# Which Fighter was least successful?



## bigZ (Nov 15, 2009)

Which operationial fighter plane do you think was the least successful of WWII?


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2009)

Well, I suppose a whole bunch of biplanes which still served in the beginning of the war would be good candidates. So wouldn't it be better to limit ourselves to aircraft still in production during WW2? Perhaps you can change your initial post to include this...

One good candidate would be the CR.42

Kris


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 15, 2009)

The Boulton-Paul Defiant got a bit of a slapping from conventional fighters.


----------



## imalko (Nov 15, 2009)

I would imagine that some aircraft with good performance were unsucesful because they were not used long enough. Good example of this is Rogožarski Ik-3 fighter of Yugoslav design. Although these aircraft was capable to dogfight Bf 109E on more-less equal terms, only 13 examples were ever build and this were used only for short time in April 1941.

Another example would be He 112 maybe, operationally used only by Romanians and Spaniards in small numbers. Then there was Czechoslovak Avia B.135 modern monoplane fighter... I'm sure there are more examples.


----------



## renrich (Nov 15, 2009)

I believe the BP Defiant was the least successful fighter that saw much use.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 15, 2009)

I have to agree with that one.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2009)

The Cauldron C.714 is certainly a good candidate.

Caudron C.714 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the Finns wouldn't fly it in combat that should tell us something.


----------



## Amsel (Nov 15, 2009)

I would nominate the Me110 for one of the least successful fighters in a day fighter role. It was a good nightfighter and successful jabo, but a poor fighter in the BoB.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 15, 2009)

Imho a good proxy of unsuccessful can be fast discard from fighter service.


----------



## davebender (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm no fan of the Me-110. Germany should have produced the Fw-187 instead. However I'm not convinced it performed all that poorly during the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain - 1940
It appears to me the Luftwaffe had 90 Me-110 long range bomber escort aircraft committed to the Battle of Britain as of 7 September 1940. (Additional Me-110s were committed for recon and as light bombers. These are not bomber escorts.) Once the very short legged Me-109Es turned for home these 90 Me-110s had to face 10 times their number of RAF fighter aircraft. Do you think the P-51D would have been successful if it had been outnumbered 10 to 1 over Germany?


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 15, 2009)

No brainer - it was the Boomerang. Designed as a fighter but never achieved a single air combat victory. 

Of course that's not the whole story - it was excellent in the close air support role and it mostly operated in areas of low enemy air activity. However, I still don't think you can beat a kill-to-loss ratio of 'n' losses for 0 kills!

I now await the outpouring of vitriol from Boomer defenders!

KR
Mark H (LKBS)


----------



## davebender (Nov 15, 2009)

> Designed as a fighter but never achieved a single air combat victory.



The ultimate definition of an unsuccessful fighter aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2009)

Was the Boomerang ever pitted against enemy planes?


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 15, 2009)

There are probably others that at least equal the record - the Blackburn Roc springs to mind (although there were at least a couple of claims that it damaged a couple of German aircraft (or at least made them nervous for a few moments). Then there's the Me163 which was as much a threat to its pilot as it was to the enemy. However, the whole "divide by 0" problem for the Boomerang still tips it for me.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 15, 2009)

davebender said:


> I'm no fan of the Me-110. Germany should have produced the Fw-187 instead. However I'm not convinced it performed all that poorly during the Battle of Britain.
> 
> The Battle of Britain - 1940
> It appears to me the Luftwaffe had 90 Me-110 long range bomber escort aircraft committed to the Battle of Britain as of 7 September 1940. (Additional Me-110s were committed for recon and as light bombers. These are not bomber escorts.) Once the very short legged Me-109Es turned for home these 90 Me-110s had to face 10 times their number of RAF fighter aircraft. Do you think the P-51D would have been successful if it had been outnumbered 10 to 1 over Germany?



900 RAF fighters? Where did you get that number from?

Wasn't the Boomerang a stop gap fighter until better fighters arrived?


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 15, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Was the Boomerang ever pitted against enemy planes?



Depends what you mean by "pitted against". Did it operate in the front line? Yes. Was it a fighter? Yes. Were there enemy aircraft in the vicinity? Yes. Were a number of Boomers shot down by enemy aircraft? Yes. By my thinking, it was "pitted against" enemy aircraft. Does that match your meaning?

KR
Mark H


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 15, 2009)

Wasn't the Boomerang a stop gap fighter until better fighters arrived?[/QUOTE said:


> I really don't like the term "stop gap" since technological evolution means any aircraft is a stop gap until something better comes along. However, it was still designed as a fighter, whichever way you caveat it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Depends what you mean by "pitted against". Did it operate in the front line? Yes. Was it a fighter? Yes. Were there enemy aircraft in the vicinity? Yes. Were a number of Boomers shot down by enemy aircraft? Yes. By my thinking, it was "pitted against" enemy aircraft. Does that match your meaning?
> 
> KR
> Mark H



That answers my question 
No option but to agree that Boomer is a strong competitor for the accolade of worst fighter.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 15, 2009)

Not worst...just least successful. There's a whole 'nother thread on the worst fighter of WWII (although, perhaps not surprisingly, it comprises a fairly similar list of candidates!)


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 15, 2009)

Boomerangs were shot down by enemy aircraft?


----------



## Butters (Nov 15, 2009)

I've got a pretty thick hide, so I'm gonna brave the slings and arrows certain to come my way, and nominate the He-162 for this particular honor.

Saying that a fighter with a nil victory record is the 'least successful' might seem a reasonable claim, but it seems to me that a fighter with a record of killing more of its own pilots than those of the enemy, is even more 'least successful'...

A null record is better than a negative one...

Oh, yeah. I also nominate the Me-163 as runner-up. I'd put it in first place, but at least that explosive little deathtrap was never touted as being suitable for novice pilots, unlike the unforgiving Salamander...

JL


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 15, 2009)

According to the list of Boomerangs in Wilson's book on the Boomer, Wirraway and CA-15, 2 were "lost in combat" with a third "missing after combat" which suggests an aerial engagement (compared to other references to Boomers being "lost on ops" or "lost over enemy territory"). Although of no real relevance, a couple of Boomers were also shot down by Allied fighters.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 15, 2009)

Butters said:


> a fighter with a record of killing more of its own pilots than those of the enemy, is even more 'least successful'...



Hi Butters,

I bet a comparison of losses due to accidents compared against kills obtained would reveal a fair number of WWII fighters actually killed more of their own pilots than the enemy's (think Operational Training Units, landing accidents, engine failures etc). Semantics aside, though, the He162 is a pretty good contender even though it was put into service (with phenomenal alacrity) under the worst possible operational conditions. And it did achieve at least 1 confirmed kill.

KR
Mark


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 15, 2009)

The Bf109
33,000+ manufactured and they still didn't win

*Colin dons his tin hat and ducks under the table*


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 15, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Hi Butters,
> 
> I bet a comparison of losses due to accidents compared against kills obtained would reveal a fair number of WWII fighters actually killed more of their own pilots than the enemy's (think Operational Training Units, landing accidents, engine failures etc). Semantics aside, though, the He162 is a pretty good contender even though it was put into service (with phenomenal alacrity) under the worst possible operational conditions. And it did achieve at least 1 confirmed kill.
> 
> ...


The He-162 had a lot of promise, it was just started far too late and without good glue. Slightly more development and available materials would have made it terrifying.


----------



## Negative Creep (Nov 15, 2009)

He 162? Nazi leaders had high hopes for it but I'd say a fighter that never shot anything down wasn't a roaring success


----------



## Amsel (Nov 15, 2009)

I like the He162. It was too late in the war to help the axis though, but was the fastest fighter of its time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The Bf109
> 33,000+ manufactured and they still didn't win
> 
> *Colin dons his tin hat and ducks under the table*



Not going to throw anything, but you are kidding right?


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 15, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not going to throw anything, but you are kidding right?


Of course!


----------



## bigZ (Nov 15, 2009)

To be honest I had forgotten the Boomerang. It beatsmy suggestion of the Avia B.135. It had been in production before the start of the war and only had one confirmed kill a B-24 in 1944.


----------



## herman1rg (Nov 15, 2009)

What about the Westland Whirlwind?


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 15, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> What about the Westland Whirlwind?


I don't believe the Whirlwind suffered from a notable lack of success, more a notable lack of support.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 15, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> What about the Westland Whirlwind?



Whirlwind was actually highly successful. The fate of the aircraft was decided before it ever entered service. On air-to-air kills alone, it has a positive service record. It did suffer quite badly at the hands of low level Flak though, and it was hampered by the draggy bomb shackles later in the war.


----------



## davebender (Nov 15, 2009)

> I'd say a fighter that never shot anything down wasn't a roaring success


How many aircraft did the P-51H shoot down? How about the modern day F-22 and Eurofighter?

I doubt anyone would consider these aircraft unsuccessful just because they haven't had a chance to prove themselves in combat.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 15, 2009)

davebender said:


> How many aircraft did the P-51H shoot down? How about the modern day F-22 and Eurofighter?
> 
> I doubt anyone would consider these aircraft unsuccessful just because they haven't had a chance to prove themselves in combat.



...is the answer to a slightly more general question than the one posed by the thread originator...


bigZ said:


> Which operationial fighter plane do you think was the least successful of WWII?


----------



## Milosh (Nov 15, 2009)

Negative Creep said:


> He 162? Nazi leaders had high hopes for it but I'd say a fighter that never shot anything down wasn't a roaring success



Supposedly a He162 got a Tempest.


----------



## davebender (Nov 15, 2009)

The first He-162 prototype did not fly until 6 December 1944. No other aircraft was considered operational 4 months after first flight. He-162s flying during April 1945 were prototypes / pre-production aircraft forced into combat by extreme circumstances.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Nov 15, 2009)

Well, the Me-210 was made operational, but then proved so unstable and dangerous to its own crews that it was yanked, heavily re-designed and even given a new designation, Me-410, to make sure its crews knew this was a different plane from the 210.


----------



## imalko (Nov 15, 2009)

And yet, Hungarians used Me 210 successfully in the "schnellbomber" role and their pilots were quite satisfied with its performance...


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 15, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> ...is the answer to a slightly more general question than the one posed by the thread originator...



Agreed. There are plenty of fighters that never actually saw combat because there wasn't a war going on when they were in service. The question was about WWII which, last time I checked, was the genuine article as far as wars are concerned (with all the very sad consequences that entail ).


----------



## paradoxguy (Nov 15, 2009)

imalko said:


> And yet, Hungarians used Me 210 successfully in the "schnellbomber" role and their pilots were quite satisfied with its performance...



The Me 210 that the Hungarians used successfully was modified, including lengthening the fuselage, which rectified the bad flying characteristics. This became the basis for the Me 410.


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 15, 2009)

The Boomerang was designed and flow in such a short time, it wasn't up to standard in the period that it was released. However, remember by the time it was ready and in production Australia had P-40's and Spitfires available and they occupied the fighter role. I think I would be correct in saying it saw very limited service as a fighter. As has been said earlier, it was a very effective close support plane. 

Whilst as a fighter in was inadequate, I don't think it saw enough frontline service as a fighter to be considered the least successful, how about something that had a length of time to prove itself, yet still failed badly. 

The Defiant got massacred as a day fighter, but was a fairly successful NF.


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 15, 2009)

What about the MiG-1 and 3. In terms of a plane that saw extensive service, it was hopelessly outclassed. Sure it was a decent high altitude performer, but at the altitudes at which combat was actually fought on the Eastern front it didn't rival the Luftwaffe


----------



## Glider (Nov 16, 2009)

The one fighter that no one has mentioned which I suggest stands head and shoulders above the other nominees as being the worst fighter to enter operational service in WW2 has the be The Blackburn Roc.

The worst case of lunacy you will ever find.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> What about the MiG-1 and 3. In terms of a plane that saw extensive service, it was hopelessly outclassed. Sure it was a decent high altitude performer, but at the altitudes at which combat was actually fought on the Eastern front it didn't rival the Luftwaffe


Since Mig-1/3 series were second fastest (fully) operaional fighter in 1941, they were surely weren't outclasses. Some numbers to back up the claim it candidates being 'least successful' would be appreciated.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2009)

Glider said:


> The one fighter that no one has mentioned which I suggest stands head and shoulders above the other nominees as being the worst fighter to enter operational service in WW2 has the be The Blackburn Roc.
> 
> The worst case of lunacy you will ever find.



Yep, Roc is a strong contender for the title.
The term 'lunacy' is to use for describe people that ordered it though.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 16, 2009)

What about the Do-335? Seems like a lot of technical trouble to overcome before finally this bird in the air. I'm unsure if it shot down any aircraft.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 16, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> What about the Do-335? Seems like a lot of technical trouble to overcome before finally this bird in the air. I'm unsure if it shot down any aircraft.


Operational sorties by the Do335 were so scarce that it makes it a little difficult to quantify wrt to the thread title. Problems weren't completely solved, rear engine fires could and did happen and the nose gear was also prone to the odd collapse.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2009)

Glider said:


> The one fighter that no one has mentioned which I suggest stands head and shoulders above the other nominees as being the worst fighter to enter operational service in WW2 has the be The Blackburn Roc.
> 
> The worst case of lunacy you will ever find.




Glider,

I mentioned the Roc at post #15 so it has been mentioned. How could it not be????

KR
Mark


----------



## Glider (Nov 16, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Glider,
> 
> I mentioned the Roc at post #15 so it has been mentioned. How could it not be????
> 
> ...


True I admit, but how can you think that the Boomerang was worse than the Roc?

Put it another way which would rather go to war in, you take the Roc and I will take the Boomerang


----------



## Civettone (Nov 16, 2009)

Here comes mr Broken Record again ...
the Me 163 is NOT the least succesful fighter of WW2 !

First of all, it was not the self exploding death trap some of you called it. It was relatively safe and once operational the aircraft suffered few losses, both operational as non-operational. It managed to shoot down around 13 heavy bombers while losing fewer of their own. As the Me 163 was a small and cheap fighter and just a fraction of the cost of a heavy bomber, I think it did quite well. 

Problem was that few actually saw combat because of poor positioning of the Me 163 bases and because of lack of fuel.

I think I will still stick to the CR.42 as the Boomerang or Roc didn't see much action anyway. And the Defiant at least performed well for a couple of days 
Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 16, 2009)

C.R. 42 was used for around 1year and half in day fighter units they were old (the design was old the planes were new) but no so unsuccessful like Roc or Boomerang

Also the early C.R. 32 i think had some sucess as fighter


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 16, 2009)

I imagine the Bachem Ba. 349 could qualify.


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 16, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> C.R. 42 was used for around 1year and half in day fighter units they were old (the design was old the planes were new) but no so unsuccessful like Roc or Boomerang
> 
> Also the early C.R. 32 i think had some sucess as fighter




The CR-42 is considered by some to have been the best biplane fighter design from among the final examples produced. It preformed credably during the early stages of WWII, even managing to hold close to a 1:1 exchange with enemy Hurricanes though as time progressed it's effectiveness diminished but by then the Italians were succeeded the design with Macchi's. The British learned to have a healthy respect for the nimble biplanes and had to adopt the same tactics against it that 109 pilots did against Hurricanes (Slashing attacks). Nothing i've read suggests the Falco was a poor airplane. It was a simply a last fine example of a dying breed.

MiG-3 i saw mentioned. Don't feel it was a "bad" design. It simply ended up fighting in an element outside it's optimum design evelope. What would opinions on the P-47 be had it been restricted to low alt ops? I think the LaGG 3 was more of a disapointment in intial service than the MiG-3 though it would eventually be evolved into the excellent La-5.

Probably would be hard to beat the Defiant in the role of worst fighter, due to the failed idea of the "turret fighter" concept. No way to really fix it without scrapping the entire idea and go back to the drawing board.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 16, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I don't believe the Whirlwind suffered from a notable lack of success, more a notable lack of support.



I have noted before that it amazes me that plane that was supposed to have troublesome engines and whose engines went out of production in 1941 was still flying combat missions in squadron service at the end of 1943. 

Maybe the engines weren't quite as troublesome as some claim?


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 16, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Maybe the engines weren't quite as troublesome as some claim?


They had problems
but so did the Merlin and the Peregrine's woes were as nothing compared to those of the Napier Sabre. I can't find any evidence to suggest that the Peregrine's engine bugs could not have been resolved relatively easily. 

There were many unsavoury reasons why the Whirlwind's career met such an untimely end but one of the more legitimate (and understandable) reasons was the arrival of its greater-potential stable-mate, the Merlin itself.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 16, 2009)

The Bachem Natter was never used operationally so that cannot have been the least succesful fighter. And for what it's worth I think it could have been the best interceptor for Germany at that time...

The MiG-3 was not that unsuccesful, the Germans held it in quite high regard. But mentioning the MiG-3 brought me to a very very good candidate which I don't know anyone has mentioned yet: the MiG-1 ! 

I have never seen any figures on any kills vs losses by Italian fighters! So whatever information you guys can provide, I would be very grateful. What I have read about the CR.42 is that it could hold its own against the Gladiator but that is it. It got beaten badly against the French, in the BoB and in North Africa. Many Italians preferred the CR.32 over the CR.42 because of manoeuvrability. So that seems to indicate to me that the CR.42 fell between the CR.32 and the C.200.

Given the whole fighter career of the CR.42 I think it can be seen as the least succesful fighter. If it had been withdrawn back in 1941 I would not have considered it. (I know that many were relegated to ground attack but many still remained in fighter units.)

Kris


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2009)

Glider said:


> True I admit, but how can you think that the Boomerang was worse than the Roc?
> 
> Put it another way which would rather go to war in, you take the Roc and I will take the Boomerang



Glider,

The question wasn't about better or worse it was about the least successful. Simple performance comparisons show the Boomer out-performed the Roc (not a hard task - an asthmatic octegenarian could move faster than a Roc on full power). And, as I mentioned in my post, there were other contenders, of which the Roc was one, for the pole position of a fighter that achieved no kills...there may be others.

I'm not defending the Roc, neither am I attacking the Boomer but in success terms as fighters (ie numbers fo kills achieved) they are virtually on a par. Now, taking wider performance and utility into the equation and the Roc wins hands-down as the least useful in any role (except, perhaps, target tug!).

KR
Mark H


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Given the whole fighter career of the CR.42 I think it can be seen as the least succesful fighter. If it had been withdrawn back in 1941 I would not have considered it. (I know that many were relegated to ground attack but many still remained in fighter units.)




Sorry, Kris, have to disagree. I don't see how the CR42 can be classed as the least successful when there's a book out there with the title "Fiat CR.42 Aces of World War 2" from Osprey.

KR
Mark H (LKBS)


----------



## Civettone (Nov 16, 2009)

Yeah if it's in the Osprey books it must be right 

Hkans Aviation page - Known claims with the Fiat CR.42 Falco over Malta 1940-42 for CR.42 claims over Malta. Many if not most are overclaims. And how many were lost? 
The damn plane struggled to reach 430 kmh. Enough said if you ask me ...

Kris


----------



## claidemore (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm not so sure that 0 kills makes a fighter plane, (in this case the Boomerang), the least successful. There is no evidence of any Boomerang being shot down by e/a. It didn't achieve any kills, but it did intercept and disrupt/drive off enemy bombers, which most would consider a successful mission. 

The Boomerang also made a succesful transition from fighter to fighter/bomber. Tyhpoon, P47 and FW190 were also switched to the f/b role, and they certainly aren't considered unsuccesful (admittedly they are in a different league as far as performance comparison to the Boomerang).

So while the Boomerang achieved 0 kills as an interceptor, it did have a successful combat career.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Yeah if it's in the Osprey books it must be right



Err...you got me there! I don't have an argument for that one. 

But, overclaiming notwithstanding, the CR42 still achieved kills which = success in fighter combat. Any success is still better than no success, no matter how bad the aircraft is from a performance perspective (or ugly or obsolete or dangerous or...pick your favoured measuring stick).


Think I'll shut up now - the expired equine has been sufficiently flaggelated.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 16, 2009)

the hakan page give loss not claim it's crossed with british source

and in '42 C.R. 42 as day fighter was rare


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2009)

claidemore said:


> So while the Boomerang achieved 0 kills as an interceptor, it did have a successful combat career.



Hi Claidmore,

I never claimed the Boomerang didn't have a successful combat career but, again, the question was "least successful fighter". The job of a fighter is to shoot down aircraft. That's what they do. We can discuss semantics of "successful missions" (which sounds a little like the closing sequence of 633 Sqn - "you can't kill a squadron") but the poor old Boomer, much as I like it as an aircraft (and I do, honestly!), wasn't a success as a fighter.

As for none being shot down by enemy aircraft, what interpretation do you put to "lost in combat"? Those aren't the words normally associated with an aircraft shot down by ground fire.

I'll bow out now with my position that Boomer and Roc were about equal but, on basis of air to air success, I think the Boomer wins as the least successful by a hair's breadth. 

This is a fun discussion!!

KR
Mark


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> ...
> There were many unsavoury reasons why the Whirlwind's career met such an untimely end but one of the more legitimate (and understandable) reasons was the arrival of its greater-potential stable-mate, the Merlin itself.



A typo?


----------



## claidemore (Nov 16, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Hi Claidmore,
> As for none being shot down by enemy aircraft, what interpretation do you put to "lost in combat"? Those aren't the words normally associated with an aircraft shot down by ground fire.
> 
> This is a fun discussion!!
> ...



"Lost in Combat" means lost during any combat mission from any cause, including terrain. 

I'm not an expert on the Boomerang, but I'm not aware on any even receiving any damage from e/a, let alone being shot down. Someone else may have more info on their air combat record.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 16, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> A typo?


I don't understand


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2009)

claidemore said:


> "Lost in Combat" means lost during any combat mission from any cause, including terrain.



"Lost on operations" is the more common term for any operational loss. The term "Lost after combat" also appears in the Boomer listing I referred to. You wouldn't refer to an aircraft being "lost after combat" if it hit terrain (and there are instances in the listing where collision with terra firma is recorded as the reason for loss). The use of the word "combat" is key here and, to my mind, denotes that the aircraft was engaged in combat - ie it had an aerial opponent.

KR
Mark H


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I don't understand


It was Peregrine that got replaced by Merlin, not Whirlwind:


Colin1 said:


> They had problems
> but so did the Merlin and the Peregrine's woes were as nothing compared to those of the Napier Sabre. I can't find any evidence to suggest that the Peregrine's engine bugs could not have been resolved relatively easily.
> 
> There were many unsavoury reasons why *the Whirlwind's career* met such an untimely end but one of the more legitimate (and understandable) reasons was *the arrival of its greater-potential stable-mate, the Merlin itself*.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 16, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> It was Peregrine that got replaced by Merlin, not Whirlwind:


lol well OK, you have a grammatical point
I rather saw the Peregrine and the Whirlwind (as a result) going down together. I could've worded it better though.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 16, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> the hakan page give loss not claim it's crossed with british source
> 
> and in '42 C.R. 42 as day fighter was rare


Of course Vincenzo, I meant it the other way around. It shows the kills while the footnotes show what was actually claimed. That's the beauty of this page.

The British claimed over a hundred CR.42s destroyed over Malta, with about 50 more probable. But how many were lost? I have no idea. What about loss-kills in Africa? I don't have any information on the subject. 

But the CR.42 was still with some fighter units by 1942. I remember one unit fighting with the CR.42 until November 1942 only to convert to the ... G.50bis 

The reason why I consider the CR.42 the worst is because the other candidates were only built in small numbers. As soon as was obvious that a better design could be produced the production switched. For the CR.42 this should have been in 1940 when the monoplanes performed better. The Italians stuck with the CR.42 for at least two more years. Taken over this time it proved to be the weakest fighter in the world if you ask me. Even the Japanese Ki-43 was far superior. 

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 16, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> lol well OK, you have a grammatical point
> I rather saw the Peregrine and the Whirlwind (as a result) going down together. I could've worded it better though.



Rolls apparently couldn't develop the Merlin, the Peregrine, the Vulture and the Griffon all at the same time.
The Griffon was put on hold and the Peregrine dropped while much effort went into the Vulture. THe Vulture was the largest and offered the most power but it's deffects weren't immediatly apparent. 

With 20/20 hindsight maybe another 400 Whirlwinds would have done more for the war effort than the Manchester effort, assuming the Lancaster could have come into existance without the Manchester


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 16, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Of course Vincenzo, I meant it the other way around. It shows the kills while the footnotes show what was actually claimed. That's the beauty of this page.
> 
> The British claimed over a hundred CR.42s destroyed over Malta, with about 50 more probable. But how many were lost? I have no idea. What about loss-kills in Africa? I don't have any information on the subject.
> 
> ...



we are talking of 2 different page (i'm not talking of claims page)

i think that C.R. 42 loss on malta you can read the Gladiator and C.R. 42 on malta on Hakans site

for true i think no day fighter after may '42 what gruppo you talking??

sure in level speed Type 1 it's superiour but hard tell they never fightning, the only advantage maybe the speed maybe not enough for easy kill, but i'm agree Ki 43 was a moder fighter


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 16, 2009)

I don't think kill/losses ratios should be the sole deciding factor in determining the least succesfull fighter. Other factors should be included too, which is why I submitted the Do-335 and the Ba 349. While the aircraft's performance and mechanical reliability (or lack thereof) are very important, I think it's equally important to take into account the aircraft's life before it took to the air, in other words the energy and time it took to design and build the aircraft and iron out it's many kinks, vs. the end result.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2009)

Hi Arsenal,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

There are plenty of threads on this forum covering best/worst comparisons which can factor in all sorts of external factors (eg maintainability, pilot proficiency, etc) but this specific thread is about the success of fighter aircraft. The only tangible measure of a fighter aircraft's success is the number of kills it obtained. The reason I'm enjoying this thread so much is precisely because the original question actually removed the element of subjectiviiy (eg comparisons of different operating theatres, pilot proficiency etc). A fighter which, despite having opportunities, did not secure a single air-to-air victory is, by default, as unsuccessful as you can get. 

Kind regards,
Mark


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 16, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Of course Vincenzo, I meant it the other way around. It shows the kills while the footnotes show what was actually claimed. That's the beauty of this page.
> 
> The British claimed over a hundred CR.42s destroyed over Malta, with about 50 more probable. But how many were lost? I have no idea. What about loss-kills in Africa? I don't have any information on the subject.
> 
> ...



Counting only combat vs. enemy planes:

East Africa:

50 planes shot down (4 Hurricane) in exchange for 28 lost
(1.8:1)


Over Malta, 1940-41 : 23 planes shot down (7 Hurricane) in exchange for 11 Cr-42's lost. 
(2.1:1)

In the North African desert fighting from 40 - to late 42 (Alamein) 

59 planes shot down (14 Hurricane) in exchange for 116 CR-42 lost.
(1:2)

In my opinion, hardly a failed design. Diminishing returns as the war advances naturally, being one of the last biplane fighters designed and built.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 16, 2009)

My nomination for worst US fighter would be the P39.

A fine ground attack plane for the early war years, but hopelessly outclassed by anything the LW had. And it could barely hold its own with the Zero.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 17, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> Counting only combat vs. enemy planes:
> 
> East Africa:
> 
> ...


Thanks a lot for the figures but it seems a bit odd. According to these figures ... the Italians lost only 155 CR.42s (in air combat) up to late 1942. 
Do you also have similar figures on the other Italian fighters? I wonder if they achieved an even better ratio.



Syscom, the P-39 did alright with the Russians... 
And why do you consider the P-39 inferior to the P-40 ?


Kris


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 17, 2009)

Civettone said:


> The Bachem Natter was never used operationally so that cannot have been the least succesful fighter. And for what it's worth I think it could have been the best interceptor for Germany at that time...
> 
> The MiG-3 was not that unsuccesful, the Germans held it in quite high regard. But mentioning the MiG-3 brought me to a very very good candidate which I don't know anyone has mentioned yet: the MiG-1 !
> 
> ...



I mentioned the MiG 1 with the MiG 3. The MiG wasn't a bad plane, but a lot of the planes (which are far worse) mentioned were either produced in small quantities or quickly had their roles swapped. The MiG was produced in large amounts and whilst an effective high altitude interceptor, it had to battle on as a low altitude fighter. So not the least successful, but it wasn't flash.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 17, 2009)

The Bachem Ba. 349 should have been used as a suicide fighter without the silly pretense to armament.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2009)

Hmm, not even a suicide plane: just mount a steel cap instead of rockets, add some steal to the cockpit canopy and pierce the Fortresses.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 17, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> My nomination for worst US fighter would be the P-39.
> 
> A fine ground attack plane for the early war years, but hopelessly outclassed by anything the LW had. And it could barely hold its own with the Zero.


The Soviets might disagree with you


----------



## Civettone (Nov 17, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> I mentioned the MiG 1 with the MiG 3. The MiG wasn't a bad plane, but a lot of the planes (which are far worse) mentioned were either produced in small quantities or quickly had their roles swapped. The MiG was produced in large amounts and whilst an effective high altitude interceptor, it had to battle on as a low altitude fighter. So not the least successful, but it wasn't flash.


Like I said, I haven't read all posts. Good thing you mentioned them. The MiG-3 was ok and did achieve some success. But that cannot be said about the miG-1 which was a horrible aircraft.



Clay_Allison said:


> The Bachem Ba. 349 should have been used as a suicide fighter without the silly pretense to armament.


I think we had this discussion before. All in all, I think that would have worked. Howver the R4M rockets were extremely effective and everybody could have achieved a kill with them. So I don't see any reason why to discard the armament. The aircraft could still easily be reused afterwards which was rather unlikely in case of a collision.

Kris


----------



## bigZ (Nov 17, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Hi Arsenal,
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> ...



Mark you hit the nail on the head. 

You can't say the He162, Do 335, Bachem Ba. 349 etc are the worse as they did not have the opportunity to prove themselves.


----------



## davebender (Nov 17, 2009)

The P39 was not the best. However I don't think it was worse then many other early WWII fighter aircraft like the Ki-27, MS.406, P-36, MB.152, Hurricane I, P-35 etc.


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 17, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Thanks a lot for the figures but it seems a bit odd. According to these figures ... the Italians lost only 155 CR.42s (in air combat) up to late 1942.




They will seem odd. Looking at combat reports from the era, which include overclaims and official confirmed victories that turned out not to be the case, give an impression that air combat is far bloodier than it really was in reality. 

The above though represents losses only from enemy fighters and/or bomber fire. Other combat related losses were excluded. The above also excludes any CR-42's lost during 42 over Malta and the Med convoys. (Still colating that data.....real life must intrude ) By 42 however, the Italians were primary using Macchi's to escort raids over Malta. Same for Tunisia fighting.....CR-42 mostly relegated to 2nd line duties or ground attack missions.

For Malta, one has to keep in mind the nature of the fighting. It tended to be low key in comparison to other theaters like Germany, punctuated by "blitzes" where activity greatly increased for a brief period of time. If given setbacks, the Italians (and Germans) would emphasis night attacks. In 40-41 in particular, UK scrambles were small in number, averaging 6 planes per alert. The Italians (and germans save for blitz periods) tended to raid in small #'s of bombers, escorted by large #'s of fighters. The UK fighters targeted the bombers as a rule, avoiding said fighters. Despite the large escort sizes often the bulk of Italian fighters often failed to get into the action.....lack of radios was a hinderance but it also highlighted the fact that you can only put so many planes in any one area of sky so a large escort is no gurantee of protection for the bombers. Another aspect pointed out in Shores was that unlike the Jagdwaffe, which emphasized collecting kills for prestige, the Italians lacked this killer instinct for the most part. This is NOT to say that the Italian fighter pilots lacked bravery. Quite the opposite. British pilots found many of them quite skilled and aggressive at times. However even during such, the light armament of the typical Italian fighter aided in preserving British lives. In general though, particularily in the desert it was often commented that the Italian fighter pilots seemed more interested in fancy acrobatics vs. the dirty business of killing enemy fighters. The Germans of course could not be acused of such an attitude. Their tactics specifically targeted enemy fighters using suprise and hit and run tactics.




> Do you also have similar figures on the other Italian fighters? I wonder if they achieved an even better ratio.
> 
> Kris



Yes...and most other major planes involved in the campaigns i've researched.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 17, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> Counting only combat vs. enemy planes:
> 
> East Africa:
> 
> ...



beautiful info

have you info only for fighter vs fighter combat?

have you data for desert campaign more detailled (i.e. for year or unit?)


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 17, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> beautiful info
> 
> have you info only for fighter vs fighter combat?
> 
> have you data for desert campaign more detailled (i.e. for year or unit?)



Yes and yes. 

Unit loss data is more sporadic. I'd have to dig. I tracked primarily by theater and time period.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 17, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> Yes and yes.
> 
> Unit loss data is more sporadic. I'd have to dig. I tracked primarily by theater and time period.



can you show us data for C.R. 42 versus fighters?

and for desert campaign also for year?

thank you


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 17, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> can you show us data for C.R. 42 versus fighters?
> 
> and for desert campaign also for year?
> 
> thank you



Malta 1940:

6 x Cr-42 lost to enemy fighters

(4 to Hurricane, 2 to Gladiator)

They shoot down 6:

4 x Hurricane
1 x Fulmar
1 x Gladiator

Malta 1941:

4 x Cr-42 lost to enemy fighters (Hurricanes)

They shot down 5

3 x Hurricane
1 x Fulmar
1 x Beaufighter


North Africa:

end of 1941

90 x Cr-42 lost to enemy fighters
(45 to Hurricane, 2 to Tomahawk, 43 to Gladiator)

They shot down 34 enemy fighters (Cr-32 adds 2 x Gladiator for 5 losses (4 to Hurr, 1 to Glad))

14 x Hurricane
19 x Gladiator
1 x Beaufighter
1 x Blenheim IF

1942 North Africa*

No other fighter kills scored (or at least verifiable)

They lose an additional 17 (18 if you count the friendly fire loss) to fighters
(8 to Hurricane, 1 to Tomahawk, 2 to Kittyhawk, 4 to P-40F, 2 to Beaufighter (+ 1 to a "friendly" Bf-109))

*by 1942, Cr-42's relegated to 2nd line duties , i.e. rear area deployment and ground support missions. 

East Africa 1940

They lose 27 to enemy fighters
(18 to Hurricane, 9 to Gladiator)

They shoot down 12 enemy fighters

4 x Hurricane
8 x Gladiator

Additionally, given East Africa was a battle of 2nd line air units, there were a good number of Cr-32's present. They shoot down 19 additional planes (3 of them fighters - Hurricanes)

They lose 8

(7 to Hurricane, 1 to a Blenheim )


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 18, 2009)

many thanks again 

two notes

reading Hakans page i find (maybe missunderstand) only a C.R. 42 loss to Gladiator

C.R. 42 was used also in other theatre, France, England, Greek this have limited actions maybe around, in all, 10/15 C.R. 42 loss

p.s. i think no more a gruppo (3°) used C.R. 42 as fighter in NA in '42 and only for half year


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 18, 2009)

yes, I'm in the process of colating for Greece, Yugoslavia and Crete. 

Should have that info on hand soon.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 18, 2009)

_When Italy entered World War II on June 10, 1940, Regia Aeronautica had 143 CR.42 in its squadrons. The aircraft first saw combat during the Italian campaign against Southern France flying bomber escort for Fiat BR.20 as well as strike missions against French airfields. On June 15, 1940, CR.42 shot down 3 Bloch MB.152 and 5 Dewoitine D.520 fighters at the loss of 5 aircraft._

But what about the other days ??
Kris


edit: and now it seems that FOUR out of five CR.42s shot down that day where shot down by one guy, Pierre LeGloan. That's right, he shot down 4 CR.42s in a single day! Plus he also shot down a BR.20 bomber the same day.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 18, 2009)

Civettone said:


> _When Italy entered World War II on June 10, 1940, Regia Aeronautica had 143 CR.42 in its squadrons. The aircraft first saw combat during the Italian campaign against Southern France flying bomber escort for Fiat BR.20 as well as strike missions against French airfields. On June 15, 1940, CR.42 shot down 3 Bloch MB.152 and 5 Dewoitine D.520 fighters at the loss of 5 aircraft._
> 
> But what about the other days ??
> Kris
> ...



afaik total loss of italian fighter in france campaign it's 5 fighters (42 and 200)
i need check but i don't remember fight on 15th june


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 18, 2009)

Civettone said:


> _When Italy entered World War II on June 10, 1940, Regia Aeronautica had 143 CR.42 in its squadrons. The aircraft first saw combat during the Italian campaign against Southern France flying bomber escort for Fiat BR.20 as well as strike missions against French airfields. On June 15, 1940, CR.42 shot down 3 Bloch MB.152 and 5 Dewoitine D.520 fighters at the loss of 5 aircraft._
> 
> But what about the other days ??
> Kris
> ...


Ace in a day, one of the greatest things a fighter pilot can accomplish, especially when 80% of that total are other fighters.


----------



## paradoxguy (Nov 18, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> My nomination for worst US fighter would be the P39.
> 
> A fine ground attack plane for the early war years, but hopelessly outclassed by anything the LW had. And it could barely hold its own with the Zero.



I don't have the references immediately at hand (most of my books and periodicals are in storage as I am in flux), but the P-39 was used very successfully by Soviet fighter pilots and many Soviet aces scored a portion of their victories flying the P-39. The 2nd-ranking Soviet ace, Alexander Pokryshkin, scored the majority of his kills with the P-39 and I vaguely recall another Russian ace who scored all of his 40+ or 50+ victories with the P-39. Contrary to popular belief, the P-39 performed well at 15K feet and below, which was the most common combat altitude on the Eastern front, and Soviet pilots generally liked the P-39. The P-39's performance weaknesses were at higher altitudes, which is why it did not perform well on the Western front and in the Pacific theatre. Thus I don't believe the P-39 can be considered the least successful fighter of WWII.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 18, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> afaik total loss of italian fighter in france campaign it's 5 fighters (42 and 200)
> i need check but i don't remember fight on 15th june



i remembered wrong

and the 5 fighters loss are all loss the 15th and are C.R. 42 (M.C. 200 losses aren't for enemy fighters, only incindets)


----------



## diddyriddick (Nov 18, 2009)

Brewster Buffalo. I've not heard of them after Midway; perhaps this is because they took such a mauling.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 18, 2009)

Perhaps consulting some sources would be nice before lumping such an assessment.


----------



## diddyriddick (Nov 18, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Perhaps consulting some sources would be nice before lumping such an assessment.



To whom was that addressed?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 18, 2009)

diddyriddick said:


> To whom was that addressed?


You. The Buff performed spectacularly in Finnish service.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 18, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> I don't have the references immediately at hand (most of my books and periodicals are in storage as I am in flux), but the P-39 was used very successfully by Soviet fighter pilots and many Soviet aces scored a portion of their victories flying the P-39. The 2nd-ranking Soviet ace, Alexander Pokryshkin, scored the majority of his kills with the P-39 and I vaguely recall another Russian ace who scored all of his 40+ or 50+ victories with the P-39. Contrary to popular belief, the P-39 performed well at 15K feet and below, which was the most common combat altitude on the Eastern front, and Soviet pilots generally liked the P-39. The P-39's performance weaknesses were at higher altitudes, which is why it did not perform well on the Western front and in the Pacific theatre. Thus I don't believe the P-39 can be considered the least successful fighter of WWII.


I agree. Though it needs to be said that syscom said the worst fighter in US service... 
But then I still don't know why the P-40 would be superior to the P-39. I am sure there is a thread about that subject somewhere on this forum ...

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 18, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I agree. Though it needs to be said that syscom said the worst fighter in US service...
> But then I still don't know why the P-40 would be superior to the P-39. I am sure there is a thread about that subject somewhere on this forum ...
> 
> Kris


The Buffalo was definitely the worst fighter in US service. If we hadn't given them to Finland, they'd be considered the worst ever.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 18, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The Buffalo was definitely the worst fighter in US service. If we hadn't given them to Finland, they'd be considered the worst ever.



I have 4 things to say:

P-35
P-36
P-43
P-66

Once again, this isn't about best or worst, it's about success (ie in air combat) - getting rather bored of repeating myself on this one! 

And before everyone jumps down my throat to say "How can you possibly think the P-36 was worse than the Buffalo?", examine the performance of the 2 types in Finnish service. They were employed in similar numbers, in the same operating theatre and flown by pilots from the same training and experience background, and yet the Buffalo kill-to-loss ratio was significantly higher than that of the P-36. 

As for the others in the above list, all were in service in the US Army around the time of Pearl Harbor and none were fit for purpose, although it's perhaps a tad unfair to include the P-35 since only a few were operational in the Philippines. However, the P-43 and P-66 both achieved air-to-air victories over China.

Just adding more grist to the mill....!

KR
Mark


----------



## Civettone (Nov 19, 2009)

And the P-36 was the second best fighter in the French AF in 1940, second only to the D.520. 


Interesting that you are mentioning the P-43 and P-66. This is indeed about the least succesful fighters. But both types simply didn't see combat, except for in the Chinese AF. But we cannot discard a fighter simply because it didn't see combat. 

But then again ... that would also mean we cannot say the Roc was unsuccesful.

Kris


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 19, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Interesting that you are mentioning the P-43 and P-66. This is indeed about the least succesful fighters. But both types simply didn't see combat, except for in the Chinese AF. But we cannot discard a fighter simply because it didn't see combat.
> 
> But then again ... that would also mean we cannot say the Roc was unsuccesful.



Sorry, Kris, but you're contradicting yourself. Is combat in the CAF somehow not worth considering compared to combat in the RAF or USAAF? The P-43 and P-66 both saw combat with the CAF and both secured air-to-air victories. The Roc had at least 2 air-to-air engagements with the RAF and FAA but, IIRC, only damaged the opponents.

Therefore, per my previous posts, we can say that the Roc was unsuccessful because it was engaged in air combats but didn't shoot down an enemy aircraft. The P-43 and P-66 were not unsuccessful. My response to Clay was to point out that there were, in my view, fighters that were worse than the Buffalo in US service during WWII - but that's a "best/worse" subjective argument and not an objective assessement of success.

KR
Mark


----------



## Civettone (Nov 19, 2009)

I am not contradicting myself. I am safely discarding the service of the P-66 in the Chinese AF as these data are totally non-representable! Let me explain.

Take a look at these sites for some more information:
Hkans Aviation page Sino-Japanese Air War 1942 and search for the P-66
Hkans Aviation page Sino-Japanese Air War 1943 and do the same
It is one sorry affair!
More from here:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/dunnp664.htm
http://www.warbirdforum.com/dunnp665.htm

The conclusion seems to be that most P-66s were lost while achieving no success. I have read about one guy making three kills in one time with a P-66 but I have my doubts about the soty - propaganda? - and the guy did receive the highest reward in Chinese military, and got a huge promotion. That's how rare these stories were. In any case it still means the ratio of combat losses would be tens of times bigger than the kills. Definitely making it one of the least succesful. 
But as I consider the P-66 to be at least a mediocre fighter, probably on par with the P-40, I think this cannot be right.
So for that matter I am not considering any data from the Chinese AF as being representable!

Read this about an American rapport on the Chinese AF:


> More detailed insight into the operations of the C.A.F. is contained in a report by Kenneth M. Warder, a Vultee Aviation service representative, who spent three months with the C.A.F. (November 1942 to January 1943) and observed its operating and maintenance practices. Warder toured all the airfields and factories where the P-66 was operated and maintained.
> 
> When Warder first arrived he found all the aircraft on each airfield were actively engaged in flying - some in formation flying, some in gunnery and others practicing landings. He soon concluded this was a show for his benefit for as his stay lengthened he found the aircraft sitting inactive on the ground day after day. He had a difficult time checking flying time on aircraft. "However, I obtained one flight time record for 45 days on 10 airplanes which averaged 12 minutes per plane per day. At another airfield I obtained the time on 15 airplanes for two weeks. One airplane had flown for eight hours; the other airplanes had no time at all for two weeks."
> 
> ...


How frustrating that must have been!

Kris


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 19, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> many thanks again
> 
> two notes
> 
> ...




Hi, 

I have the figures now for Greece from the Italian invasion to the eve of the German invasion.

Counting just losses in the air to enemy planes, 31 x CR-42 lost in exchange for 36 planes shot down. (+1 Yugoslavian Floatplane during Ger invasion)

Fighter vs. Fighter (same period) 26 Cr-42 lost to enemy fighters

(4 to Hurricane, 19 to RAF Gladiator, 3 to PZL P.24)

They shoot down 10 enemy fighters

5 x PZL P.24
1 x Gladiator (greek)
4 x Gladiator


Additionally, Cr-32's were active. They account for 4 more enemy planes losing none in the air.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 19, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I am not contradicting myself.



'Fraid I disagree, Kris per your statement "But both types simply didn't see combat, except for in the Chinese AF". They either did see combat or they didn't but caveating the statement to demean the CAF is rather unworthy, irrespective of the multiple problems (training, logistics, organisation, leadership) demonstrated by the Service. The poorly trained, relatively unskilled pilots of the CAF were flying to defend their homeland from aggression and did so against some of the best-trained aircrew in the world - just because China is seen as a backwater campaign by the West should not diminish the courage and tenacity of the people.

I tend to agree that 3 kills in one day seems implausible but Mr Dunn (whose article you cite) records a couple of more believable accounts of P-66s achieving victories. And, if I'm proved wrong, and the P-66 didn't achieve a kill then we can add it to the Boomer and Roc as unsuccessful fighters. My response to Clay was more to do with the assertion that the Buffalo was the worst fighter in the US inventory during WWII.

KR
Mark


----------



## claidemore (Nov 19, 2009)

EDIT: WOOPS! missed this link in earlier post above. Please disregard. 

http://www.warbirdforum.com/dunnp66.htm

Good link about the P66


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 19, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> East Africa 1940
> 
> They lose 27 to enemy fighters
> (18 to Hurricane, 9 to Gladiator)
> ...



From "La Regia Aeronautica 1939-1940" east africa until 10 january 1941 losses 29 fighters were shoot down (also from AA) and an other 11 losses for incidents or ground attack. you give a 35 fighter losses only for air combat can you explain the difference?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 19, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have the figures now for Greece from the Italian invasion to the eve of the German invasion.
> 
> ...



very high losses i thinked low losses why the RA loss only 16 fighter "in operation" until 28th february '41 so i don't thinked so heavy loss the last seven weeks


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 19, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry, Kris, but you're contradicting yourself. Is combat in the CAF somehow not worth considering compared to combat in the RAF or USAAF? The P-43 and P-66 both saw combat with the CAF and both secured air-to-air victories. The Roc had at least 2 air-to-air engagements with the RAF and FAA but, IIRC, only damaged the opponents.
> 
> Therefore, per my previous posts, we can say that the Roc was unsuccessful because it was engaged in air combats but didn't shoot down an enemy aircraft. The P-43 and P-66 were not unsuccessful. My response to Clay was to point out that there were, in my view, fighters that were worse than the Buffalo in US service during WWII - but that's a "best/worse" subjective argument and not an objective assessement of success.
> 
> ...


I still pick the Buffalo as the worst in US service because they got more people killed.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 19, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I still pick the Buffalo as the worst in US service because they got more people killed.



Like I keep saying, Clay, that's a subjective assessment whereas the thread is about success, or otherwise. However, the P-43 and P-66 weren't even trusted to go into combat so, again, it's all about how you measure "worst". A heck of a lot of Zero pilots were killed during the Marianas Turkey Shoot but I don't hear anyone calling that aircraft the worst of WWII.

KR
Mark


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 19, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I still pick the Buffalo as the worst in US service because they got more people killed.



It is the worst US fighter because it got 14 US pilots (some green) killed in combat total for the war?


----------



## davebender (Nov 20, 2009)

I think the enemy had something to do with that. Even good aircraft like the Spitfire, Me-109 and P-51 were shot down by the thousands.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 20, 2009)

How do we measure success for a fighter? 
Do we look at; how many enemy planes it shot down?
how long it remained in service?
kill / loss ratio?
mission success?
accident/loss rate?
did it meet design specs?
was it versatile?
was it easy and inexpensive to produce?
If we are looking for the' least successful fighter', would that be the exact opposite of' most successful fighter'? If so, what are the criteria for most successful? 

There is no set standard for success, so discussions as to relative merits, ie best/worst, are relevant. 
It's through these discussions and postings, including those that take off on a tangent and go down rabbit trails not foreseen by the original question, that we get new information and are prompted to research ourselves.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 20, 2009)

Claidemore,

Some answers:

Do we look at; how many enemy planes it shot down?
*This is heavily dependent on relative conditions so making direct comparisons is virtually impossible. Also, Type A shooting down more than Type B is irrelevant because both were successful to a greater or lesser extent whereas my contention is that a fighter which, despite opportunity, failed to achieve a single kill is, by default, the least successful. *

how long it remained in service?
*Irrelevant as all aircraft have a shelf-life driven by the rate of advance of technology, the degree to which requirements showed, or did not show, foresight, and funding to procure replacement aircraft. A fighter is there to shoot down enemy aircraft - that is the measure of success.*

kill / loss ratio?
*This is such a variable measure, dependent on local conditions and the strength of the adversary, that it is largely meaningless. For example, the Zero was supreme over Malaya, the Dutch East Indies and the Phillippines in 1942 but was roundly trounced at the Marianas Turkey Shoot - how can we measure success across such a broad spectrum of performance?*

mission success?
*To do this, you need to define mission success so we're caveating a caveat - and there be monsters down that path.*

accident/loss rate?
*Irrelevant - all aircraft have an accident and loss rate. A fighter's success is not measured in terms of its accident rate but in terms of it's primary job - shooting down the adversary.*

did it meet design specs?
*If it didn't meet design specs, it wouldn't have been selected for service. Again, I see this as an irrelevance for this particular thread.*

was it versatile?
*The question was about the least successful fighter not the least successful multi-role aircraft. Happy to discuss versatility but it isn't germaine to thread.*

was it easy and inexpensive to produce?
*That's a procurement decision not a measure of success. *

The question was "which was the most unsuccessful fighter" so we're not measuring success, we're identifying the absence of it for a fighter aircraft. You're right that there is no relative measure of success but we can, with some certainty, define lack of success. A fighter is designed to shoot down the adversary's aircraft. A fighter which, despite opportunity, failed to achieve a single kill is, by default, the least successful. 

I don't disagree that heading off on a tangent may lead to new insights in different areas but the exam question for this thread was quite neatly defined and, in my view, is straightforward to answer. The more challenging question of measuring success has been around since Pontius was a pilot, and it remains as subjective as it always was. If we want to explore WHY I reached my answer, then by all means let's do so but let's not change the original question (by all means, we can start different threads to explore some of the factors you identified in your last posting).

KR
Mark


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 20, 2009)

I think some of the float plane fighters have to rank towards to the top. Sorry at work, and don't have any books to list the specific types.


----------



## davebender (Nov 20, 2009)

That's certainly true in terms of combat performance. On the other hand float plane fighters did provide a measure of aerial protection in places like Kiska which lacked facilities to operate land based aircraft. So if the choice is float planes or none at all those A6M2-N (i.e. Rufe float version of Zero) start to look pretty useful.


----------



## 88l71 (Nov 20, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Claidemore,
> 
> 
> _accident/loss rate?
> ...


----------



## davebender (Nov 20, 2009)

> What's the point of an aircraft with excellent capabilities if you can't produce it quickly enough to replace losses or in large enough numbers to meet operational needs?


I agree except for the USA. 

The P-38 and P-47 were both very expensive. No other nation would have considered funding such expensive fighter aircraft. The U.S. Army Air Corps simply shoveled unlimited amounts of money at the problem.


----------



## Juha (Nov 20, 2009)

Hello Mark
For the defence for FAF’s Hawk 75As. While Brewster B-239s had arrived to Finland during Spring 40, so pilots had had time to get use to it and to perfect tactics for it, the first 16 Hawks arrived 23 – 30 June 1941, the Continuation War began 25 june 41, 11arrived 28 July – 2 August 41, further 2 arrived on 5 Dec 41 but the last 15 arrived 13 June 43 – 5 Jan 44. So the last group arrived when they were already clearly obsolete. 
FAF’s Hawk pilots claimed 190½ kills while losing 8 in air combat + 6 to AA, one on ground and 9 because of technical problems or in accidents. So IMHO not so bad. And one must remember that Hawks of HLeLv 32 were the only fighters in their sector in 1944 during the big Soviet summer offensive in 1944 while B-239s could operate quieter areas of their sector because of Bf 109Gs carried the main burden in Karelian Istmus during summer 44. 

And as I have wrote earlier Hawks were the most successful fighters of French AF in 1939-40.

Juha


----------



## JoeB (Nov 20, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> I have 4 things to say:
> 
> P-36
> 
> And before everyone jumps down my throat to say "How can you possibly think the P-36 was worse than the Buffalo?", examine the performance of the 2 types in Finnish service. They were employed in similar numbers, in the same operating theatre and flown by pilots from the same training and experience background, and yet the Buffalo kill-to-loss ratio was significantly higher than that of the P-36.


But it was the other way around in the Pacific War. The P-36/Hawk was used in three different episodes, two very brief but another a bit more substantial:
1) USAAF P-36's at Pearl Harbor: downed 2 Zeroes (confirmed in Japanese accounts) for 1 P-36
2) Dutch Hawks in the East Indies, only had one combat Feb 3 1942: 5 Hawks and 12 CW-21's were lost for 3 Zeroes (two of the Hawks had engine problems and were shot up by Zeroes on the way back to base; but one or more of the Zero losses might have been to AA).
3) British Mohawks in Burma: this was a little larger sample of a dozen or so combats in November 1942-May 1943. The Mohawks shot down (or caused crashlandings) of 8 Type 1 Fighters ('Oscar') for 7 Mohawks shot down or crashlanded. They shot down 5 non-fighters without further loss.

British and Dutch Buffalo's in 1942 shot down around 10-11 Japanese fighters for 53 Buffalo's lost in combats where both sides' losses are known, and around 9-10 other a/c without further loss. USMC Buffalo's and F4F's at Midway lost 13 and 2 respectively; the Japanese lost 2 Zeroes, 1 Type 99 Carrier Bomber and 6 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes, at least two of the latter to AA per their records; the F4F's were credited with 3 of the 4 claimed victories v Zeroes. 

Also, despite that fact that Mowhawk v Buffalo comparison is 1942-3 v. early-mid 42, British Hurricanes in 1943 in Burma still only shot down 12 Type 1's for 55 Hurricane losses, almost no better than they did in 1942, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare '42 and '43 results in that theater: the Japanese opposition apparently didn't get any easier. 

And as someone else alluded to, French H-75's apparently didn't do worse against Bf109E's, at least compared to other French types or Hurricanes (though I don't have hard stats to calculate a kill ratio), even did well according to their own claims.

So, I believe you're correct the Finns preferred the Buffalo to the Hawk (though didn't totally dislike the Hawk) but that's actually a pretty small portion of the Hawk's career, Pacific results don't show the same thing, and for the Hawk alone the 1939-40 record with the French would have to be considered before passing judgement on the plane, since such a big part of its career.

Sources for losses: David Aiken article on PH, Bloody Shambles, Air War for Burma, The First Team, original records, as I counted things.

Joe


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 20, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree except for the USA.
> 
> The P-38 and P-47 were both very expensive. No other nation would have considered funding such expensive fighter aircraft. The U.S. Army Air Corps simply shoveled unlimited amounts of money at the problem.



And for their money they got much more capable aircraft.

Higher operational ceilings, longer range than most of the opposition. Heavier armament and the ability to carry larger external load.

you don't get 2000-3000hp fighters for the price of 1200-1500hp fighters. 1200-1500HP fighters can't do the things that 2000-3000hp fighters can do.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 20, 2009)

Buffnut:



> A fighter is there to shoot down enemy aircraft - that is the measure of success.



That would be the purpose of an interceptor, a fighter actually has a much broader defintion. 

A fighters job can be to protect assets. ( Other planes, (bombers), factories, radar installations, ships, territory, etc.) It might shoot down enemy planes doing that job, or it might not. Better if they do, but not an absolute requirement. 

A good example would be the close escort doctrine used by Yak fighters protecting bombers. Their job was to drive off German fighters, they were specifically forbidden from leaving their charges to pursue and shoot down enemy fighters. 

I believe the Boomerangs, though they were not able to shoot down any Japanese bombers, did disrupt their bombing mission. That would be a successful sortie for the Boomerang IMO. 
The Boomerang continued in a combat role throughout it's career, while the Defiant was relegated to a training role after a poor showing in combat. 
Looking at it that way would make the Defiant a less successful fighter than the Boomerang, even though it did manage to shoot down several enemy a/c. 

I don't think many would agree that length of service is irrelevant to the success of a design. People praise the Mustang, Spitfire and Me109 for their length of service all the time. I would say that longevity helps put those three planes amongst the most successful fighter designs of WWII, so the opposite would also be true. 

I guess when I asked did it meet design specs, I should have said 'did it do what the designers wanted it to do?', ie home defense, bomber escort, etc. I believe one of the design requirements of the 109 was as a home defense fighter, as was the Spitfire. The Spit was successful in that role, the 109, ultimately, was not. (probably no WWII design could have been successful protecting Germany in 1944/45)

There are a lot of people who place emphasis on kill/loss ratios. A positive or negatvie kill ratio doesn't tell the whole story, but it is a pretty important bit of evidence when evaluating a fighter. Definately not meaningless.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 21, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I guess when I asked did it meet design specs, I should have said 'did it do what the designers wanted it to do?', ie home defense, bomber escort, etc. I believe one of the design requirements of the 109 was as a home defense fighter, as was the Spitfire. The Spit was successful in that role, the 109, ultimately, was not. (probably no WWII design could have been successful protecting Germany in 1944/45)



Always with the implications lol so cheap.
Suppose Germany had the Spitfire and GB the Bf 109, would the war go ANY different? No. Period.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 21, 2009)

Very difficult to say.

The Hurricane was out performed even in 1940 but that proved an excellent machine.

It ain't what you got but what you do with it that counts.

The Defiant is a good example....it was never developed beyond its original concept so ended up going no where.

American fighters had range as a design feature so they had to be bigger heavy machines. So they more airspace to defend.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 21, 2009)

RAF could've send the Defiants to Malta Egypt in late 1940; with 1000+ pieces produced, a couple of hundreds sent there would be away from hi-performance Axis fighters and their tally would be noticeable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

Or the Axis tally would have been even more noticable. 

While they may have had a better chance of shooting down Italian bombers and while their speed matched the speed of the early Italian fighters pretty well I would think the Italian's climb and manueverablility would prevent much fighter vrs fighter success by the Defiants and yet leave the Defiants vulnerable to the Italians.

Many Defiants were flown as night fighters and while they didn't score many successes in that role niether did many other planes tried in the same role at the time. THe problem being in the radar equipment more than the planes actual performance. 13 home squadrons were equipped with Defiant night fighters and if you ship the planes off to the middle east you just have to find some other plane to equipe those squadrons with.

Night fighter Botha's anyone


----------



## The Basket (Nov 21, 2009)

The Defiant was a good flying machine with a top speed over 300mph which is not bad for a big 1940 machine.

The aircraft was fine the concept was bad.


----------



## davebender (Nov 21, 2009)

I don't think so. 

The inexpensive P-51 was overall superior to high priced P-38s and P-47s.

The dirt cheap Me-109 was competative right up to 1945.


----------



## claidemore (Nov 21, 2009)

riacrato said:


> Always with the implications lol so cheap.
> Suppose Germany had the Spitfire and GB the Bf 109, would the war go ANY different? No. Period.



Which is why I said


> (probably no WWII design could have been successful protecting Germany in 1944/45)


Geez. Read the entire post before you go accusing me of taking cheap shots.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 21, 2009)

claidemore said:


> That would be the purpose of an interceptor, a fighter actually has a much broader defintion.
> 
> There are a lot of people who place emphasis on kill/loss ratios. A positive or negatvie kill ratio doesn't tell the whole story, but it is a pretty important bit of evidence when evaluating a fighter. Definately not meaningless.


No single stat tells the whole story, I would just say kill ratio against enemy fighters tells the most of any single stat, when it comes to air combat itself. Air combat itself was not the only operational factor of course, the other very important one being radius of action. If a fighter couldn't get to the fight, it could serve no purpose at all. Range is the most underestimated factor by far IME when people compare fighters. 

But once the fighter could enter combat, fighters didn't generally vastly distinguish themselves in ability to shoot down or disrupt the operations of non-fighters, although that was arguably actually the most important end result of fighter operations. In most WWII cases most fighters could inflict unacceptable losses on enemy non-fighters which weren't effectively protected by enemy fighters. Being able to do that was nothing special. There are well known exceptions, like American heavy bombers (where the armament and toughness of the attacking fighters was very important) and certain recon and bombing planes that were hard to catch (Mosquito, Japanese Type 100 'Dinah', etc) . But as a rule most reasonably up to date fighters could inflict heavy losses on ineffectively escorted non-fighters, bombers especially, in daylight. Ability to combat enemy fighters is what separated the sheep from the goats.

So a concrete example, Hurricanes at Malta shot down cumulatively a lot of Axis bombers, and generally had the better of it v Italian fighters prior to the introduction of Mc202 in fall 1941, but were almost completely ineffective v Bf109's. In the first period of German operations v. Malta, Feb-May '41 (the LW then went away before returning in greater strength in Dec.'41) the Hurricanes shot down no Bf109E's for around 30 losses to the 109's, and it was usually just one Staffel of 109's present. The Hurricanes still shot down other Axis a/c in that period, (2/12-5/21/1941, 2-3 Bf110, 9 Ju-87 [for one more Hurricane loss], 4 Ju-88, 1 He-111, 1 SM.79, 1 CR-42, day ops only, 109's not present in all those combats)*. But, what fighter could have dealt better with the 109's yet been incapable of shooting down those other types of a/c? There was no such fighter, basically. Almost any fighter that could have done better v the 109's would have been in a better position to shoot down *more* bombers, by not spending as much energy suriving v the 109's, and by being cumulatively more numerous because not suffering as heavy losses to the 109's. If we're asking whether in absolute terms the Hurricanes achieved anything in that period the answer is yes. But if we're comparing to other fighters we might substitute for the Hurricane, ability to deal with the 109 would be the key *distinguishing feature*. When comparing fighter or fighter units (to avoid the endless 'pilot or plane causes it' debate), the ability to reach the fight and deal with enemy fighter units are the two most important *distingushing features*. Though those two factors don't explain everything in all cases, of course. 

*As I counted in "Hurricanes over Malta" by Cull.

Joe


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> The inexpensive P-51 was overall superior to high priced P-38s and P-47s.
> 
> The dirt cheap Me-109 was competative right up to 1945.



The P-51 ( in the versions that were superior) was not available when the P-38 was ordered and the the P-51 ( in the versions that were superior) was not available when the P-47 was ordered. 

The P-51, in any version, Might have had trouble fighting in the mid to upper 30,000ft range if the Germans had been able to feild a fighter that operated at that altitude. THe P-38 and P-47 may have been better adapted to those altitudes. but this is a what if. 

The Mustang could not carry the war load of a P-38. 

THe P-38 carried a marginly heavier gun armament instalation while the -47 carried 33% more gun armament. 

It might be interesting to see the tatical radius of some of these planes when toting bombs. P-47 has three mounting points vrs the P-51s two and the P-38 mounting points were good for 2000lbs each. 

As for your joke about the 109, good one, I am still laughing.

A fighter is not cheap, no matter what the cost per plane, if you need two or three of the them to do the job of one bigger, more expensive airplane. 

The 109 could not carry and did not carry a heavy enough gun armament to do what was needed. 

While it may have been a decent fighter bomber in 1941-43 by late 44 and 45 it's bomb load can only be described as embarrasing.


----------



## davebender (Nov 21, 2009)

Except for recon aircraft WWII aerial combat did not take place above 30,000 feet. So why spend the money for a monster size turbocharger system that can operate efficiently above 30,000 feet?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> And for their money they got much more capable aircraft.
> 
> Higher operational ceilings, longer range than most of the opposition. Heavier armament and the ability to carry larger external load.
> 
> you don't get 2000-3000hp fighters for the price of 1200-1500hp fighters. 1200-1500HP fighters can't do the things that 2000-3000hp fighters can do.



I just erased what was repeated earlier..


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-51 ( in the versions that were superior) was not available when the P-38 was ordered and the the P-51 ( in the versions that were superior) was not available when the P-47 was ordered.
> 
> 
> The Mustang could not carry the war load of a P-38.
> ...



SR - Most of your points and questions are good ones but the armament issue relative to the fighter/escort role were irrelevant with respect to results in ETO. The B/C Mustang had half the armament of the Jug but had a much better air to air and air to ground record simply because it had same or better perfromance in the entire altitude ranges the battles were fought and had the legs to get to the battles.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> Except for recon aircraft WWII aerial combat did not take place above 30,000 feet. So why spend the money for a monster size turbocharger system that can operate efficiently above 30,000 feet?



Because when the aircraft were ordered nobody knew that. Planes were being ordered and production priorities established based on what they thought could or would happen 2 -3-4 years in the future. 
If the US had gone the "CHEAP" route and the Germasn had developed aircraft that operated at 35,000ft what would the ETO have looked like?

As for the expense of a "monster size turbocharger system" just how much more than an F6F or F4U did a P-47 cost?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

drgondog said:


> SR - Most of your points and questions are good ones but the armament issue relative to the fighter/escort role were irrelevant with respect to results in ETO. The B/C Mustang had half the armament of the Jug but had a much better air to air and air to ground record simply because it had same or better perfromance in the entire altitude ranges the battles were fought and had the legs to get to the battles.



I would question the effectiveness of the B/C Mustangs air to ground record vrs the P-47.

You are correct in the effectiveness of the Mustang B/C models in the escort role but if the Allies had had to intercept large German bombers which plane/s would have been more effective?

over 2000 P-47s were on order BEFORE Pearl Harbor. what duties or missions could they have been expected to undertake? Could the Generals have known that the Germans would be incapable of developing larger bombers in the next 2-4 years? 

ANd if they had to shoot down large bombers does anybody really doubt that more guns would be better?
THe advantage of fighters over bombers is that the fighters should be able to bring more guns to bear than the bomber can in any one direction. 
Using small chaep fighter with 2-3 guns means the bombers just might be able to defend themselves. Trying to build a bomber that outgun P-38s and P47 (Tempests Or F4Us ) is going to be a lot harder. 

Large high HP fighters are going to have more potenial than smaller cheaper fighters.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> ...if the Allies had had to intercept large German bombers which plane/s would have been more effective?


the bigger issue in that instance would have been type of armament rather than type of a/c


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I would question the effectiveness of the B/C Mustangs air to ground record vrs the P-47.
> 
> You are correct in the effectiveness of the Mustang B/C models in the escort role but if the Allies had had to intercept large German bombers which plane/s would have been more effective?
> 
> ...



not a good assumption in context of interceptors - the MiG 15 comes to mind immediately as well as all the USSR interceptor follow ons through the MiG 21.

The 30mm equipped Me 109 had devastating firepower for a '3 gun standard'.. ditto the Fw 190.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I would question the effectiveness of the B/C Mustangs air to ground record vrs the P-47.
> 
> .



Here are the numbers - air credits ----> USAF Victory Credits current through 1/2009, ground credits -----> 8th AF VCB. Losses --->MACR's

The latter is and always will be open to question as MACR's report conditions regarding 'last sighting' nearly as often as a definitive cause for loss. I have spen a lot of years poring over the encounters and MACR's. In my judgement the numbers below are conservative wrt to actual cause of loss. In my judgment a fighter that 'disappeared' when enemy a/c were reported in area I assigned 'unk-probably air' and stuck it in air loss column..

The Strafing/flak losses include loss of control at low altitude and crashing as well as 'flak' as it is impossible to know whether a golden BB was the cause... so I lumped those figures into the pot for 'strafing losses' whether it was shooting up airfields or trains or cows.. so the actual loss count for airfield strafing is OVERSTATED.. and the Mustang had nearly 2x ground scores as the P-47 and P-38s Combined..

I have an outdated list published on Mike Williams' site but here is the synopsis

P-47 1562/214 credit to loss - air to air and 740/200 air to ground credit to loss
P-38 281/101 credit to loss - air to air and 161/109 air to ground credit to loss

P-51 3325/322 credit to loss - air to air and 3204/568 air to ground credit to loss

Be glad to debate the numbers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> the bigger issue in that instance would have been type of armament rather than type of a/c



True but you can't put big armament in a small, cheap fighter.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> True but you can't put big armament in a small, cheap fighter.


Not even a 30mm in a Bf109?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

drgondog said:


> not a good assumption in context of interceptors - the MiG 15 comes to mind immediately as well as all the USSR interceptor follow ons through the MiG 21.
> 
> The 30mm equipped Me 109 had devastating firepower for a '3 gun standard'.. ditto the Fw 190.



Please try to compare apples to apples. The post war Russian Mig 15 used much faster firing guns than most WW II aircraft cannon and a pair of 23mm guns and a 37mm are hardly the usual three guns of either Luftwaffe or the WW II soviet V-12 fighters are they? by the time you get to the Mig 21 they are NR-30s which fire 400gram projectiles at 900rpm, again hardly comparable to WW II guns. 

And do try to study aircraft a bit more. 
THe Mustang was not Designed for four 20mm cannon. Some early versions were fitted with Four 20mms but that was after how many had been built with four .50s and four .30s? since it was never repeated after that one batch (of 150) I think we can assume that the installation was not a rousing success. The RAF never ordered more after the 97 they got and the US converted the 53 they kept to photo recon planes. 

Now maybe the US built crappy 20mm cannon but the weight of a four 20mm installation is going to affect performance. 

The 109 had crap for firepower at the end of the war and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that fact. 

A single 20mm and a pair of weak 13mms are hardly First class armamant, Swaping in the MK 108 means a lower rate of fire, shorter range, more difficulty in deflection shooting and less combat duration. Once a hit is obtained it is much more devastating. It is getting that devestating hit that is the problem. Having to use multipule planes to get more than one such gun into the air with sufficent performance to get a good firing solution revels that the "cheap" 109 wasn't really so cheap.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Not even a 30mm in a Bf109?



See above. 

Using just under 3 tons of empty, equiped aircraft with a 1500-1800hp engine (depending on model and additives) to get a single, low velocity 30mm cannon with just 6 seconds of ammunition into combat doesn't seem to be that cost effective. THe pair of 13mm MGs, while a nice addition, give the german plane slightly better firepower than Fiat C.R. 42 biplane once the 30mm runs dry.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> And do try to study aircraft a bit more


No need for this, fella...




Shortround6 said:


> ...Swapping in the MK 108 means a lower rate of fire, shorter range, more difficulty in deflection shooting and less combat duration...
> 
> Once a hit is obtained it is much more devastating. It is getting that devastating hit that is the problem.
> 
> Having to use multiple planes to get more than one such gun into the air with sufficent performance to get a good firing solution revels that the "cheap" 109 wasn't really so cheap.


We _are_ still going after bombers here, aren't we? The deflection issue isn't so much of a crisis then...

I don't think there were any issues putting a 30mm round onto a heavy bomber bar really lousy shooting.

The Spitfire wasn't originally designed for cannons either, I would describe it as a 'small fighter' comparable with the Bf109, it also had a thinner wing than the Mustang. 4 x 20mm would be pretty good at ripping up a 4-engined heavy whilst retaining sufficient muzzle velocity to deal with any interfering escorts (your deflection issue).


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Please try to compare apples to apples. The post war Russian Mig 15 used much faster firing guns than most WW II aircraft cannon and a pair of 23mm guns and a 37mm are hardly the usual three guns of either Luftwaffe or the WW II soviet V-12 fighters are they? by the time you get to the Mig 21 they are NR-30s which fire 400gram projectiles at 900rpm, again hardly comparable to WW II guns.
> 
> *You generalized and the generality doesn't apply. I compared the apple of cheap/light with heavy firepower and cited some extremely well known examples against your statement that cheap/light can't 'do heavy firepower'.. please reflect on the He 162, the Ki 84, the Ki 100, the N1K-J Shiden, etc, etc.
> 
> ...



Your point is not well made. 

A single Mg151/20 with two aligned 13mm firing with no convergence issues is highly effective and the replacement of the Mg151/20 with the Mk 108 was devastating for the skilled pilot that would close to less than 300 yards to fire. You did not kill B-17s very well trying to stooge way out and lob trash into a formation.

If you wish to base your sole argument of 'light/cheap' can't deal firepower with performance - please pontificate on thelack of firepower for the Fw 190 or the N1K-J or the Ki 100 - I am all ears and would love for you to 'educate' me.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> And do try to study aircraft a bit more.
> THe Mustang was not Designed for four 20mm cannon. Some early versions were fitted with Four 20mms but that was after how many had been built with four .50s and four .30s? since it was never repeated after that one batch (of 150) I think we can assume that the installation was not a rousing success. The RAF never ordered more after the 97 they got and the US converted the 53 they kept to photo recon planes.


That remains to be seen. Just because they changed armament doesn't mean it was faulty. Probably the MGs suited their needs better. For instance because it was sufficient in fighter vs fighter which was going to be the main job during the war. That's why all of the (single engined) fighters got these all-MG armaments. Before the war there was still the idea that the USAAF needed interceptors.

Also, if needed the US could have come up with a whole range of decent interceptors. Most fighters flew long distance but their performance would have been even better if flown with little fuel. 



> The 109 had crap for firepower at the end of the war and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that fact.


I beg to differ. It was more than sufficient. Both the 20mm as the 13mm are good enough guns.

I also find the claim of the MK 108 being an inferior gun to be one of the overrated stories about WW2 equipment. Some even call it a grenade launcher. Yet it was an excellent gun. Good RoF and good enough MV. The MV was sufficient for close-combat fighting. We have calculated the time needed for the shell to hit a target at usual range and someone provided data for the projectile drop. Both indicate that the MK 108 was good enough, even for fighter vs fighter encounters. 
And most importantly, the gun was very light for its calibre. 

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> No need for this, fella...



Then he should not try to feed me moo-poo.


Colin1 said:


> We _are_ still going after bombers here, aren't we? The deflection issue isn't so much of a crisis then...
> 
> I don't think there were any issues putting a 30mm round onto a heavy bomber bar really lousy shooting.
> 
> The Spitfire wasn't originally designed for cannons either, I would describe it as a 'small fighter' comparable with the Bf109, it also had a thinner wing than the Mustang. 4 x 20mm would be pretty good at ripping up a 4-engined heavy whilst retaining sufficient muzzle velocity to deal with any interfering escorts (your deflection issue).



True but the 4 cannon installation didn't become really standard until the the MK 21 did it?
Plenty of Spitifres could have been fited with Four 20mm guns in the Universal wing, thousands of them right?
How many actually were ? 
Shortage of cannon or performance penelty?
If they had faced mass big bombers maybe they would gone to the all cannon installation and take the performance hit. 
As for the size of a Spitfire, it might have been slender but in length (once it got the two stage engine) wing span and wing area it much closer in size to a Mustang than to a 109.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Then he should not try to feed me moo-poo.
> 
> 
> True but the 4 cannon installation didn't become really standard until the the MK 21 did it?
> ...



feed you 'moo=poo' ? what a novel concept. Explain please?

As to diverting the conversation let us establish that at least one early, light, cheap fighter had better firepower than the P-38 and P-47 - that would be the production run of 150 P-51's in 1942.

Let us establish that the light, cheap MiG 15 had 2x 23 plus 1x 37mm cannon vs the F-86 awesome battery of 6x50's and ask if you want the Fj4 with 4x20mm more in high altiude air combat against the MiG 15?

Let us further establish that the small, cheap F-16 had 1x 20mm M-61 as did the much larger F-105, the much larger F-15 and the much larger (and ALL more expensive) F-14.

Let us throw more cheap, light 'moo-poo' on the flame (substitute for buffalo chips) with the light, cheap He 162 and Fw 190A8 and N1K-J batteries to compare to the big, huge, expensive P-47 battery of 8x.50's. Which one of those four do you prefer against the B-17 or B-29?

Your turn to dispense 'moo=poo"??


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Then he should not try to feed me moo-poo.
> 
> 
> True but the 4 cannon installation didn't become really standard until the the MK 21 did it?
> ...



But none of those compare in weight or size or cost to the P-47 or P-38. What in the world are you trying to argue?


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 21, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> True but the 4 cannon installation didn't become really standard until the Mk 21 did it? Plenty of Spitifres could have been fited with 4 20mm guns in the universal wing, thousands of them right? How many actually were?
> 
> Shortage of cannon or performance penalty?
> If they had faced mass big bombers maybe they would gone to the all cannon installation and take the performance hit.
> ...


Considering the line the thread was taking, I don't think 'when' is so much the issue as 'could they' and the advent of the universal wing proved that they could at the time the Mk V was prevalent. How many were or weren't was largely defined by the perceived threat and the perceived threat by 1942 was not aerial armadas of Luftwaffe heavy bombers streaming towards London.

There was no shortage of cannon other than in places like Malta but I'm not sure off the top of my head what the performance penalty would be in replacing 4 x .303 with 2 x 20mm, though I doubt it would be sufficient to seriously handicap the fighter if it finds itself having to deal with the escorts.

We'll stick with the wing, shall we? The thin wing of the Spitfire didn't seem to have a great deal of trouble accepting a 4 x 20mm arrangement, I doubt the Mustang would either. US reliability issues with cannon production would also be unlikely to pose any major problems, if Packard could license-build an engine, then for Oldsmobile (for example) to license-build a cannon would have been small beer by comparison.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Your point is not well made.



Really?

From your post #142"b.) the Mustang was originally designed for 4x20mm so re gunning it would not have been a problem. So, restated the Mustang with 4x20mm would have been the superior interceptor."

Now perhaps I am mistaken but North American doesn't obtain a contract for the cannon armed P-51s until July 7,41 about 14 months after the British approve the prelimnary design of the NA-73X, and by Sept 40 they have 620 planes on order. 

You want to beat me up for making generalities?
I had assumed we were talking about WW II aircraft here, so a 3 gun fighter would include French, Russain and German aircraft using V-12 engines. ALL of these fighter used 2 MGs and ONE cannon unless underwing weapons were used. You want to say my generality is invalid because a JET aircraft that first flies in Dec of 1948 and that weighs more empty than a 109 did with drop tank is a light weight fighter? and of course the much different power to weight ratios of the jet engine to piston engine means nothing in this comparison either, right?
And a pair of 23mm cannon and a 37mm being adiquate armament means that a 20mm and 2 13mms are adequate too?

As for your examples.
He 162, a pair of MG 151s in 20mm Better than a single 20mm and a pair of 13mms but hardly heavy armament 1944-45. 
THe KI-84 was a cheap, light fighter? Maybe compared to a P-47 but compared to a 109? While the two 12.7 and the two 20mm were an adaquate armament it wasn't exactly earth shattering. Both guns were light in weight to begin with and quality control problems led to a down grading of the performance of their ammuntion. 
KI-100, Cheaper and lighter than what? the KI-84? less ammo for the same guns and both of these fighters have less fire power per second than a FW 190A-4 ( at least until the MG/FF cannon run dry)
The N1K2-J? At 4000kg normal take off another cheap, light weight?

THe Light weight cheap Mig 15? you might want to compare it to Meteor I and then compare the engines.

AS for "Yes massah.. i will do my best to not irritate you. "
Don't feed me moo-poo and I won't call you on it. 
We all make mistakes, I hope than when I make them I try to admit that I did. 

Your history of the P-51 seems to go along with the sources I have but nothing in there says the Mustang was designed for four 20mm cannon to begin with does it?
British had quite a bit of trouble with wing mounted Hispanos for a while. Since the gun was designed to be bolted to an engine block mounting them in wings that flexed presented problems. They were solved of course but this mounting problem had little to do with the American chamber and or American tolerances. Most sources I have seen give the weight of the Hispano as some where between 116-129lbs. This varies with charging mechansim and feed mechanism. 
Total armament installation weight can be 30-60% more than the bare weight of guns and ammo. The Hispanos may require heavier mounts/cradles than a strict increase in gun weight might indicate. 

And "A single Mg151/20 with two aligned 13mm firing with no convergence issues is highly effective and the replacement of the Mg151/20 with the Mk 108 was devastating for the skilled pilot that would close to less than 300 yards to fire. You did not kill B-17s very well trying to stooge way out and lob trash into a formation."

The last part is true enough but the first part is still in contention. The "A single Mg151/20 with two aligned 13mm firing with no convergence issues is highly effective " part is true enough against fighters but not so true against bombers which is why the Luftwaffe went to both the underwing 20mm gondolas and the switch to the MK 108 isn't it? If the original armament was highly effective why did they come up with at least two alternatives?
And if the MK 108 was so hot against fighters why didn't they switch over to it entirely? production shortages? 
Further more we have the "skilled pilot" qualifier. Building thousands of light weight fighters with an armament set up suited to skilled pilots when you are running low on skilled pilots doesn't seem like the brightest idea. 

I will admit that I don't know a lot about the German pilots so if some one could give some idea of how many "Instant aces" the Germans had it might help shed some light on things (or maybe not) .
Many of these larger, heavier, more costly American planes had rather large ammo supplies. Firing times of around 20 seconds were fairly common with some planes haveing firing times close to 30 seconds. 
Now some pilots never fire their guns in combat and while others do they never hit anything. there do seem to be some US pilots who shot down multipule planes in their first combat. I am sure there were some German pilots who did the same thing but for the American pilots the fact that they could do a lot more shooting per flight/combat certainly increase their chances of getting hits/ shooting down planes in one flight. 

"If you wish to base your sole argument of 'light/cheap' can't deal firepower with performance - please pontificate on thelack of firepower for the Fw 190 or the N1K-J or the Ki 100 - I am all ears and would love for you to 'educate' me. "

If you can point to where I said the Fw was light/cheap and lacked fire power i would appreciate it. 

Of course if you can give sources for for all these 400-425mph N1K-J and Ki 100 fighters I would appreciate that too so that I can see how wrong I was about light weight fighters equeling heavier more powerful fighters in both armament and performance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

drgondog said:


> feed you 'moo=poo' ? what a novel concept. Explain please?
> 
> As to diverting the conversation let us establish that at least one early, light, cheap fighter had better firepower than the P-38 and P-47 - that would be the production run of 150 P-51's in 1942.



Better fire power yes, better performance? 


drgondog said:


> Let us establish that the light, cheap MiG 15 had 2x 23 plus 1x 37mm cannon vs the F-86 awesome battery of 6x50's and ask if you want the Fj4 with 4x20mm more in high altiude air combat against the MiG 15?
> 
> Let us further establish that the small, cheap F-16 had 1x 20mm M-61 as did the much larger F-105, the much larger F-15 and the much larger (and ALL more expensive) F-14.



OH, Please, the moo-poo is getting deep here. I think I would prefer the FJ-4 vrs the Mig 15. of course the facts that A. the FJ-4 doesn't fly until the end of Nov 1954 might have limited it's availability in Korea. B. The Mig-15s British derived engine put out similar thrust to the J-47 in the Korean vintage F-86s but weighed about 1/2 ton less. Gee whiz, see what you can do with engines of rather different power to weight ratios. Most Highpower pison engines in WW II had much closer power to weight ratios. 

AS for the US jets you list, lets be somewhat honest here, the F-16's 20mm M61 gun represented a much larger percentage of it's air to air armanent weight than the F-14 and the F-15.

THe F-105 was actually a bomber. "For its primary mission, the aircraft would be expected to carry a nuclear store in an internal bomb bay. Because of the large size of the nuclear weapons of the day, the bomb bay had to be 15 feet 10 inches long, 32 inches wide, and 32 inches deep. "

The Primary armament of the F-14 were the 4-6 Phoenix missles at around 985lbs each in conjuction with the AWG-9 radar suite.

Gee compare a light weight fighter to 3 airplanes that actually have totally different missions and weapons capabilities, just what are you trying to prove?


drgondog said:


> Let us throw more cheap, light 'moo-poo' on the flame (substitute for buffalo chips) with the light, cheap He 162 and Fw 190A8 and N1K-J batteries to compare to the big, huge, expensive P-47 battery of 8x.50's. Which one of those four do you prefer against the B-17 or B-29?
> 
> Your turn to dispense 'moo=poo"??



Gee, this is soooo tough. the He 162 is a non starter. the Fw 190A8 gets the nod against the B-17 but I think the P-47 might be the ticket against the B-29. It depends on the altitude the B-29 was flying at, the best gun battery in the world doesn't do any good if you can't reach the target.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 22, 2009)

I believe the Bf 109 has been credited with more aerial kills then any airplane. Something obviously worked.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> But none of those compare in weight or size or cost to the P-47 or P-38. What in the world are you trying to argue?



It keeps being repeated how wonderful the 109 was because it was so cheap.

See post #s 122,125,132 and 135.

THe Spitfire had it's problems too, lack of range was one of them. 

Until the very last versions it may have lacked a little in the bomb toting catagory too. 

Some big expensive fighters had capabilites that many other planes didn't have. 

The Mustang was in a class by itself when it came to range but it's abilities were unkown when some of these bigger heavier fighters were oredered. 
It is also interesting to see which way the British went at the end of the war. Spitfires with well over 2000hp, De havallind Hornets and Hawker Tempests and Furys with big expensive Centaurus engines. Not including jets

THe Americans also had a problem, the Browning .50 while a good reliable gun, was a long way from being the most weight effiecent gun ever put in an aircraft. If you were going to stick with the .50 (even speeding the rate of fire up to almost double by the Korean war) you were going to need a lot of them and need a lot of ammo to equel the effectiveness of some peaples cannon. This ment weight which ment a bigger plane and which needed big engines. 

Going back to the orginal position cheap planes that can't really do the job aren't really cheap.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I believe the Bf 109 has been credited with more aerial kills then any airplane. Something obviously worked.



It was also made in much larger numbers than any other fighter aircraft. sheer numbers might have a bit to do with it. 
The 109 was very good plane in in Spain in 1937-38. 

It was great plane in Poland in 1939.

It was great plane ( one of the two best in the world) in France and Western Europe in 1940. 

The F version was a very good improvement in performance and helped mantain it's place in 1941-42 and the early Gs held on. 

Believing it was still in the first rank in 1945 is stretching things. the rest of the world has had only eight years to catch up. Not being in the First rank does't mean totally obsolete (nobody was really trying to use p-40s for air supeiority in 1945) . It doesn't even mean it couldn't perform a useful role or be dangerous. But it's role was limited.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 22, 2009)

? So you're saying it's a contender for least successful fighter of WW2 because it was not the best in 45?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2009)

No, I am not. TJE 109 was a great to good fighter for 8-9 years. dropping back to good is very far from being least successful

Just don't tell me it was great in 1945 because it was cheap.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> British had quite a bit of trouble with wing mounted Hispanos for a while. Since the gun was designed to be bolted to an engine block mounting them in wings that flexed presented problems. They were solved of course but this mounting problem had little to do with the American chamber and or American tolerances. Most sources I have seen give the weight of the Hispano as some where between 116-129lbs. This varies with charging mechansim and feed mechanism.
> Total armament installation weight can be 30-60% more than the bare weight of guns and ammo. The Hispanos may require heavier mounts/cradles than a strict increase in gun weight might indicate.


I would assume the British would've gone for an all cannon armament sooner, but the availability of .50 Brownings and the initial reliability issues were keeping them from. The fact remains: The fighters converted to an all cannon armament even at a point were danger from enemy bombers became less and less of an issue (Spitfire, Typhoon Tempest).



> The last part is true enough but the first part is still in contention. The "A single Mg151/20 with two aligned 13mm firing with no convergence issues is highly effective " part is true enough against fighters but not so true against bombers which is why the Luftwaffe went to both the underwing 20mm gondolas and the switch to the MK 108 isn't it? If the original armament was highly effective why did they come up with at least two alternatives?


 Shortround, did you ever compare the energy the Me 109 battery delivers downrange to that of say a P-51D? The difference is not so much really, especially if you take the "hotter" ammunition for the MG151. And now take into account the absence of a convergence issue... Me 109 Gs shot down lots of IL-2s even with normal fighter armament. Energy-wise it was certainly capable of downing any fighter right until the end of the war.

And as for why they added the MK 108 and underwing pods... hmm the fact that they had to battle hundreds of 4-engined-bombers with 10 gun defensive armament flying in box formations might have something to do with it?

If the RAF ever had to defend against a true German strategic bomber, they would've like done the same.


> And if the MK 108 was so hot against fighters why didn't they switch over to it entirely? production shortages?


So many reasons. The MK 108 was produced by Rheinmetall the MG 151 by Mauser. The MK108 couldn't be synchronized and produced too much stress for some installations. And by the way, it was introduced in 1943. Now how many weapons that were introduced mid-late-war by Germany replaced their pre-early-war predecessors? If the Me 262 was so much better why did they still produce Me 109s? Your point is rather moot.

And yes, there were production shortages with the MK 108.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2009)

riacrato said:


> I would assume the British would've gone for an all cannon armament sooner, but the availability of .50 Brownings and the initial reliability issues were keeping them from. The fact remains: The fighters converted to an all cannon armament even at a point were danger from enemy bombers became less and less of an issue (Spitfire, Typhoon Tempest).



No arguement here. I would note though that both the Typhoon and Tempest might fall into the large and expensive catagory of fighter. While the earlier Hurricane did not fall in that catagory I think we can all agree that the Hurricanes Performance when it got four 20mms wasn't exactly front rank fighter. It might be possiable that the Hurricanes thicker wing was stiffer and provided a more solid mounting for the cannon. It might not be true. The Hurricane also had 90rpg, no room or trying to keep the weight down? And, of course you had the Whirlwind, the Mosquito and the Beaufighter Which all pointed the way to the RAF using a standard four 20mm armament as minimum except in their "smallest" fighter. 


riacrato said:


> Shortround, did you ever compare the energy the Me 109 battery delivers downrange to that of say a P-51D? The difference is not so much really, especially if you take the "hotter" ammunition for the MG151. And now take into account the absence of a convergence issue... Me 109 Gs shot down lots of IL-2s even with normal fighter armament. Energy-wise it was certainly capable of downing any fighter right until the end of the war.



I am aware of this site:WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

Using those numbers and if I have done the math right a 109 with just the 2 cowl guns and single 20mm comes up with 4320 for "ammo power", 279 for "Gun Power" and a firing time of 8.3 seconds to equel one second of firing by an Me 262. For the Planes with a MK 108 the numbers seem to be 5400 for "ammo power" 667 for gun power and 3.5 seconds of firing time. Coping the figures for the P-51D gives us 8648 for "ammo power" which in this case is more of an indication of combat duration. 360 for gun power wich almost 30% better than the 20mm 109 but a whole lot worse than the 30mm version and 6.5 seconds of firing time. Again it is better than the 20mm version and a whole lot worse than the 30mm version. 
Being capable of shooting down an enemy fighter and being really good at it are not quite the same thing, And being capable of shooting down a second, third or fourth on the same flight is another thing. 
Since this part of the arguement was about big big expensive fighters vrs cheap ones take a look at the numbers for the P-38J, the P-47 and the Typhoon and Tempest.



riacrato said:


> And as for why they added the MK 108 and underwing pods... hmm the fact that they had to battle hundreds of 4-engined-bombers with 10 gun defensive armament flying in box formations might have something to do with it?



If the RAF ever had to defend against a true German strategic bomber, they would've like done the same.[/QUOTE]

I am taking the point of veiw that Germans knew that the standard 3 gun armament of the 109 wasn't really effective against the big bombers, yes you could shoot them down but it took on average how many 109s to shoot down one bomber? Assuming 2% hits of shots fired from "expert" and green pilot alike (or averaged together) actually hit and that something like 12 -20 20mm hits were needed (again on average ) to bring down a bomber we can see that a single 20mm cannon with 150 rounds just isn't going to do the job. You either need more guns (gondola wing mounts) or a more effective cannon. The Germans went both ways. 

If the British had had to defend thier 4 gun fighters, while perhaps not ideal, ofer a much better chance of success than the 3 gun 20mm 109, given the same 2% hit rate and the same number of 20mm hits needed and planse carring 480 to 600 rounds of 20mm ammo per flight. THe British would have needed fewer planes to shoot down the same number of bombers. 
THe Americans with their .50 cals would have been in trouble though



riacrato said:


> So many reasons. The MK 108 was produced by Rheinmetall the MG 151 by Mauser. The MK108 couldn't be synchronized and produced too much stress for some installations. And by the way, it was introduced in 1943. Now how many weapons that were introduced mid-late-war by Germany replaced their pre-early-war predecessors? If the Me 262 was so much better why did they still produce Me 109s? Your point is rather moot.
> 
> And yes, there were production shortages with the MK 108.



I understand switching factories over but they had two years to do it

I was refering to the 109 in this case, different planes having different requirements is understood. 

Some authors claim it was because the MK 108 wasn't as good for dog fighting ( meaning fighter vrs fighter combat) yes it was much more devestaing when it hit but there were problems. While it wasn't as short ranged as some peaple like to portray, it's low velocity did complicate things. Much is made of the absence of convergence issues but that different times of flight for the MG 131 and the MK 108 seem to be glossed over at times. when firing at a turning plane either the MG 131s will be on target or the MK 108 will be but not both unless you are really close. The weight of the ammuntion (or the bulk?) dropped the firing time from about 12 seconds to about 6 seconds. While those 6 seconds are much, much more effective it means that 30mm armed planes can engage in fewer firing oppertunities per flight. 
If the Germans knew this and acted on it by not converting to all 30mm planes then the point is not moot.
IF the germans knew this and and decided to convert to all 30mm guns anyway but failed because of production problems then it is moot. 

Building a cheap plane in large numbers that it takes an expert to use effectively when you are running out of experts might not be the best policy.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Considering the line the thread was taking, I don't think 'when' is so much the issue as 'could they' and the advent of the universal wing proved that they could at the time the Mk V was prevalent. How many were or weren't was largely defined by the perceived threat and the perceived threat by 1942 was not aerial armadas of Luftwaffe heavy bombers streaming towards London.
> 
> There was no shortage of cannon other than in places like Malta but I'm not sure off the top of my head what the performance penalty would be in replacing 4 x .303 with 2 x 20mm, though I doubt it would be sufficient to seriously handicap the fighter if it finds itself having to deal with the escorts.
> 
> We'll stick with the wing, shall we? The thin wing of the Spitfire didn't seem to have a great deal of trouble accepting a 4 x 20mm arrangement, I doubt the Mustang would either. US reliability issues with cannon production would also be unlikely to pose any major problems, if Packard could license-build an engine, then for Oldsmobile (for example) to license-build a cannon would have been small beer by comparison.



Colin - The well educated comment from SR regarding 'thin' wing of Spitfire is 'true' in context of an Aerodynamics discussion. As you know in aero terms it is a function of wing thickness to chord - but the actual *dimensions* at tmax (~26% chord) were slightly greater in a Spit than the tmax of the 51 in the gun bay region.

Space for a 20mm was never an issue per se... or for any version of a P-51.. or for an F6F or an F4U or for a P-47.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> It keeps being repeated how wonderful the 109 was because it was so cheap.
> 
> See post #s 122,125,132 and 135.
> 
> ...



Your position originally was that light/cheap couldn't do the mission of heavy/expensive and people piled on regarding interceptor role and the argument went downhill from there.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Better fire power yes, better performance?
> 
> 
> OH, Please, the moo-poo is getting deep here. I think I would prefer the FJ-4 vrs the Mig 15. of course the facts that A. the FJ-4 doesn't fly until the end of Nov 1954 might have limited it's availability in Korea. B. The Mig-15s British derived engine put out similar thrust to the J-47 in the Korean vintage F-86s but weighed about 1/2 ton less. Gee whiz, see what you can do with engines of rather different power to weight ratios. Most Highpower pison engines in WW II had much closer power to weight ratios.
> ...



The He 162 was 'light/cheap' with heavy firepower. The Fw 190D would be as good or better - ditto Ta 152 - ditto N1K-J against the B-29 than the P-47 - all with GREAT firepower. The debate has been 'light/cheap' can't carry heavy firepower - not multi role. 

You keep jumping into a rathole over the Me 109 series when it is very clear that by any definition it was a.) light/cheap, b.) it had excellent performance, and c.) it had heavy firepower.

Nobody argue that the 109 was a 'multi role weapons system' - ditto the Spit, ditto the Ki 100, ditto the He 162. Neither the Mustang or Jug or Lightning was ever initially regarded as 'multi role' weapon systems.

However the Fw 190 series was multi role and damned good at it even it one of the missions did not include long range escort. Having said this, in 1943 it was probably as capable a mulit role ship as the P-47 particularly in ground support and the series extended to high altitude and longer (not as long as) range as the P-47 by the time the Ta 152 series arrived.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 22, 2009)

I think none of the previously mentioned aircraft in the last few posts - P-47, Fw 190, P-51, Bf 109, etc., - could be anywhere close to being considered as the Least successful, just to keep within the topic of the thread.

But now the Defiant........


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2009)

Njaco said:


> I think none of the previously mentioned aircraft in the last few posts - P-47, Fw 190, P-51, Bf 109, etc., - could be anywhere close to being considered as the Least successful, just to keep within the topic of the thread.
> 
> But now the Defiant........



lol - good catch


----------



## riacrato (Nov 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I am aware of this site:WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS
> 
> Using those numbers and if I have done the math right a 109 with just the 2 cowl guns and single 20mm comes up with 4320 for "ammo power", 279 for "Gun Power" and a firing time of 8.3 seconds to equel one second of firing by an Me 262. For the Planes with a MK 108 the numbers seem to be 5400 for "ammo power" 667 for gun power and 3.5 seconds of firing time. Coping the figures for the P-51D gives us 8648 for "ammo power" which in this case is more of an indication of combat duration. 360 for gun power wich almost 30% better than the 20mm 109 but a whole lot worse than the 30mm version and 6.5 seconds of firing time. Again it is better than the 20mm version and a whole lot worse than the 30mm version.


Tony Williams site is but one source, maybe you should consider some others aswell before jumping to conclusions. What's problematic with Tony's approach is that he just takes an arbitrary number to add chemical energy. Skew that number a bit and you end up with completely different results. But anyways: You see the P-51 Ds armament is calculated at "only" 30% more than that of the Bf 109. Now add the likely underestimation of chemical energy to it (says so on the very same page) and the fact that the 109 has no convergence issues and you might end up pretty close no?

And just for comparison: Based on the calculations on that site a Bf 109 would end up with roughly 16% more firepower over a P-51 B, which by all means remained a capable air superiority fighter right until the end of the war. So if a Bf 109 G is somewhere between a P-51 B and D, then it's certainly not obsolete firepower wise (again, all with completely ignoring it's convergence advantage).





> If the British had had to defend thier 4 gun fighters, while perhaps not ideal, ofer a much better chance of success than the 3 gun 20mm 109, given the same 2% hit rate and the same number of 20mm hits needed and planse carring 480 to 600 rounds of 20mm ammo per flight. THe British would have needed fewer planes to shoot down the same number of bombers.


That logic is flawed because the center gun installation will result in just that: A larger hit rate. But yes the Bf 109 G was never designed to battle B-17s and it showed. That's why they introduced the MK 108.

The Bf 109 K-6 would've had two additional MK 108s in the wing and was still small and cheap and performance wise probably a half-assed K-4 (which was able to reach speeds in excess of 700 km/h). Yes handling would've likely been abysmal. As a comparison take the Fw 190 D-12 if you will: ~3500 kg empty weight and according to the site you quoted 950 "gun score" vs. 360 for the P-51 of similar weight.

Light and powerful certainly was possible.




> I understand switching factories over but they had two years to do it
> 
> I was refering to the 109 in this case, different planes having different requirements is understood.
> 
> ...


Basically all major German fighters switched to the MK 108 as the main gun:

Bf 109 K
Ta 152
Me 262
Ta 183 if it was ever made
and yes also the He 162, the He 162 was always planned with the MK 108. As for the only reason many were delivered with the MG 151: Depending on source it was either a problem with availability or with the strain the gun put on the He 162s rather delicate airframe. Never seen any primary sources for it. Anyways the MK 108 was also used on it.

How good or bad the 108 is as a dogfighter cannon is a much speculated subject, i agree.

However I do remember one of Reschke's kills in the Ta-152: 
He was curving down low and his MG's failed. So he switched to the cannon and shot the plane (iirc it was a Typhoon or Tempest). I am however not aware of any reports about general effectiveness. The only thing I know is that it was considered very accurate, second only to the MG FF, although that accuracy generally doesn't have to mean all that much.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Your position originally was that light/cheap couldn't do the mission of heavy/expensive and people piled on regarding interceptor role and the argument went downhill from there.


Agreed.

"OK - my sole point is that 4x20mm (and 2x23 plus 37mm) was far superior to 6x.50 cal" 

No arguement there but where did I say it was?


"Point - the same gun armament was toted by 'light/cheap' as 'heavy/expensive'. You now keep slipping into multi role discussions to evade the firepower discussion for air to air combat"

Please, who is evading now?

In WW II the gun armament was the only air to air armament and most of the fighters we are talking about were day fighters with little or no electroinc "AIDs". THe F-15 and F-14 regardles of their abiltity to tote bombs (or not) were designed to use missles as their primary air to ar armament with the gun being secondary. Any valid comparison of the fighters in question would compare missle load out, missle capability and weight of the associated electronics in addition to the gun used. It would also include weight of the gun installation including stowed ammo, which I beleve but could be wrong, varied by as much as 2 to 1 between some of these fighters. 

So leaving anything but air to air missions out of it the F-16 could not do the job of either the F-14 or the F-15 regardles of the gun it carried. at least in early versions, as electronics improved more capabilty could be built in but the moe electronics that are built in the less cheap the fighter becomes

Comparing jet aircraft from 20 years apart doesn't do much for your arguement. To much difference in engine thrust to weight ratios and fuel economy of the engines and knowledge of aerodynamics. To which we can add the weight of electronics tubes vrs transitors? You picked a tatical bomber to compare to a light fighter not me. The fact that both carreid an M-61 isn't much more relevant than saying Both the Martin B-26 and the Mustang carried similar fixed forward firing armament. And B-26s were used as fighters on rare occasions.


"That light/cheap can tote heavy firepower. You keep slipping into multi role extensions in this discussion"

Not in the case above. You are the one who dragged in the tatical bomber and you are the one who compared all weather (night fighter?) fighters with long range (very long range for the F-14) missile armament to a daylight fighter armed (originally) with a smaller number of much shorter ranged missles in addition to the gun.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The He 162 was 'light/cheap' with heavy firepower. The Fw 190D would be as good or better - ditto Ta 152 - ditto N1K-J against the B-29 than the P-47 - all with GREAT firepower. The debate has been 'light/cheap' can't carry heavy firepower - not multi role .



the He 162 was light and cheap with average firepower. 

If the B-29 was flying at high altitude the N1K-J had trouble reaching it. I noted this before, best guns in the world don't do any good if you can't get them UP to the target. Maybe that heavy expensive turbo set up on the P-47 was for something after all

or is this another case of "multi-mission"?

I am notthe one who brought the B-29 into the discussion.



drgondog said:


> You keep jumping into a rathole over the Me 109 series when it is very clear that by any definition it was a.) light/cheap, b.) it had excellent performance, and c.) it had heavy firepower.



It's" heavy firepower" if we can agree on that was of limited duration or,in the case of the under wing Gondolas, hurt performance to the extent that "escorting" fighters were needed. Needing TWO fighters or more to do the job of one more expensive fighter doesn't make the light fighter less expensive does it? 

And this is on the intercept mission. Unless you think that for bomber interception there should always be two different fighters and that taking on the escorts is really a different mission for a different airplane than taking on the bombers?


drgondog said:


> Nobody argue that the 109 was a 'multi role weapons system' - ditto the Spit, ditto the Ki 100, ditto the He 162. Neither the Mustang or Jug or Lightning was ever initially regarded as 'multi role' weapon systems.
> 
> However the Fw 190 series was multi role and damned good at it even it one of the missions did not include long range escort. Having said this, in 1943 it was probably as capable a mulit role ship as the P-47 particularly in ground support and the series extended to high altitude and longer (not as long as) range as the P-47 by the time the Ta 152 series arrived.



This is what I really love about discusing German aircraft. we never really discuss ONE German aircraft. Yes the Fw 190Fs and Gs were better for ground attack than any P-47 but then they weren't all that good at fighter to fighter combat at 20,000ft and up were they? THen we just change the engine and perhaps change the wing and change the installed armament and rip out hundreds of pounds or armour and then claim the "SAME" plane is better than the P-47 at high altitude.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2009)

Shortround - you have a severe reading comprehension problem... what is it about my thread of instances of internal gun firepower that you do not comprehend?

The illustration of MiG to F-86 and FJ4 was all about internal guns and 'light/cheap' capabilites of the lighter/cheaper fighter in comparison. Ditto the F-16 vs the F-15 vs the F-14 vs the F-105. The 'Light/cheap' fighter had the same internal gun firepower.

Ditto the Me 109K compared to Mustang (or Spit compared to P-47/P-38.

I didn't, and no one else did, bring up the discussion regarding external firepower which by any standard the 109G6/U4 etc had in spades.

Nobody but you dwells on the multi role missions and dives into ratholes to compare different gen a/c. 

What started this was your claim that you needed big/complex/high powered a/c to have big firepower - You are wrong.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 22, 2009)

You don't *need* a Fw 190 F for ground attack. Any standard Fw 190 A could do it. The F was simply the dedicated attacker version which offered added AAA protection your 'standard P-47' wouldn't have either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2009)

So I am trying to get caught up with everything that has been said in this thread. Interesting discussion by most of the parties concerned here.

This kind of stands out to me though...



Shortround6 said:


> And do try to study aircraft a bit more.



Kind of a rude and low shot.

What really stands out though, is that Shortround is telling this to someone (Bill) who:

a. Has an aerospace engineering degree.

b. Has been studying aircraft, let alone WW2 aircraft for decades. He has even written a book on the subject.

c. Actually has time flying WW2 fighter aircraft, i.e. the P-51D.

Might want to think about things before trying insult people. It only makes you look like an ass. 

To everyone else, carry on with this good discussion.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Colin - The well educated comment from SR regarding 'thin' wing of Spitfire is 'true' in context of an Aerodynamics discussion. As you know in aero terms it is a function of wing thickness to chord - but the actual *dimensions* at tmax (~26% chord) were slightly greater in a Spit than the tmax of the 51 in the gun bay region.
> 
> Space for a 20mm was never an issue per se... or for any version of a P-51.. or for an F6F or an F4U or for a P-47.


Bill
true enough, the laminar-flow design pushed the thickest point of the wing further back toward the trailing edge, ensuring that upper and lower-surface boundary layer air had long departed the wing prior to turbulent recombination. My not-very-well-defined point was that the Hispano could have sat alot further back in the Mustang's wing a la Tempest V and maybe even without the subtle, small blisters sported by the Hawker fighter, thus doing away with the lengthy barrel protrusions necessitated in the Spitfire installation.

Tend to agree though, there was never going to be an space-for-installation issue on any of those aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Shortround - you have a severe reading comprehension problem... what is it about my thread of instances of internal gun firepower that you do not comprehend?.



Are we trading insults now?

I apologize for my remark about studing aircraft. As we get older our memory sometimes slips and in some cases (mine especially) our typing skills are not what they should be. 

By the way My first airplane books were by William Green and I got some of them almost 40 years ago. They may very well be out of date now. 



drgondog said:


> The illustration of MiG to F-86 and FJ4 was all about internal guns and 'light/cheap' capabilites of the lighter/cheaper fighter in comparison.


OK, my lack of reading comprehension kicks in here, We are comparing, from the Mig to the Fury, planes of almost different generations. Planes that were designed for rather different purposes and planes that when tasked with same mission still had rather different capabilities as far as endurance goes. 
This is supposed to prove what about the load carring ability of WW II piston engine fighters? And by load carring ability I mean the internal guns, ammo, mounts, ammo boxes, gun heaters, etc. 


drgondog said:


> Ditto the F-16 vs the F-15 vs the F-14 vs the F-105. The 'Light/cheap' fighter had the same internal gun firepower.



Sorry, you still have me totally baffled by this comparison. Since I am not the one who introduced it I find it strange that I am accused of going down rat holes when I explore it. So far your attempt to explain it just isn't working. THe WW II fighters we were discusing used guns, either internal or external as their sole air to air armament. Comparing weight of the gun instalation or weight of fire is a vailid comparison tool. 3 of the 4 jets mentioned above use missiles as part of their air to air armament as designed. Discounting the missiles and their widely varing capability and claiming the light fighter (OK maybe not claiming but implying?) that the Light fighter carried equel air to air armament doesn't seem like a very valid comparison. It might even be a bit less valid if the F-16 turns out to carry 1/2 of the ammuntion that one of the other planes does. What is the weight of 500 rounds of 20mm ammo and the weight of the larger ammo drum ? How many cubic ft of space does occupy? 
Or is this going down a rat hole again?



drgondog said:


> Ditto the Me 109K compared to Mustang (or Spit compared to P-47/P-38.
> 
> I didn't, and no one else did, bring up the discussion regarding external firepower which by any standard the 109G6/U4 etc had in spades.



OK, you lost me again. Maybe it is my old out of date books but the to me the designation "109G6/U4" has got nothing to do with extrenal armament. AS for me bringing in the external armament I didn't want anybody to think I was unfair in leaving it out. 


drgondog said:


> Nobody but you dwells on the multi role missions and dives into ratholes to compare different gen a/c.



I really do think this is a bit unfair since I am not the one who brought the jets into the discussion and therefor I am not the one who brought in the different gen a/c. in your F-105 vrs F-16 comparison. If, by pointing out the differences in generations, it makes your comparison even less valid, too bad. 

While I did start with mentioning the multi mission, in some of the last posts in the "Jet rat hole line" I tried to stay specificly to the air to air mission and yet I am still critisized for dwelling on the multi role. You are the one who re-introuduced the multi-role in post number #166, if by responding to your post I am "dwelling" on it I guess I stand rebuked. 


drgondog said:


> What started this was your claim that you needed big/complex/high powered a/c to have big firepower - You are wrong.



You are of course correct on this, but the following conditions may apply

Newer aircraft with engines of better power to weight ratios may allow the carriage of heavier armanent.
Comparisons between guns of differrent gun power to weight ratios may change results.
Trading fuel and endurance for gun/armament weight may allow for the carriage of heavier armament. 
trading ammuntion capacity for more gun weight allows for a heavier throw weight although for a shorter time period. 
There are probably others.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So I am trying to get caught up with everything that has been said in this thread. Interesting discussion by most of the parties concerned here.
> 
> This kind of stands out to me though...
> 
> ...



You are correct and I have appoligised for this remark. I will try to refrain from similar remarks in the future.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Mark
> For the defence for FAF’s Hawk 75As. While Brewster B-239s had arrived to Finland during Spring 40, so pilots had had time to get use to it and to perfect tactics for it, the first 16 Hawks arrived 23 – 30 June 1941, the Continuation War began 25 june 41, 11arrived 28 July – 2 August 41, further 2 arrived on 5 Dec 41 but the last 15 arrived 13 June 43 – 5 Jan 44. So the last group arrived when they were already clearly obsolete.
> FAF’s Hawk pilots claimed 190½ kills while losing 8 in air combat + 6 to AA, one on ground and 9 because of technical problems or in accidents. So IMHO not so bad. And one must remember that Hawks of HLeLv 32 were the only fighters in their sector in 1944 during the big Soviet summer offensive in 1944 while B-239s could operate quieter areas of their sector because of Bf 109Gs carried the main burden in Karelian Istmus during summer 44.
> 
> ...


Hi Juha,

Thank you for those insights. Sounds like the P-36s were thrown in at the deep end...but the Brewster stayed in service somewhat longer than the P-36 didn't it (into the 1950s if memory serves). However, my comment was mainly directed to the statement that the Brewster was the worst fighter in US service. In reality (and your post would seem to confirm this) the Buffalo wasn't much, if any, worse than the P-36.

Kind regards,
Mark H


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 22, 2009)

The more I think about it, the more I'm voting for the Me 163. Extremely short flight duration and killed more pilots then it shot down (6 or 9 IIRC).


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2009)

Hi 88I71,

Here are some additional thoughts:



88l71 said:


> buffnut453 said:
> 
> 
> > True, but some had worse loss rates than others and an aircraft with severe design flaws that is more dangerous to its own pilots than the enemy is not a successful design.
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> You are correct and I have appoligised for this remark. I will try to refrain from similar remarks in the future.



Thank you...

Like I said above, this is a very good discussion.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2009)

JoeB said:


> British and Dutch Buffalo's in 1942 shot down around 10-11 Japanese fighters for 53 Buffalo's lost in combats where both sides' losses are known, and around 9-10 other a/c without further loss.



Joe,

The RAF Buffalos' performance was, I think, slightly better than you state:

Shot down by enemy fighters: 21
Shot down by other enemy action: 9
Destroyed on the ground: 30+ (only lists known airframes destroyed – actual figure likely to be higher)
Destroyed in Accidents: 49 (20 pre-war, 29 from 8 Dec onwards)

There are huge gaps in IJAAF losses for the Malayan campaign, notably 59th Sentai and all the Ki-27 units. 

Overall, the Buffalo was on a par, performance-wise, with both the P-36 and Hurricane. 

KR
Mark


----------



## Civettone (Nov 22, 2009)

riacrato said:


> How good or bad the 108 is as a dogfighter cannon is a much speculated subject, i agree.
> 
> However I do remember one of Reschke's kills in the Ta-152:
> He was curving down low and his MG's failed. So he switched to the cannon and shot the plane (iirc it was a Typhoon or Tempest). I am however not aware of any reports about general effectiveness. The only thing I know is that it was considered very accurate, second only to the MG FF, although that accuracy generally doesn't have to mean all that much.


Thank you!!




vikingBerserker said:


> The more I think about it, the more I'm voting for the Me 163. Extremely short flight duration and killed more pilots then it shot down (6 or 9 IIRC).


Not true, once operational, it shot down about 13 heavy bombers and lost fewer of its own. Some were non-combat and very few pilots were killed.
You may have a point that the Komet wasn't that succesful but the reason you cite is not accurate.

Kris


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Buffnut:
> 
> That would be the purpose of an interceptor, a fighter actually has a much broader defintion.
> *Sorry. Disagree again. An interceptor is a point-defence asset designed to get as high as possible as fast as possible, engage the enemy and then land. All interceptors are fighters but not all fighters are interceptors, but the task remains the same - engage the enemy. *
> ...



Sorry for the delay in getting back to you with these points - I spent the weekend taking a bunch of scouts camping!

Kind regards,
Mark


----------



## JoeB (Nov 22, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Joe,
> 
> The RAF Buffalos' performance was, I think, slightly better than you state:
> 
> ...


The numbers I gave are for all Buffalo operations of RAF and KNIL in all the early campaigns. The source is Bloody Shambles by Shores. The losses are only those in air combat, counting up specific combats, and only including combats where the opposing losses are also given. I think we've been through this before but your point on possibly incomplete Japanese accounts is not entirely relevant because I only include combats where that book gives their specific loss in that combat (their source is mainly the Japanese official history series Senshi Sosho, where I've checked they Shores and co-authors relate it contents accurately). Also the Buffalo result in all campaigns v the Zero was pretty much in line with its results v the Army fighters and those Navy records are not only very complete but are available online. Again Senshi Sosho and Shores relate them correctly where I've checked.

So, for all the early SEA campaigns the Buffalo ratio of around 10 enemy fighters and another 10 enemy a/c for over 50 Buffalo's lost *in air combat* to fighters is IMO unlikely to be way off. And using the same source basically (later book by same authors) the Mohawk's record in Burma was considerably better than that,, also much better than the Hurricane.

So yes, on paper the Buffalo, Hawk and Hurricane were all broadly similar in performance, but in Finnish service the Buffalo did somewhat better, in the Pacific the Hawk did somewhat better. Lots of fighters with basically similar stats had quite different combat results.

Joe


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 22, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Thank you!!
> 
> 
> Not true, once operational, it shot down about 13 heavy bombers and lost fewer of its own. Some were non-combat and very few pilots were killed.
> ...



_Combat Aircraft of WW2_ by Bookthrift, pg 73

"Numorous improved versions were flying on VE day, but only 370 Komets had been in service and these had suffered high attrition through accidents."

IMHO operating losses from combat or noncombat really does not mater.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 22, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> _Combat Aircraft of WW2_ by Bookthrift, pg 73
> 
> "Numerous improved versions were flying on VE Day, but only 370 Komets had been in service and these had suffered high attrition through accidents."
> 
> IMHO operating losses from combat or non-combat really does not matter.


As I understand it
Me163 squadrons were non-operational on VE Day; I was under the impression that pilots had been transferred to Me262 squadrons. Komet ops ceased in May 45 (close to VE Day, admittedly) but I'm pretty sure they weren't flying on the last day of the war in Europe.

It would certainly matter in the Aleutians, where the weather conditions could be a more dangerous enemy than the Japanese. You would need to bifurcate your combat losses from your non-combat losses to properly address just what it is that's killing you, the enemy (our aircraft aren't good enough)* or simply the conditions (acts of God). This would go a long way to facilitating the correct intelligence assessment.

*pertinent to the thread


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 22, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> It would certainly matter in the Aleutians, where the weather conditions could be a more dangerous enemy than the Japanese. You would need to bifurcate your combat losses from your non-combat losses to properly address just what it is that's killing you, the enemy (our aircraft aren't good enough)* or simply the conditions (acts of God). This would go a long way to facilitating the correct intelligence assessment.
> 
> *pertinent to the thread



"I think" the Me 163 losses were more due to accidents/ plane difficulties then anything else, but overall I'll totally agree with your statement and stand corrected.


----------



## Juha (Nov 22, 2009)

FAF’s Hawk pilots claimed 190½ kills while losing 8 in air combat
FAF’s B-239 pilots claimed 476 victories by 4 Sept 44, 18 or 17 were lost in air combat or went missing.
When we take into account the facts that B-239 pilots had got c. 45 kills before Hawk pilots got their first and that there were fewer Hawks around in the heydays of these 2 fighters, IMHO the difference wasn’t great, even if the higher echelon had higher regard on B-239 which might have been a bit better fighter. One must remember that B-239 wasn’t the same subtype than Buffalo Mk I or F2A-3 and Finnish Hawks but 9 during later part of 1941 had 1065hp R-1830 engine, not 1200hp R-1820 as Mohawk IV had.

And both were better fighters than their common public image allows.

Juha


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2009)

Juha,

I agree with you entirely.

Kind regards,
Mark


----------



## Civettone (Nov 22, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> _Combat Aircraft of WW2_ by Bookthrift, pg 73
> 
> "Numorous improved versions were flying on VE day, but only 370 Komets had been in service and these had suffered high attrition through accidents."
> 
> IMHO operating losses from combat or noncombat really does not mater.


Sorry to come back to this, I know you already distanced yourself from it.
But for the record ...
No improved versions ever flew. Not the Me 163C, not the Me 263. And the Me 163D never exisited.
No Me 163s were flying on VE-day, as already explained.
Perhaps 370 Komets were constructed but even lower than a 100 actually saw service. Similar story with the 1400+ Me 262s.
Accident rate was surprisingly low for such an advanced aircraft. Yet when the Me 163 landed it had used up or jettisoned its fuel making it an excellent glider. It was extremely easy to fly. Extensive precautions needed to be taken. This failed during the first operational trials but it was optimized once operational, leading to a low accident rate.

Kris


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 23, 2009)

_The Encyclopedia of Weapons of WW2_ by Metrobooks, page 324:

"Introduction to Luftwaffe service was protracted and hazardous process owing to difficulties in handling the fuels and a number of fatal accidents...."

"Although some 300 Me 163Bs were produced (as well as a few Me 163C aircraft with increased fuel) and JG 400's other two Gruppen re-equipped by the 1944, only nine confirmed air victories were achieved by the Geschwader."

_Top Secret Bird: The Luftwaffe's Me-163 Comet_ by Wolfgang Spate page 252, Me 163 Operations were stopped in May 1945, JG400 was disbanded and the pilots sent to fly Me 262s. VE Day is May 8th. I'll agree and say that perhaps the article should have said "within days of VE Day"


----------



## NZTyphoon (Nov 23, 2009)

riacrato said:


> However I do remember one of Reschke's kills in the Ta-152:
> He was curving down low and his MG's failed. So he switched to the cannon and shot the plane (iirc it was a Typhoon or Tempest). I am however not aware of any reports about general effectiveness. The only thing I know is that it was considered very accurate, second only to the MG FF, although that accuracy generally doesn't have to mean all that much.



This was a combat against 486(NZ) Sqn Hawker Tempest Vs on 14 April 1945 - Reschke:


> The Tempest which I attacked quickly reached the same height as me and was [at] approximately 10 o'clock before me. The dogfight began between 50 and 100 metres above ground level and very often the wing tips passed close over the treetops.[...] The whole fight was executed in a left-hand turn, the low altitude of which would not allow for any mistakes. Ever so gradually I gained metre by metre on the Tempest and after a few circles I had reached the most favourable shooting position. [...] I pressed my machine-gun buttons for the first time [...] I could see the Tempest for a short moment in straight ahead flight displaying slightly erratic flying behaviour. But immediately she went straight back into the left turn. [...] I sighted the Tempest very favourably in my cross-hairs and could not have missed but my machine-guns experienced feeding problems. I therefore tried to shoot it down with my cannon and forced her into a tight left-hand turn from where she tipped out over her right wing and crashed into a forest.



Reschke had forced Warrant Officer O J Mitchell, who was a rookie on 486, to crash. It's not certain that he actually shot Mitchell down. (Sortehaug, Paul. The Wild Winds; The History of Number 486 RNZAF Fighter Squadron with the RAF. Dunedin, New Zealand: Otago University Print, 1998. ISBN 1-877139-09-2. pages 245-247.)


----------



## drgondog (Nov 23, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Newer aircraft with engines of better power to weight ratios may allow the carriage of heavier armanent.
> Comparisons between guns of differrent gun power to weight ratios may change results.
> Trading fuel and endurance for gun/armament weight may allow for the carriage of heavier armament.
> trading ammuntion capacity for more gun weight allows for a heavier throw weight although for a shorter time period.
> There are probably others.



You are absolutely correct. 

You are also valid in the implied extension of mission that a big, clean airframe brings to the table to extend the mission and capability - as in the case of the P-47 and P-38.

I apolgise for my shot about 'massah' and reading comprehension - so we can get future debates back on track.


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 23, 2009)

JoeB said:


> And as someone else alluded to, French H-75's apparently didn't do worse against Bf109E's, at least compared to other French types or Hurricanes (though I don't have hard stats to calculate a kill ratio), even did well according to their own claims.
> 
> Joe



The French didn't do bad initially though for fairness sake it needs to be mentioned that they were also fighting Bf-109D's. 

Germany - 48 lost
Allies - 59 lost (60 if counting one Spit P.R.)

Breakdown

Bf-109: 40 lost
(23 to H-75A; 13 to MS-406; 4 to Hurricane)

Bf-110 - 8 lost
(5 to Hurr; 2 to H-75A; 1 to MS-406)

*****

H-75A - 17 lost
(15 to Bf-109; 2 to Bf-110)

MS-406 - 31 lost
(30 to Bf-109; 1 to Bf-110)

Hurricane - 11 lost
(11 to Bf-109)

Spitfire P.R. 1 lost (Bf-109) 

Source: "Fledgling Eagles" Christopher Shores.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 23, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> The French didn't do bad initially though for fairness sake it needs to be mentioned that they were also fighting Bf-109D's.
> 
> Germany - 48 lost
> Allies - 59 lost (60 if counting one Spit P.R.)
> ...



If i've understand this are the loss before of may attack? or other?


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 23, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> From "La Regia Aeronautica 1939-1940" east africa until 10 january 1941 losses 29 fighters were shoot down (also from AA) and an other 11 losses for incidents or ground attack. you give a 35 fighter losses only for air combat can you explain the difference?



The figures i gave are from the beginning of the campaign in June 1940 - Nov 41.


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 23, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> If i've understand this are the loss before of may attack? or other?



Yes. "Sitzkrieg" period.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 23, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> The figures i gave are from the beginning of the campaign in June 1940 - Nov 41.



Thank you for reply, your East Africa 1940 create the missinterpretation


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 23, 2009)

sorry  should have wrote "starting 1940"


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 23, 2009)

drgondog said:


> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> You are also valid in the implied extension of mission that a big, clean airframe brings to the table to extend the mission and capability - as in the case of the P-47 and P-38.
> 
> I apolgise for my shot about 'massah' and reading comprehension - so we can get future debates back on track.



Thank you.

Perhaps a thread on "cost effectivenss" might be in order to avoid highjacking this one any further

Assuming anybody can really compare costs from country to country with war time economies

What might be possiable and what I don't believe I have seen elsewere is breaking down planes by fractions or percentages. 
I may have this wrong but what I mean is what percentage of weight is airframe, what percentage is powerplant, what percentage is armament, what percentage is fuel? 
It might give some insight into how some countries or designers veiwed certain atributes.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 23, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Perhaps a thread on "cost effectivenss" might be in order to avoid highjacking this one any further
> 
> ...



Why don't you start a separate thread?

I suspect the four variables easiest to nail down are - 'weight empty' (including engine but no fuel or oil or crew or ammo), 'engine weight' from various manufacturer specs (engine stand alone w/o fuel lines, etc), gun/ammo and fuel tank capacity. (as noted above)

Mission weights are different (obviously)

What will be nigh impossible is to get reliable cost breakdowns that are truly measurable against each other.

Nobody was buying or acquiring aluminum, etc, on a 'pegged' commodity market, labor expenses varied, how does one reflect tooling, overhead and plant costs? In the US depreciation standards are fine and dandy for machine tools and plants but not truly reflective with respect to what DoD Contractors PRICED the tooling - particularly after it had been written down for the Balance Sheets.. one of the reasons the DoD elected to purchase tooling as part of many contracts to eliminate a difficult to account for resource 'fee' for subsequent spares and production runs.

With a very long production run from one plant within a depreciation cycle (say Ingelwood for p-51) one may extract some decent numbers, but what about the Me 109? or Ta 152 (on the other end of the spectrum)? or B-17 made from multiple plants starting at different times and producing dissimilar blocks?

The unit labor hours are important, one may 'assume' a unit per pound cost for airframe 2024 sheet and extrusions by weight to arrive at a single airframe unit cost but it was a lot tougher for Germany to get enough raw material than it was for US and that has to enter into an actual cost estimate.

I screwed around with CLI/WBS Cost Accounting systems for DOD 7000.1 and .2 enough to still lose sleep trying to rationize the EXTREME philosophical differences at costing the same 3-Axis tooling down to Jeweler's lathes when I was running GE's part of AFCAM.

Net - airframe major subsystems data weights may be achievable, labor hours and learning curve on labor efficiencies may be achievable, a plug average materials cost for the airframe may be rational..but getting a TRUE Cost by a single Accounting Standard is a Holy Grail that probably may not be possible.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 23, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> Yes. "Sitzkrieg" period.



I thought "Sitzkrieg" was in Europe from Nov 39 to May 40? Was there a cooling off period in the med at the time you mentioned?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 23, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Why don't you start a separate thread?
> 
> I suspect the four variables easiest to nail down are - 'weight empty' (including engine but no fuel or oil or crew or ammo), 'engine weight' from various manufacturer specs (engine stand alone w/o fuel lines, etc), gun/ammo and fuel tank capacity. (as noted above)
> 
> ...



Or even useful for that mater. The production run can swing from a few hundred units to 33k + and then there is the commonality of parts from model to model - such as engines. Quality would also have to come into play. Plan A costs twice is much as plane B, but plane B is 3 times better. I'm sure it could be done, but what would it really tell you?

I'll be damned Bill, you're a closet accountant!


----------



## drgondog (Nov 23, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Or even useful for that mater. The production run can swing from a few hundred units to 33k + and then there is the commonality of parts from model to model - such as engines. Quality would also have to come into play. Plan A costs twice is much as plane B, but plane B is 3 times better. I'm sure it could be done, but what would it really tell you?
> 
> *I basically agree but for the long run ships with fairly common airframes the starting and ending labor burden gives you a pretty good grasp on at least the final direct costs and the learning curve over time..*
> 
> I'll be damned Bill, you're a closet accountant!



LoL! In my day Accountants were guys who couldn't hack Calculus or Statics and Dynamics! Math majors worked on obscure theorems and engineers and physicists found a use for them.

Accounting is easy (except for DoD Cost and Scheduling)..


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 24, 2009)

Njaco said:


> I thought "Sitzkrieg" was in Europe from Nov 39 to May 40? Was there a cooling off period in the med at the time you mentioned?



Hi,

pulling it off the shelf, the losses covered in Fledgling Eagles ranges from 9/3/39 through 5/9/40 on the Western Front.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 24, 2009)

ah ha, my mistake!


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 24, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Why don't you start a separate thread?



A good suggestion. I just got home from a 14 hour night shift and I see some one already has started one.



drgondog said:


> Net - airframe major subsystems data weights may be achievable



I agree completely. 

The weights are easy compared to costs. As an example of cost I will ask a question and answer it

What was the cost of an M-16 rifle during the Veit Nam war?

Answer:
Depends on when the contract was signed and by who. At one time there were 3 sources with (if I remember correctly ) Colt Charging 125 dollers per rifles another company charging in the 180-190 region and the 3rd company (H&R?) charging over 200 per rifle.

Getting accurate cost figures from one country to agree with each other is going to be tough enough ( did riveters in Connecticut make more money per hour than riveters in Kansas? as you have already mentioned) let alone trying to figure in labour costs from country to country. 

A weight analysis might be somewhat more doable and perhaps estimates could be used for some things. Power plant weight vrs dry engine weight for example. In some case the powerplant weight is known and except in rare cases the powerplant weight should follow a predictable estimate (at least to a few percentage points of total weight). 
Fuel weight should be pretty accurate.

I am not sure we really need to break down things too far. 50lbs differenc in radio weight on a 6,000-9,000lb fighter isn't really going to change things much.

I was thinking more on the lines of fuel weight = 11% or maybe with one decimal place 
More of a rough comparison than an engineering exercise.


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 25, 2009)

claidemore said:


> "Lost in Combat" means lost during any combat mission from any cause, including terrain.
> 
> I'm not an expert on the Boomerang, but I'm not aware on any even receiving any damage from e/a, let alone being shot down. Someone else may have more info on their air combat record.



If you're still interested claidemore, see this prvious post of mine (#. 17)
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/brewster-buffalo-vs-cac-boomerang-20394-2.html#post550862


----------



## claidemore (Nov 25, 2009)

Thanks Wildcat, I re-read your post (this time with comprehension! lol).


----------

