDs had scored on the Hiryu when they got there early.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 35
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/4/2013 12:42:08 AM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 22209
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Until 1938 the US didn't have the political will to put much money into new military aircraft. When Roosevelt got money broken free for military build-up, the bulk of the first installment went into ship building. In part because of the long lead time, but also because Roosevelt liked ships. He had been Secretary of the Navy. The Navy issued the specifications for modern carrier aircraft as soon as it was able to, which was 1938. The specification showed a very forward thinking design philosophy. The fighter that came out of that specification remained in the Navy's inventory until around 1955. The torpedo bomber soldiered on in auxiliary roles almost as long.

The Navy was doing the best they could with what they could get politically.
Bill



Yes, I figured there was an isolationist thing going on in the Congress. That's why I mentioned them. Once the war started the application of technology, innovation in equipment and tactics and and the massive upsurge in industrial output was truly amazing.

The Navy was perhaps the quickest branch to adapt.

I imagine you are talking about the Corsair. Great aircraft, no dobt.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 36
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/4/2013 1:49:32 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24806
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Plus if both of Yorktown's SBD squadrons had been sent on the strike.

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 37
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/4/2013 3:04:23 AM   
borner


Posts: 1486
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
It's easier to point at aircraft that were outdated by the time combat started. My question would be the 10 worst planes that came into production AFTER sept 39.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 38
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/4/2013 3:23:09 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10376
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
Or at least were in development when the war started and went into production anyway. I would include the Boulton Paul Defiant on the list.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 39
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/4/2013 4:33:21 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6328
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
The Defiant shot down more Luftwaffe aircraft in the Blitz of 1940-41 than any other type.

Far from a succesful type, it was also far from a failure.
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/07/battle-of-britain-1940-boulton-paul-defiant.html
It was also used as a RADAR support aircraft, jamming German RADARs until better aircraft were available.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 40
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/4/2013 6:02:31 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10332
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Or at least were in development when the war started and went into production anyway. I would include the Boulton Paul Defiant on the list.

Bill

Technically that would put the Defiant outside the category. The Defiant failed in it's intended role certainly, but did alright as a night fighter. So by that particular yardstick the Bf110 could be argued to be a failure as well.

Sometimes it's down to the area of operations or the method of operation, the P-39 didn't even make it out of the starting gate with the RAF as it was deemed unsuitable for the ETO. The early B-17s were a total failure with the RAF in the bombing role. The P-38 didn't even get a look in as the RAF was supplied the type for evaluation without superchargers. We probably all know about the Buffalo from playing WitP.

The Avro Manchester is one I'd tag as a failure, although that's not a fault of the airframe but the engines.
Bristol Blenheim (the long range 'fighter' version).
Ju 87 (Maybe controversial? But only did well with a lack of modern opposition).
Heinkel He 177.


There are also several marks of British aircraft that failed when the main type was a success. The Merlin engine Beaufighter MkII and Halifax Mk V (iirc) and Hercules engined Lancaster MkII were all a poor relation to the main family. It's strange as iirc the two bomber/engine combinations (Lanc/Merlin and Hali/Hercules) had a lower loss rate than the same two airframes with the engines swapped around.

The same could possibly be said of the Allison engined P-51s. Or several Axis types developed past the point of obsolescence (Oscar, Zero, 109).

When all is said and done, failure is probably more subjective than success in this field.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 41
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/4/2013 11:57:04 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10376
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The Defiant's inherent weaknesses as a day fighter were balanced out a bit by the dark, but it was not really a stellar night fighter. I have a book around here on the Defiant. If I recall, the Defiant night fighters only shot down a relative few German aircraft during the Blitz. It was replaced by the Beaufighter as soon as they became available.

The He-177 was clearly a flawed design, almost all down to the engines. Heinkel produced a prototype of an He-277 with 4 separate engines on a longer wing. It would have been a much more reliable aircraft, but the Germans were fixated on all bombers being capable of dive bombing until after the He-177 was in production.

The Ju-87 was one of those designs that was approaching obsolescence when the war began, but it was pressed into service anyway. The Germans didn't realize how vulnerable it was until it encountered a first class air force, then it's inherent vulnerabilities became obvious.

I would put the Ju-87 into the same category as the Swordfish or the TBD. They were good aircraft for when they were designed, but they were used past the point where they should have been replaced with something more modern, for whatever reason.

When the Buffalo was flown by good pilots with good engines, it didn't do too badly. It was not quite as good as the Wildcat, which is why the USN phased it out. It got such a bad reputation because most of the times it went into combat it was either in a hopeless situation and/or piloted by less than experienced pilots. The RAF pilots at Singapore were able to attain about a 1:1 victory to loss ratio, but they were badly outnumbered.

The Dutch Buffaloes were delivered with weak engines because no new engines were available and cast off, rebuilt airliner engines were used instead. The Dutch pilots also had a lot less of the institutional knowledge the British had. The British Far East air force had few combat veterans, but the RAF had already been at war and had some successes for 2 years. There were some lessons of modern air war that had made it to the Far East pilots. The Dutch air force only had one, very short, and very losing air campaign against Germany. Their pilots had less institutional experience behind them.

The Marines at Midway were pretty green against the best pilots in the IJN.

The Finns used the Buffalo's strengths and had the experience to balance the weaknesses. The Finnish Buffaloes were mostly facing older Russian aircraft for most of their carriers, but they scored against up to date Russian aircraft too.

When it comes to fighters, a top pilot in a generation behind fighter has the advantage over a green pilot in the most advanced fighter.

On whole I would say the Buffalo was among the less stellar aircraft of WW II. Was it one of the 10 worst? I probably wouldn't go that far, but it was well down the list.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 42
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/5/2013 12:40:50 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6328
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
The types being talked about are generally those that made it into service.

There is a raft of others that didnt get past prototype because they were so bad, plus the wierd and wonderful ideas of the Luftwaffe & IJAAF/IJNAF that barely made it off the paper.

(As a Defiant liker, i'd like to compare it against a concurrent USAAC type, the Bell Airacuda!!)

What makes interesting, but for the USAAC embarrasing, comparison is to note what frontline aircraft were in Germany, France, UK & Japan at Sept 1939 and what the USAAC had in service. The oceans protected the USA more than their defence force.
It may also have aided the USAAC in that its first generation of monoplanes saw little combat service and the 2 years before Dec41 was well spent in setting up the next generation of aircraft for combat.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 43
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/5/2013 3:20:01 AM   
temagic


Posts: 169
Joined: 7/26/2006
From: The land of trolls
Status: offline
Interesting list...

One would have to define 'obolete' though before entering a serious discussion on the topic of worst aircraft of ww2. The TBD for instance was the best carrier-capable torpedobomber until its replacement, the Avenger, entered service. It was better than both the Kate and the Swordfish. Both of which are regarded as 'obsolete' from the start of the war as well, and yet, when considering the operational requirements put on them, both exerted themselves and scored numerous hits, even successes that were considered 'better than first rate' by the top brasses. The TBD Devastator did find success, both during the Battle of the Coral Sea, and then later, at Midway. Worst aircraft?

Now, what about the Ki-51? Or, better yet, the Gloster Gladiator? Or, even better, the Cr.42 'Falco'. Now, those three should find their spot on any top 10 worst aircraft of ww2, IMHO.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 44
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/5/2013 6:14:59 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25318
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Defiant's inherent weaknesses as a day fighter were balanced out a bit by the dark, but it was not really a stellar night fighter. I have a book around here on the Defiant. If I recall, the Defiant night fighters only shot down a relative few German aircraft during the Blitz. It was replaced by the Beaufighter as soon as they became available.

The He-177 was clearly a flawed design, almost all down to the engines. Heinkel produced a prototype of an He-277 with 4 separate engines on a longer wing. It would have been a much more reliable aircraft, but the Germans were fixated on all bombers being capable of dive bombing until after the He-177 was in production.

The Ju-87 was one of those designs that was approaching obsolescence when the war began, but it was pressed into service anyway. The Germans didn't realize how vulnerable it was until it encountered a first class air force, then it's inherent vulnerabilities became obvious.

I would put the Ju-87 into the same category as the Swordfish or the TBD. They were good aircraft for when they were designed, but they were used past the point where they should have been replaced with something more modern, for whatever reason.

When the Buffalo was flown by good pilots with good engines, it didn't do too badly. It was not quite as good as the Wildcat, which is why the USN phased it out. It got such a bad reputation because most of the times it went into combat it was either in a hopeless situation and/or piloted by less than experienced pilots. The RAF pilots at Singapore were able to attain about a 1:1 victory to loss ratio, but they were badly outnumbered.

The Dutch Buffaloes were delivered with weak engines because no new engines were available and cast off, rebuilt airliner engines were used instead. The Dutch pilots also had a lot less of the institutional knowledge the British had. The British Far East air force had few combat veterans, but the RAF had already been at war and had some successes for 2 years. There were some lessons of modern air war that had made it to the Far East pilots. The Dutch air force only had one, very short, and very losing air campaign against Germany. Their pilots had less institutional experience behind them.

The Marines at Midway were pretty green against the best pilots in the IJN.

The Finns used the Buffalo's strengths and had the experience to balance the weaknesses. The Finnish Buffaloes were mostly facing older Russian aircraft for most of their carriers, but they scored against up to date Russian aircraft too.

When it comes to fighters, a top pilot in a generation behind fighter has the advantage over a green pilot in the most advanced fighter.

On whole I would say the Buffalo was among the less stellar aircraft of WW II. Was it one of the 10 worst? I probably wouldn't go that far, but it was well down the list.

Bill


As with any "best of" list. It comes down to what criteria the 'reviewer' emphasizes or prioritizes when coming up with such a list. Thus one will invariably rank aircraft differently. I had a recent example at my favorite watering hole discussing "the best fighter" of WWII with a couple vets (of later service years :-) ) Their "best" differed from mine because of the criteria. Their criteria was based in part on reputation and in part on impact on the war. My criteria ranked airframe versatility and updatability.

Same with worst of lists. Personally i think the Buffalo does warrent a worst of, but not because of the basic design which was, as Bill pointed out, not all that different from the F4F, of which it initially beat out for navy service!

Problem with the Buffalo was that the airframe didn't handle the inevitable upgrades needed which resulted in increased weight and reduced performance. (The Wildcat also suffered from this but to a lesser extent) However the worst aspect was quality control. Brewster it should be pointed out was the ONLY US aircraft company to go bankrupt during the period. Think about it. There's a war on. War is good for business, especially if you make weapons. They tanked.
The RAF Buffalos didn't perform too out of the average ratio loss that I find again and again in my day to day air battle studies. My charting of the RAF Buffalos produced a 3.4:1 ratio in favor of the enemy. Most often it's under 3:1 tactically, and operationally, in the earlier phase of the war often is closer to 2:1. There are some exceptions of course. Barbarossa start and the initial Japanese Blitzkrieg amongst them.

This leads to another point as Bill demonstrated. One can promote, or discount an airframe based on the statistical result. It's true that the Buffalos were outnumbered at times. Early warning was also deficient etc etc. Similar disadvantages also deviled the Japanese in their later battles though this is often not cited. ;-) Devil is in the details and discounts/promotions work equally for all sides of a conflict.

The Dutch pilots were a bit out of their depth of which better aircraft would probably not have made much difference.

But in the end what would put the Buffalo on my list was the poor quality control, followed by the weight increases which made it a dog in the air. I would however be lax if i didn't give mention to the Finnish. They utilized the B-239 (F2A-2) very well and Ford considers this to be the best variant and "not a bad fighter" to quote his study vs. the B-339/Buffalo/F2A-3 which added a whopping 900LBs to the airframe and turned it "into a slug"




< Message edited by Nikademus -- 3/5/2013 6:17:19 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 45
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/6/2013 12:39:37 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

In their first sortie the TBFs from Midway had an identical survivor to loss ration as the 3 TBD squadrons from the carriers. The torpedo planes were dropping a poor torpedo with only limited or no fighter cover against some of the best carrier fighter pilots in the world. The Japanese also put a priority on shooting down torpedo bombers because they saw them as the greater threat ...


Didn't TBF crews claim that, "If you want to sink ships, send us," but I wonder if the IJN knew about their defective topedoes?

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 46
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/6/2013 7:45:07 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

---

Problem with the Buffalo was that the airframe didn't handle the inevitable upgrades needed which resulted in increased weight and reduced performance. (The Wildcat also suffered from this but to a lesser extent) However the worst aspect was quality control. Brewster it should be pointed out was the ONLY US aircraft company to go bankrupt during the period. Think about it. There's a war on. War is good for business, especially if you make weapons. They tanked.
The RAF Buffalos didn't perform too out of the average ratio loss that I find again and again in my day to day air battle studies. My charting of the RAF Buffalos produced a 3.4:1 ratio in favor of the enemy. Most often it's under 3:1 tactically, and operationally, in the earlier phase of the war often is closer to 2:1. There are some exceptions of course. Barbarossa start and the initial Japanese Blitzkrieg amongst them.

This leads to another point as Bill demonstrated. One can promote, or discount an airframe based on the statistical result. It's true that the Buffalos were outnumbered at times. Early warning was also deficient etc etc. Similar disadvantages also deviled the Japanese in their later battles though this is often not cited. ;-) Devil is in the details and discounts/promotions work equally for all sides of a conflict.

The Dutch pilots were a bit out of their depth of which better aircraft would probably not have made much difference.

But in the end what would put the Buffalo on my list was the poor quality control, followed by the weight increases which made it a dog in the air. I would however be lax if i didn't give mention to the Finnish. They utilized the B-239 (F2A-2) very well and Ford considers this to be the best variant and "not a bad fighter" to quote his study vs. the B-339/Buffalo/F2A-3 which added a whopping 900LBs to the airframe and turned it "into a slug"



Lentolaivue 24 (No. 24 squadron)

AFAIK the LeLv24, flying Buffalos for the majority of the war, had the highest confirmed victory/loss ratio of all Axis air units in the war. The loss figure of 55 planes includes accidents...

The kill confirmation system was similar to that of the Germans, ie. the victory needed a confirming pilot or the wreck had to be found where reported, so the victory figure should be fairly accurate.

OTOH the fact that Soviets used the Leningrad front as a "training front" of a kind for good part of the war helped, as did the fact that V-VS and the Navy air force that had units in Oranienbaym was more or less slaved under the Army and flew mostly close air support. I wouldnt put the Buffalo in the "top 10" list.


I nominate the FIAT CR.42 - biplane fighter that was obsolescent by 1939, but apparenly considered OK by the Reggia Aeronautica, and despite heavy losses, incredibly still used as a frontline fighter up to 1944 and actually produced still in 1943.

< Message edited by Erkki -- 3/6/2013 7:46:11 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 47
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/6/2013 5:36:44 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25318
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Hi,

Do you mean nominate as worst? The Cr.42 is oft described as the best of the last generation of biplane fighters. Even some Gladiator pilots were quoted as admiring the plane as it was nimbler than the Gladiator. It initially held it's own decently against even the Hurricane but as time went by lost more and more ground on a per attack basis, not just statistically but operationally in terms of it's ability to defend and attack bombers vs. modern opponents. For example at the end of the First Libyan campaign, the ratio vs. the Hurricane stood at approx 1.3:1 in favor of the Hurricane. (1.04:1 vs the Gladiator in favor of the Gladiator)

Writing was on the wall though despite this favorable summary. Falco pilots had great difficulty chasing down enemy bombers or defending against slashing attacks by the faster Hurricanes on bombers they were escorting as well as on themselves. In a pell mell general dogfight however, the plane was dangerous because of it's maneuverability. Hurr pilots had to take care. Much depended on the skill of the opposing pilots which varied greatly from Gruppo to Gruppo.

It did remain in production well after it's shelf life. This was primarily due to it's conversion to ground support, and given the need for more airframes. It was demoted from first line fighter duties in NA after the 1st Libyan campaign but soldiered on in that Theater as rear area security and the after-mentioned ground support missions. According to Dunning's figures, 1553 CR.42's were produced overall.....more than any other Italian fighter.

In this it's history was similar to the Ki-27. An obsolescent plane that nevertheless managed to hold it's own initially in the opening stages of the Pacific war, scoring well but as time went by it's disadvantages began to tell, leading to it's phasing out.

_____________________________


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 48
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/6/2013 5:46:25 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15504
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
My view would be the Me-163 has to be near the top. What a total waste of material, effort and lives.......

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 49
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/6/2013 5:51:02 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25318
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Ba.88

Oy!


_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 50
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/6/2013 6:45:43 PM   
frank1970


Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline
As long as the Dauntless isn´t on the list, the Ju87 shouldn´t be on it.
The Ju87 was a much better divebomber than the Dauntless, had a MUCH larger payload and lateron was used as a tankbuster, a role it played marvelously. Ju87 was the best divebomber of the whole war.
Both planes were in trouble in case enemy fighters were there.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 51
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/7/2013 3:51:04 AM   
borner


Posts: 1486
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I do not think that the CR 42 was that bad in 1939/40, the problem was that they kept it in service far too long. A similar situation came about with the TBD, although almost any plane flying into that many fresh Zeros with no friendly fighter cover was going to have a hard time, although at least in this situation, it was a case of nothing else being around. Too bad the TBF was 6 months too late going into full production.

(in reply to frank1970)
Post #: 52
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/7/2013 4:50:23 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6328
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
Erki.

The kill confirmation system was similar to that of the Germans, ie. the victory needed a confirming pilot or the wreck had to be found where reported, so the victory figure should be fairly accurate.

I hope the Finns were better than this, too many doubtful claims got into the Luftwaffe system.

Its hard to suggest an aircraft that failed to keep up with the times as "The Worst"
The Stuka had its day (more than 1!!), The CR42 & Gladiator boith performed well, of course they weren't able to survive as the years passed. Same could be said for a Spitfire I or bf109D.

To be "The worst", an aircraft would have to be a complete dog, even worse than a Battle or Buffalo.

If there was a vote for the worst aircraft that made combat status I would add my vote to the Ba88 Lince, it wouldnt even get an airworthy cert. these days and some fool ordered men to go to war in it.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 53
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/7/2013 11:54:05 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7569
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Erki.

The kill confirmation system was similar to that of the Germans, ie. the victory needed a confirming pilot or the wreck had to be found where reported, so the victory figure should be fairly accurate.

I hope the Finns were better than this, too many doubtful claims got into the Luftwaffe system.



FAF was actually bit more strict, relying on wreck counting, unless over sea or deep in enemy territory. But obviously, over-claiming was a problem for all in WW II.


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 54
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/7/2013 1:18:41 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4618
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

....and was successful against the Bismarck, Richelieu, Dunkerque and of course at Taranto. No matter how obsolete an aircraft was, you can't put it in a "worst aircraft of WWII" if it achieved such success.


Yes, but the TBD was better than it, it just didn't have the chance. If the dive bombers attacked first at Midway and drive the Zeros off TBD path then TBD could have put some fish in some juicy target. Then it would be a great airplane...


quote:

, incredibly still used as a frontline fighter up to 1944 and actually produced still in 1943.


It stopped being used as frontline fighter in 1941. It remained in nightfighter and close support role up until 42-3. In 1944 was only operated as training and night harassment - including being bought by Luftwaffe.
It was a good fighter in dogfighting mode.


< Message edited by Dili -- 3/7/2013 1:31:53 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 55
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/7/2013 7:29:20 PM   
MarkMohrifield

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 2/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

As long as the Dauntless isn´t on the list, the Ju87 shouldn´t be on it.
The Ju87 was a much better divebomber than the Dauntless, had a MUCH larger payload and lateron was used as a tankbuster, a role it played marvelously. Ju87 was the best divebomber of the whole war.
Both planes were in trouble in case enemy fighters were there.


According to wikipedia, the Dauntless had a much longer range, though. I'd imagine that to be a significant advantage in a carrier battle.(An anti-shipping version of the Stuka is mentioned as having increased range, but it was "often restricted to a single 250 kg (550 lb) bomb if the aircraft was fully loaded with fuel."

(in reply to frank1970)
Post #: 56
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/7/2013 7:36:22 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42185
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

....and was successful against the Bismarck, Richelieu, Dunkerque and of course at Taranto. No matter how obsolete an aircraft was, you can't put it in a "worst aircraft of WWII" if it achieved such success.


Yes, but the TBD was better than it
warspite1

To be clear, I wasn't comparing the two - just saying you can't put the Swordfish in the world's worst given what she achieved. Was the TBD better? Most aircraft were

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 57
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/7/2013 7:48:55 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3123
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline
I think the Spitfire was probably the worst fighter of WWII, too shiny and good looking for me. A good fighter should look like a prize-bull I think, something like a Jug or a Hellcat. Not slender and pretty like a Spitfire, which reminds me of a pampered Show Poodle.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 58
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/7/2013 8:03:36 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42185
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

I think the Spitfire was probably the worst fighter of WWII, too shiny and good looking for me. A good fighter should look like a prize-bull I think, something like a Jug or a Hellcat. Not slender and pretty like a Spitfire, which reminds me of a pampered Show Poodle.
warspite1

I know what you mean - although would not go as far re the Spitfire Like HMS Hood, the Spit was sex on a stick.

However, in truth I like ships, planes etc with real character - pugnacious, ugly as **** and rugged; Avenger, Hellcat, Beaufighter, Tempest all absolute qualiteeee

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 59
RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII - 3/7/2013 9:01:21 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10332
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

I think the Spitfire was probably the worst fighter of WWII, too shiny and good looking for me. A good fighter should look like a prize-bull I think, something like a Jug or a Hellcat. Not slender and pretty like a Spitfire, which reminds me of a pampered Show Poodle.


I could design something as dull as a Hellcat. But managing to make something look as good as a Spitfire requires skill.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: 10 Worst aircraft of WWII Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.201