# Worst Piston Monoplane Fighter of WWII



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

We have been having a lively discussion about the merits or lack of merits of the Brewster Buffalo in another thread. Until I participated in that thread, I had no idea that the Buffalo had any fans out in the world. Some of them are quite vocal about the good characteristics of the portly little fighter and that got me wondering ... some monoplane fighter of WWII HAS to be the worst one. For me, it is the Brewster Buffalo.

But, I now realize that many people out there LOVE an underdog, and it makes me wonder what THEIR "worst fighter" might be. There has to be one ...

I nominate:

1. Brewster Buffalo. Slow, underarmed and underpowered.
2. Polikarpov I-16. Flew with a rearward CG that made it maneuverable but dangerous. Underarmed unless it had the wing cannons, slow, open cockpit, extremely short range.
3. Macchi MC.200. Great handling but underpowered, underarmed with extremely short range.

What do YOU think the worst one was?

As a single requirement, I think it should have been produced for the Military, if only in small numbers. Prototypes don't count since they were never accepted for service.


----------



## ssnider (Jul 1, 2012)

First one to come to mind is theBoulton Paul Defiant

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Jul 1, 2012)

I agree.

The I-16 was a good aircraft at the time it entered sevice. So was the U.S. P-26. It's unreasonable to expect such old designs to still be competative during WWII. The Defiant doesn't get that excuse because it's as recent as the Me-109 and Spitfire.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 1, 2012)

Bouton Paul Defiant
its Royal Naval Counterpart: Blackburn Roc
Curtiss Wright CW-21B
F2A-3 / B-339 series
Mitsubishi A5M
Nakajima Ki-27


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

The Defiant is a good candidate for the worst. I always thought ity could have been a pretty good fighter if they deleted the turret, second crew member, and installed forward-firing armament. Alas, they never did and it was really pretty poor, wasn't it?

What about the Messerschmitt Me-210?

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Jul 1, 2012)

The Me-210 was a light bomber. And a good one too after they got the bugs fixed.


----------



## Juha (Jul 1, 2012)

I don’t be very fond of these "The Best…” or ”The worst…” threads but

1.One version of your Number one had 26,5:1 or 28:1 positive exchange rate (depends on whether one was shot down by heavy AA or a La-5, sources differ on that one) and because Finnish B-239 pilots got 476 officially accepted kills (so official but not necessary real) the exchange rate of all F2As must be clearly positive and clearly F2As got credit on more kills than the total F2A production was (509 IIRC), IMHO rather good for the worst fighter.
2) Of those few countries which really had experience on I-16 and on Hurricane at least two (Finns and Soviets) generally thought that I-16 was a better fighter in eastern front conditions.
3) Italians, who really should knew best chose MC 200 over Fiat G.50.

Juha


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

Juha, the Finns had a good experience with the Buffalo, as everyone in here knows. Their experience was due in large part to both poor-quality opposition and good Finnish training. In general service, outside Finland, the Buffalo was a disaster. The I-16 was OK when it debued, but is a strong candidate for the worst piston monoplane fighter.

You seem to like to disagree with me whenever I post but, in the first post of this thread, I asked for your candidates for the worst, not a debate about mine that is merely a continuation of another argument in another thread. 

My candidates stand as posted. Maybe you could post YOUR candidates instead of arguing mine? Logically, if you LIKE the Buffalo, then you must have some other "worst" in mind. Let's hear it. I won't argue about your list and am not interested in your arguments about mine; my candidates are MY opinion, not yours. So, let's hear yours since you obviously disagree with mine.

Remember, it must be a production monplane fighter.

As for the Me-210, I believe it was primarily used as a heavy fighter and attack aircraft and they never fixed its faults. What they did was to come out with the Me-410, admittedly a further development of teh me-210, but it was NOT an Me-210 airframe. The Me-210 made the production requirement in that they completed 90 with 320 partially completed. The Me-210 was withdrawn from service, as I recall.


----------



## Juha (Jul 1, 2012)

Hello Greg
Now Finns were the only ones who used F2A-1/B-239 in combat and also Dutch seemed to have thought that their B-339D was better than Hurricane Mk II Trop.

Not bothering to look all those obscure fighters there were around in 38-45, but from top of my head
Blackburn Roc, hopeless fighter
NA P-64, at least Peru got them, (to be more precis, Peru got Na-50As which was an earlier verion of the same concept), those (NA-68s) on the way to Thailand were confiscated and used by USAAC as fighter trainers, USAAC designation was P-64, but the AF of Peru used them as fighters, all 7 of them. And these have some war experience.
Seversky/Republic P-35

Juha

PS, thinking more carefully on it, my list is
Roc
Caudron CR. 714
PZL-7a
PZL-11c
Blenheim IF and IVF
Fokker D. XXI
P-64, based solely on its specs, I have no info on what Peruvian fighter pilots thought about it
P-35
P-66 Vanguard
Me 163


----------



## DonL (Jul 1, 2012)

> As for the Me-210, I believe it was primarily used as a heavy fighter and attack aircraft and they never fixed its faults. What they did was to come out with the Me-410, admittedly a further development of teh me-210, but it was NOT an Me-210 airframe. The Me-210 made the production requirement in that they completed 90 with 320 partially completed. The Me-210 was withdrawn from service, as I recall.



This isn't correct!

The Me 410 *is* the Me 210 airframe with a lengthened fuselage and new leading edge slats and stronger engines! Nothing more!

Model's
Me 210 A, B, C, *D* renamed in Me 410

The difference between a Ju 88A-4 and a Ju 88 G1 or G6 is much more major then between a Me 210 C and a Me 410!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2012)

Also consider combat record as well as operational capability. Did the aircraft fulfill or exceed its design requirement? Was it obsolete when it entered combat?


----------



## Njaco (Jul 1, 2012)

Defiant for me. It seems to me to be another design where someone figured that excess in one area would overwhelm a lack of design in another. Similar to "We don't need more guns on the bomber as it will fly faster than any fighter!" mentality.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2012)

Some people liked their versions of the Buffalo and some did not. 

Did _anybody_ like the P-43? 

The Blackburn Roc?

The Bloch MB.150-152?

The Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet?

Combat record of the P-66 is none to good either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jul 1, 2012)

I know someone who would argue the merits of the I-16 but.......


----------



## Juha (Jul 1, 2012)

On Me 210
as DonL wrote its worst problems were fixed in 210C, but because of its bad reputation, it was decised to give the refined 210D a new designation Me 410.
Hungarians liked their licence produced 210Cas, both the heavy fighter and fast bomber versions.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 1, 2012)

max range of Macchi C.200 was 890 km (cruising at 402 km/h with full fuel load). was underpowered but was light so was not so underpowered not as might think just seeing the power of the engine. the weapons were considered enough before of pop up of allied four engined bomber.

probably the worst were some very limited producted fighters or the turret fighters

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

I like Juha's list, but I had thought the Dutch LIKED the Fokker D.XXI and have read its handling was good for a fixed-gear monoplane. Perhaps I recall wrong .... I'll check on it since, while Juha and I do not always agree( ! ), he is at least usually on solid ground.

I disagree with the P-64. I helped build one in Arozona and it flew just great comnpared with an AT-6. Of course, with the extra power to weight ratio, it SHOULD have! I believe it was intended as an export fighter for places where first-line equipment was not expected as the competition. It met its specs, but I might have to disallow that one based on the fact that onoly 13 were made originally. I do not think it was accepted for Military service, at least by the USAAC. I'm not sure it qualifies as "production," but will not eliminate it quite yet until I find out for sure.

I know of two that were completed by modifying AT-6 airframes in the 1980's and 1990's, both at Deer Valley, Arizona (a Phoenix, AZ airport).


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 1, 2012)

From what I have read about the D21 was well liked by the Dutch fighter pilots but it was also appreciated as being inferior to the bf109e. I don't recall the Finns not liking it. I remember reading that they have investigated the posibility of an retractable landing gear.

About the Buffalo: maybe it wasn't the worst WW2 monoplane fighter, it more than probably was the worst fighter in US service.
Nevertheless Greg, wouldn't you like a flying b239 for planes of fame?


----------



## davebender (Jul 1, 2012)

The Luftwaffe got a portion of the Hungarian produced Me-210Cs. Everything I have read suggests German pilots liked them also.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 1, 2012)

How about the Caudron 714, 180 ordered but later reduced, maybe 60 delivered. Nobody seemed to like them.

Some 80 ordered by the Finns for the winter war, but after a few were delivered, the Finns decided it wouldn't do.

A Polish squadron flew them even after they were officially grounded in the Battle of France, because it was the Caudron or nothing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2012)

Caudron 714, if the Finns don't want them it must have really been lacking something.... or a bunch of things.


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

Hi Rank Amateur,

Absolutely, and a Buffalo, too. My favorite Swedish fighter of WWII was the FFVS J-22. Wish we had one of THOSE! Heck I wish YOU ahd one of those in flying condition.

The Buffalo was definnitely the worst of the American fighters. I'm sure there was SOME plane worse ... but it is hard to think of one. The people who say the losses in the pacific were due to circumstances and poor training seem to conveniently forget the very similar but opposite circumstances that occurred during the Finnish experience with the Buffalo. If they had come up against good planes flown by veteran pilots, they might not like the Buffalo so well and might well be losses instead of Aces. If circumstance work against you sometimes, then they also almost certainly sometimes work FOR you, as in the case of the Finnish Buffalos.


----------



## Juha (Jul 1, 2012)

GregP said:


> ...I had thought the Dutch LIKED the Fokker D.XXI and have read its handling was good for a fixed-gear monoplane. Perhaps I recall wrong ...I disagree with the P-64. I helped build one in Arozona and it flew just great comnpared with an AT-6. Of course, with the extra power to weight ratio, it SHOULD have! I believe it was intended as an export fighter for places where first-line equipment was not expected as the competition. It met its specs, but I might have to disallow that one based on the fact that onoly 13 were made originally. I do not think it was accepted for Military service, at least by the USAAC. I'm not sure it qualifies as "production," but will not eliminate it quite yet until I find out for sure.
> 
> I know of two that were completed by modifying AT-6 airframes in the 1980's and 1990's, both at Deer Valley, Arizona (a Phoenix, AZ airport).



Hello Greg
As rank amateur wrote, Dutch pilots liked D XXI but even if it had fairly good climb rate, Soviet I-153 and I-16 climbed still better and turned better and were faster. The only ace D XXI pilot had was that D. XXI was a sturdy plane and if they had enough altitude the D XXI pilots could always disengage by deep dive. But all Finnish D. XXI pilots i am aware of thought that B-239 was significantly better plane, most of those who had fought during the the Winter War began the Continuation War flying in B-239s, some who convert to Fiat G.50 were also happy with the new type they thought was a better one. I put D. XXI into my list because I could remember only a few planes I thought were worse than D XXI. I-153 and I-16 were better according to Finnish fighter pilots. And during Khalkin-Gol Ki-27 was at least as good to I-16 Type 10, IIRC A5M4 was more or less equal to Ki-27 etc. But if Finns were ready during the desperate times of early 40 to dumb CR. 714 out of hand after a few flights, it must have been almost as bad fighter as Roc.

As I wrote I chose NA-50A/-68/P-64 only becaus eof its poor specs, I really knew very little on it.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jul 1, 2012)

GregP said:


> Hi Rank Amateur,
> 
> Absolutely, and a Buffalo, too. My favorite Swedish fighter of WWII was the FFVS J-22. Wish we had one of THOSE! Heck I wish YOU ahd one of those in flying condition.
> 
> The Buffalo was definnitely the worst of the American fighters. I'm sure there was SOME plane worse ... but it is hard to think of one. The people who say the losses in the pacific were due to circumstances and poor training seem to conveniently forget the very similar but opposite circumstances that occurred during the Finnish experience with the Buffalo. If they had come up against good planes flown by veteran pilots, they might not like the Buffalo so well and might well be losses instead of Aces. If circumstance work against you sometimes, then they also almost certainly sometimes work FOR you, as in the case of the Finnish Buffalos.



Hello Greg
The vast majority of claimed 476 kills by Finnish Brewster B-239 pilots were against fighters, which incl 48 Hurricanes, 41 LaGG-3s, 45 MiG-3s, 27½ Yak-1s, 23 La-5s, 13 "Spitfires" (Yak-1s and 7s in reality), 4 P-40s and 2 Yak-7s.

And in fact some of the Soviet pilots were very good, after all VVS was one of the few AFs which had recent combat experience, from China, from Spanish Civil War and from skirmishes/frontier wars against Japanese. IMHO VVS pilot ability varied greatly, maybe more than in most AFs, from highly motivated excellent pilots to tyros who tried to avoid combat as much they could.

I also like very much FFVS J-22, they have lovely restored J-22 at Swedish AF Museum in Linköping.

Juha

Juha


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 1, 2012)

The Finns flew a lot of different aircraft, anything captured, if repairable, they used. A lot of the aircraft the Germans captured after the fall of France, they sold to Finland.

In the Winter War, and early Continuation War, Russian pilot qualities and aircraft may not of been the best, but later in the war Russia improved in every department. I really don't think the Soviets singled out substandard pilots just for the Finland front. The Buffalos fought till the end even against the better Russian pilots and aircraft late in the war.

The Finns used a lot of aircraft that are on everybodies crap list, and made them work for them, but even they didn't want the Caudron 714.


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

Juha, to give you your due, the NA P-64 had specs that were lower performance than most other fighters, so maybe it belongs on the bottom of the list. I could argue it both ways, but will not do so either way.

A lot of the European aircraft produced in lesser numbers are not very well known to me, at least with accompamnying pilot reports and combat reports. For instance, I know very little about the early PZL monoplane fighrters except what the written, and that isn;t much. It would be nice for some Poles, Czechs, Romanians, Swedes, Fins, etc. ect. to post some pilots thoughts about their aircraft made in low numbers. That way, we'd have something to read about them instead of being left to draw conclusions rather in the dark except for the specs.

At least there are several sources for stories about the IAR 80 series, but I have read very little about the Myrsky, Pyorremyrsky, SM.92, etc.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 1, 2012)

I will say one thing for you Greg, you don't let facts and data get in your way. Soviet's actually had a lot of combat experience having fought in the Spanish Civil War, Khalkin Gol, and volunteers that fought with the Chinese against the Japanese. They had more combat experience then the Finns did. The US Marines meanwhile were fresh out of flight school going against combat veterens. BTW comparing the early Buffalos with the later ones is like comparing the FM-1 with the F4F-2. Same in name only.

Of all the fighters mentioned, the Me-163 would be IMO the top candidate. IIRC it killed far more pilots then it destroyed enemy aircraft.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 1, 2012)

You all know how I love to unload on the German wonder weapons, i'd definitely vote for the Me163, but it isn't a piston powered monoplane, though it does have that itty bitty prop up front.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 1, 2012)

Dangit - forgot about that little requirement! Thanks Tom!


----------



## Milosh (Jul 1, 2012)

vikingBerserker said:


> BTW comparing the early Buffalos with the later ones is like comparing the FM-1 with the F4F-2. Same in name only.
> 
> Of all the fighters mentioned, the Me-163 would be IMO the top candidate. IIRC it killed far more pilots then it destroyed enemy aircraft.



Have you actually researched the number of pilots killed in the Me163 vB?


----------



## Juha (Jul 1, 2012)

Hello VikingBerserker
while true that Soviets had combat experience before the Winter War it still true that Finnish had better tactics, Finns had made a pair their basic tactical building block already in 1935, so even before LW while VVS still strickly adhered to tight vic. And Finns shooted better on average. But one must remember that most of Finnish kills duringthe Winter War were bombers, Finns tried to avoid fighter vs fighter combats because of vast numerical superiority of Soviet fighters, of which vast majority were better dogfighters than Finnish D. XXIs,

Juha


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 1, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Have you actually researched the number of pilots killed in the Me163 vB?



IIRC I came across it being mentioned in a book. I'm looking for it now in Luftwaffe Classics Me 163 Vol2 by Rasom and Cammann as I feel they would be the most reliable source of all the books I have on the topic. I'm curious about it even though it would not quality for this thread.



Juha said:


> Hello VikingBerserker
> while true that Soviets had combat experience before the Winter War it still true that Finnish had better tactics, Finns had made a pair their basic tactical building block already in 1935, so even before LW while VVS still strickly adhered to tight vic. And Finns shooted better on average. But one must remember that most of Finnish kills duringthe Winter War were bombers, Finns tried to avoid fighter vs fighter combats because of vast numerical superiority of Soviet fighters, of which vast majority were better dogfighters than Finnish D. XXIs, Juha



I agree with you for the most part and I'll have to take your word about the bombers as I really don't know. Regardless f the lack of combat experience, they were still some dam fine pilots!


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2012)

> The Defiant is a good candidate for the worst. I always thought ity could have been a pretty good fighter if they deleted the turret, second crew member, and installed forward-firing armament. Alas, they never did and it was really pretty poor, wasn't it?



No, it wasn't. I can't belive you guys have put the Defiant down in this list!!! You disappoint me! Call yourselves knowledgeable?! 

Here are some passages from an article on the Defiant I had published this year:

"First flying on 11 August 1937, as a result of a high loss rate in combat between May and August 1940, the Defiant has been tarnished with not entirely deserved disrepute. A lack of understanding of its intended role and ignorance of its weaknesses led to its poor showing in the Battle of Britain. Losses suffered during day operations led to a dismissal of the turret fighter as unworkable, but in its defence, the Defiant was not designed to tackle single-seat fighters. As a result of these failures, it was withdrawn from day fighter duties in late August 1940.

As a night fighter the Defiant excelled however and far from being “relegated” to the role as post-war authors like to claim, it was always intended as a specialist night fighter. It is interesting to note that more enemy bombers were shot down by Defiants than by any other British night fighter between late 1940 and late 1942."

"Ultimately, the Defiant was intended as a Bomber Destroyer, designed specifically for attacking unescorted formations of enemy bombers. According to RAF tactics prepared before the war, turret fighters were to operate in conjunction with single-seat fighters; the two-seaters attacking the formations in groups of four aircraft, aiming a high concentration of small calibre gun fire into their victim's less well protected areas. Flying underneath and alongside enemy bombers would enable the turret fighters to strike at their foe's vulnerable areas; their bellies and along their flanks. These concentrated attacks would cause the defensive formations to break up, at which point the single-seaters would pick off those straying from the formation.

At the time that Specification F.9/35, to which the Defiant was built was released, it was believed that enemy bombers would have to fly unescorted from bases in Germany since no single-seat fighter had the range to match the bombers. RAF strategists were clearly not banking on Germany invading France again.

One persisting criticism of the Defiant is that it lacked fixed forward firing armament. There is much speculation that had the Defiant been so fitted and flown tactically like the Bristol Fighter was in World War One, then it would have been more successful as a day fighter. This does not take into consideration the Defiant's intended role as a Bomber Destroyer as outlined above. Bearing this in mind, guns in the wings were unnecessary; the extra weight of which would have been detrimental to the aeroplane's performance, not sparking as it was even by the standards of the day. Although the gun turret could fire forward under control of the pilot via a push-button trigger on his spade-grip joystick, the guns' minimum elevation pointing forward was 19° and he did not have a gun sight."

I suspect this won't be enough to convince most of you that its poor reputation is not deserved, but if you want a debate about it; bring it!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2012)

Well Vikingberserker, you don't mince words. Can'y say I agree with you.

OK, the Soviets had some comabt experience in Spain. Didn't seem to do them any good because they were shot out of the sky at the beginning of WWII in droves. I think maybe it is you who don't let the facts get in your way, huh? Read your history, particularly the aerial history of early WWII. The Soviet Air Force from 1939 to 1941 or a bit later were targets. Maybe if you don't think so, you are reading different books than I am.

It wasn't until about April 1941 that they flew the Yak-3 and mid-1942 when they flew the La-5. By that time, most of the older planes of the Soviet Air Force had been shot down with little or no resistance. After that time, the Soviet Union came into their own right as a modern, well-equipped Air Force and drove the Germans from their skies gradually from autumn of 1943 onward. In late 1944, a German plane could not hope to live long in a Soviet sky.

But in 1940, it was like shooting sitting ducks, and the Fins DID, even with Buffalos. I'm sure they were happy about the outcome, but better planes might have done much better.

So, hurl your insults after you read up on the early Russian Front aerial war. I think I am on solid ground here. Naturally, you disagree ... I don't mind or take offense, but you might at least be civil. Go eat some South Carolina BBQ and chill.

As for the Defiant, its combat record is pretty well known and speaks for itself ... it was miserable. It wound up as a target tug and was used for some experimental radar formations.

Sure it was decent-looking, but the combat performance was not even marginally good.


----------



## norab (Jul 2, 2012)

I'd nominate the Breda 88, with maybe the Boomerang as a runner up


----------



## Marcel (Jul 2, 2012)

If one is putting the D.XXI in the list, one should also consider the Italian fighters like the G.50. They are in the same league. And of these I would pick the D.XXI anytime. In a dogfight it could hold it's own well against the BF.109 as the the fight at Den Helder showed. The big problem that the D.XXI was that it was too slow. Although it was quite fast for a fixed gear aircraft with 460km/h (Dutch version). 
As for worst aircraft, I also don't go with the Buffalo. It was as bad as all Allied aircraft in the Pacific. In my view it's just apology-talk from the US marines for their defeat at Midway (stepping a few toes there). 
The Defiant and the Rock are good candidates as the idea they were designed for was flawed.


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2012)

Well, it appears as if every nomination generates some staunch defender of the type. Go figure.

C'mon guys, I asked for YOUR lists of the worst, not a heated debate of same. I don't care at all if you think one list is good or bad, I'm looking for the opinions of the members, not arguments. I'm not trying for consensus, I'm trying to get opinions. You know, when someone who has been a keen follower of WWII aviation for more than 50 years has an opinion, it is usually for cumulative reasons and data acquired over decades from many sources. You won't change my mind and I never set out to change yours or start a debate over the worst. 

I was only seeking lists of YOUR proposed worst. Then I could compile the lists and put them out there for a vote.

Your votes may or may not match mine but, really, I was and am looking for YOUR opinions in the form of your proposed list of the top 3 - 5 worst fighters of WWII, not an acrimonious debate. Juha kindly supplied a list of 10. Thanks, Juha. Let's be civil and stick to the thread topic. There is no point in arguing when you ask someone else for their opinion. After all, it is not put forth as your opinion; it is someopne else's, and they have it for a reason ... and ... I asked for it in the form of a list of their proposed worst fighters. If you disagree, please just supply your own alternate list as a retort.

Can we please stop the arguments? If we don't, maybe that is why I can't get many lists of proposed worst fighters. People don't want to be slammed in a public forum.

So, how about it? Peace? ... and lists?

If a plane had multiple uses and one included the monicker "fighter", as in fighter-bomber or heavy fighter or fighter escort, it is a candidate. That means even the P-70, which was basically an A-20, is suitable if you think it was among the worst.


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2012)

Hello Greg
IMHO you have too dim view on VVS, after all it beat the JAAF in the end at Khalkin Gol in summer 39, mostly because it had numerical superiority and was able to exhaust the smaller JAAF formations in the area but also partly by transferring units led by officers with recent combat experience in Spain and introducing better fighters like newer I-16 versions and I-153s. And the same JAAF, still mainly using the same planes as they had used at Khalkin-Gol beat RAF/RAAF in Malaya a bit over 2 years later. 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2012)

Marcel said:


> If one is putting the D.XXI in the list, one should also consider the Italian fighters like the G.50. They are in the same league. And of these I would pick the D.XXI anytime. In a dogfight it could hold it's own well against the BF.109 as the the fight at Den Helder showed. The big problem that the D.XXI was that it was too slow. Although it was quite fast for a fixed gear aircraft with 460km/h (Dutch version).
> As for worst aircraft, I also don't go with the Buffalo. It was as bad as all Allied aircraft in the Pacific. In my view it's just apology-talk from the US marines for their defeat at Midway (stepping a few toes there).
> The Defiant and the Rock are good candidates as the idea they were designed for was flawed.



Hello Marcel
Finns definitely thought that Fiat G.50 was a better fighter than D. XXI. While D.XXI climbed better (I'm talking about the Mercury powered version, the Wasp powered [R-1535-SB4-G Twin Wasp Junior, installed only because no better engines were available], was real turkey), Fiat G.50 was somewhat faster, dived even better and had better handling. One plus for D.XXI was that it was easier to maintain, G.50 and Morane-Saulnier MS 406 were the most problematic fighters from maintenance POV the FiAF had during the WWII.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Jul 2, 2012)

Greg, unfortunately with a question such as yours, you will get the heated debates, etc. - especially on the 'net. As long as everything stays civil, we really shouldn't have a problem.

But it does seem you're getting a very varied response!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 2, 2012)

GregP said:


> Well Vikingberserker, you don't mince words. Can'y say I agree with you.
> 
> OK, the Soviets had some comabt experience in Spain. Didn't seem to do them any good because they were shot out of the sky at the beginning of WWII in droves. I think maybe it is you who don't let the facts get in your way, huh? Read your history, particularly the aerial history of early WWII. The Soviet Air Force from 1939 to 1941 or a bit later were targets. Maybe if you don't think so, you are reading different books than I am.
> 
> ...



Actually I have been quite Civil, even after your post #67 to me from http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...falo-worst-us-fighter-fought-ww2-33111-5.html and there really is no reason to treat me like a 5 year old.

I have already read up quite a bit on Russian Air Service during WW2 as it's an area of interest for me and there was a vast difference between The Winter War and the German invasion of Russia. Question anything I say and I'm either more than happy to provide backup or admit I am wrong and there are several posts where I have thanked people for “the education”. I am mainly here to learn and I place far more emphasis on facts and data than emotions.

You are obsessed with your hatred of the Buffalo - that's your opinion and that's fine. When you start making claims about why it was the worst USN fighter in WW2 that are refuted by facts and data posted by members which you then claim are wrong (but then refuse to post anything to support why they are wrong) you come across as totally ignoring facts and data, thus my post.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2012)

Gentlemen, play nice!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2012)

*Breda Ba.88 hands down *if you want to consider it a fighter (was actually designed as a fighter bomber). From Wiki;

_Two Gruppi (Groups) were equipped with the Breda Ba.88 on June 1940, operating initially from Sardinia against the main airfield of Corsica, with 12 aircraft on 16 June 1940 and three on 19 June 1940. The crews soon found that the Bredas were extremely underpowered and lacked agility, but the lack of fighter opposition resulted in them being able to perform their missions without losses.
*
Later, 64 aircraft became operational serving 7imo Gruppo in the North African Theatre with 19imo stationed in Sardinia, but their performance remained extremely poor resulting in the 7imo Gruppo being grounded from the end of June until September, when the Italian offensive against British forces started. Of three aircraft used, one was not even capable of taking off, and another could not turn and was forced to fly straight from their base at Castelvetrano to Sidi Rezegh.*

*With anti-sand filters fitted, a maximum horizontal speed of 250 km/h (155 mph) was reported in some cases and several units were even unable to take off at all*. These machines were fitted with "Spezzoniera" Nardi dispensers (with 119 kg/262 lb bomblets), 1,000 rounds for the three 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns and 500 rounds for the 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Bredas. Although the weapons were not loaded to full capacity and the aircraft was lightened by eliminating the rear machine gun, observer, bombs and some fuel, lessening the weight did not substantially affect the aircraft's performance. Such attempts to reduce weight failed to achieve positive results.

By mid-November, *just five months after the start of the war on 10 June 1940, most surviving Ba.88s had been phased out as bombers and stripped of useful equipment, and were scattered around operational airfields as decoys for attacking aircraft.* This was a degrading end for the new, (theoretically powerful) Breda Ba.88. This action forced the Regia Aeronautica to use totally outdated aircraft in North Africa, such as the Breda Ba.65 and Fiat C.R.32. As an additional problem, Regia Aereonautica remained without any suitable heavy fighter, a notable weakness for a major air arm.

Similar "heavy fighter-zerstorer" projects were developed in several countries. In France, the Breguet Br.690 even with only 1,044 kW (1,400 hp) was more capable than the Ba.88. Despite some problems of reliability, the Br.690 showed a practical usefulness that the Breda never achieved. It is notable that the Ba.88 was also a contemporary of the Messerschmitt Bf 110, with no great differences in hp, weight, P/W ratio or wingload. But the difference in success was immensely in the Bf 110's favour.

Niclot was the only pilot capable of flying this machine at its best (and only in the racer version which was much lighter), while *the average pilot was not capable of using it effectively. Despite its impressive world records and aggressive, slim shape, the Ba.88 was a failure and totally unable to undertake combat missions. Its structure was too heavy, wing loading too high, and the engines were quite unreliable with insufficient power. The Piaggio P.XI was quite powerful, but never reliable.*_

*At least the Buffalo, Defiant, I-16 and even the Me 163 drew some blood and was at least able to go into combat. It's pretty bad when you can't event take off to fight and in the end just pushed off to the side to be used as a "decoy"!!!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jul 2, 2012)

@GregP another worst/best thread doesn't make sense if you don't discuss it as you'll have to make clear by what standards you consider your claim. I guess you'll have to live with that ...
@ Joe, totally agree on the Breda, just wasn't sure if we could consider it to be a fighter. 
@ Juha, the Dutch D.XXI was definately a different beast from the Finnish one. While it wasn't great and quite obsolete, it wasn't bad either and had some distinct merrits to the Dutch. Unfortunately the war didn't last long enough to profit from it. 

@nuuuman, I'm not knowledgable about the nightfighters. Do you know how many a/c were destroyed by the Defiant in the nightfighter role and which types were also deployed in that role at the same time?


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2012)

Pretty good FlyboyJ, and true. To be used as a decoy is sinking pretty low on the totem pole of useful aircraft, as you pointed out. I read of that more than once, but did not include it becasue I remembered it as a light bomber. Looking it up again, I see it was a fighter-bomber, so it certainly qualifies.

I suppose the debates are inevitable, but I was trying to at least keep them down a bit. Someone's opinion, redered after being asked for, should perhaps be commented upon, but not attacked. If you ask for it, you should be prepared to hear it.

Juha, I may have a dim view of Soviet avation at the start of the war, but it comes from what I've read about it. It is quite likely that there were indivudual commanders out there who were solid and ran a good squadron or wing. Still, what I have read tells me that when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, most of the planes did not even get airborne without orders from Stalin to do same. Perhaps that was not the entire case, but a good many planes were shot down or destroyed on the ground due to bad leadership, poor dispersement, and the few that did get airborne were quickly dealt with.

I am open to a more positive view if it can be backed up historically, and will take an interest in that subject for awhile to see if what you are saying might be, in fact, the case. 

One thing is certain, since you are from Finland, you are much closer to what was the front line that I am and, as I said above, you reached your opinion for SOME reason or reasons ... so it's worth investigating. I still wonder what the Fins might have done with, say, Spitfires or Me 109's instead of Buffalos ...


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 2, 2012)

probably Ba 88 easy get 1st place
atm it is my 1st place


----------



## norab (Jul 2, 2012)

just like to point out that I was the first one to mention the Breda 88 in post #35


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 2, 2012)

Is there any record of a Breda 88 ever shooting down another aircraft ?


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 2, 2012)

Nothing beats the Breda 88, but who is gonna be runner up. How about the Morane 406? Or did the Fins manage to score in that aswell


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2012)

Was Breda Ba 88 a fighter? I have always thought that it was a fast bomber/attack bomber.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> Nothing beats the Breda 88, but who is gonna be runner up. How about the Morane 406? Or did the Fins manage to score in that aswell



406 was slow and slow climber but very manoeuvrable. While IIRC it was the least succesful of the main fighters of the French AF, FiAF used it to the end of WWII, During Winter War in A2A 14 claimed victories/ 0 losses, During the Continuation War 121 / 18. With Fiat G.50 the most difficult fighter to maintain of all FiAF fighters, constant difficulties with the central gun. But of course both 406 and G.50 were designed for warmer climate than that in Finland, but strangely both suffered for overheating engines during summers even in Finland.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jul 2, 2012)

Defiants were an abject failure as a day fighter, but did some vital work and were quite successful as some of the first night fighters in RAF service, not fully withdrawn from this role until 1943, after having shot down nearly 1000 enemy aircraft 1940-43

If I were to nomnate some candidates, I would look at aircraft that could not even complete their mission specs. I would be relatively kind to aircraft that could not complete their mission specs but found an alternative role. Definat fits into this latter category. 

Types that basically added nothing to the war effort of their owners, might include

Loire 43, 45, 46, French carrier borne fighters were grounded from service entry, remained on the inventory from 1934 to 1939. never flew a single combat mission. 

Dewoitine 371 and 376. Shipboard and land based fighters, roughly in the same class as the P-11C. They at least flew, operationally, but were basically withdrawn after 1939 because under military conditions had a tendency to break their cranshafts in midflight

Ki60 heavy Fighter. A single seat heavy fighter, was accepted by the japanese for service, then realizewd that it had vicius take and landing characteristics. Was withdrawn before any service delivery

Breda BA27: First flown in 1935, just prior to the first flights of the hawker Hurricane and Macchi MC200had poor speed, performance and armament. Used by the Chinese, all were shot down for no loss

Breda BA65 Multi role aircraft. Was meant to be a colonial jack of all trades. Was never operated in one of its intended roles as a fighter, and had poor results as an attack fighter. sent to the desert with no sand filters, were permanently grounded within days of their deployment, unil the arrival of sand filters some months later.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2012)

Juha said:


> Was Breda Ba 88 a fighter? I have always thought that it was a fast bomber/attack bomber.
> 
> Juha



Also advertised as a fighter bomber or heavy fighter/ destroyer like the Bf 110


----------



## Marcel (Jul 2, 2012)

As a fighter the Fokker T.V was pretty bad, too.


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 2, 2012)

Juha said:


> 406 was slow and slow climber but very manoeuvrable. While IIRC it was the least succesful of the main fighters of the French AF, FiAF used it to the end of WWII, During Winter War in A2A 14 claimed victories/ 0 losses, During the Continuation War 121 / 18. With Fiat G.50 the most difficult fighter to maintain of all FiAF fighters, constant difficulties with the central gun. But of course both 406 and G.50 were designed for warmer climate than that in Finland, but strangely both suffered for overheating engines during summers even in Finland.
> 
> Juha



I thought I was just asking a rethorical question 

Was the 406 used by the Fins standard issue or were they somewhat improved? I remember vaguely about Moranes with Klimov engines but I can't remember them being one offs or quite common. I also remember the Swiss having an improved version with a better engine that managed 700 kph. Should have come up with a better suggestion I guess


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2012)

Blackburn Roc would get my vote. Slow (even a Stuka could outrun it), underarmed, miserable climb, heavy and I don't know if they shot anything down.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 2, 2012)

The Morane 406 was the 3rd most numerous fighter in FiAF, after the Me109 and Fokker XXI.
A book I have on the FiAF says in 44-45 all the remaining 406 were re-engined with the Klimov 105P, but doesn't give the number of aircraft involved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2012)

Lets see...

Breda Ba.88 - For crying out loud it was used as a ground target decoy for crying out loud because it could not even do its intended mission successfully.

Trying to see if I can think of any that have not already been named off. Other than that I agree with Joe and Bills lists.


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> The Morane 406 was the 3rd most numerous fighter in FiAF, after the Me109 and Fokker XXI.
> A book I have on the FiAF says in 44-45 all the remaining 406 were re-engined with the Klimov 105P, but doesn't give the number of aircraft involved.



Altogether 41 MS 406s/410s were converted to Mörkö-Morane (with Klimov 105P) but only 3 of these before the end of the Continuation War (4 Sept 44)

Juha


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 2, 2012)

Glider said:


> Blackburn Roc would get my vote. Slow (even a Stuka could outrun it), underarmed, miserable climb, heavy and I don't know if they shot anything down.



Wasn't it a Blackburn design that scored the first kill for England? BTW I've done some reading and I haven't come up with the reason why the BA 88 was such a lousy fighter. The engines were unreliable and never lived up to the specs. Makes me wonder how it would have fared with Bramo's or Jumo's. But was that it?


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2012)

Hello rank amateur
Yes, but it was a Skua, the RN dive-bomber - fighter, from which the Roc was developed as turret fighter.

The first RAF kills, unfortunately own goals:
6 Sept 39 The Battle of Barking Creek, Spitfires of ”A” Flight of 74 Sqn shot down 2 Hurricanes of 56 Sqn (1 KIA)

The first confirmed RAF kill, later found invalid:
20 Sep 1939 - Sgt F Letchard, a gunner in a Fairey Battle, claims the first RAF victory of the war, he claimed a German Bf 109 during a patrol near Aachen. Later confirmed by French troops. There was in fact no LW losses.

The first true kill by a a/c of the UK armed forces
26 September 1939
The first Luftwaffe aircraft is shot down during operations against the United Kingdom. A Dornier Do18D flying boat of 2/Küstenfliegergruppe 506 is shot down by a Blackburn Skua of No.803 Squadron, Fleet Air Arm, operating from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal

The first RAF kill Wednesday, 27th September 1939.
JGr.152 Messerschmitt Bf109D-1. Shot down by return fire during attack on No.103 Squadron Battles west of Hornbach and crashed near Bockweiler, 1230 hrs. Gefr. J. Scherm killed. Aircraft a write off.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> BTW I've done some reading and I haven't come up with the reason why the BA 88 was such a lousy fighter.



For starters, because it couldn't get off the ground?


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 2, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For starters, because it couldn't get off the ground?



Indeed but I would not have used that eufemistic 'not living up to the expectations' about the engines. If these don't have enough power for lift off that's just plain failure in my book and not one for which I can blame the Breda company. Or should I blame them for not trying other engines. Why didn't they?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> Indeed but I would not have used that eufemistic 'not living up to the expectations' about the engines. If these don't have enough power for lift off that's just plain failure in my book and not one for which I can blame the Breda company. Or should I blame them for not trying other engines. Why didn't they?


Don't know, but there was another report of one taking off and not being able to turn (probably because of fear of stalling). Lastly being used as a target decoy, I think some really lost some faith in the aircraft!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 2, 2012)

I won't try to say the Breda 88 was in any way a good aircraft, but in defense of it those times in when it couldn't take off were in Africa, during the summer, very high density altitude, equals less power, less lift. There's also some question if they might have been operated without their sand filters for a while, so the engines might have been pretty worn out. And the sand filters themselves also sapped power. Being underpowered in the first place meant it didn't take a lot going wrong to tip the balance toward not enough power to fly.
I can remember some times in Vietnam that the temps got up so high that some of the piston powered helicopters were grounded, they didn't have enough excess power to safely fly.


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Jul 2, 2012)

The Breda definitely deserves 1st. If an aircraft's best use in the war was to be a bunch of decoys on the ground drawing attention, you know it's a pathetic aircraft!

As for runner up? I think the Blackburn Botha deserves a mention. It was infamously known as a flying death trap. Quoting a test pilot: “that thing is bloody lethal, but not to the Germans, I never want to see it again”. Another famous quote “access to this aircraft is difficult. It should be made impossible”


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2012)

The British certainly had their share of "WTFWTT" (what the F*** were they thinking) aircraft but the Botha escapes _THIS_ list because it was not a fighter 

For a list of worst Piston engine bombers it may manage to escape below the radar because the British at least had the sense to to send any to a combat squadron. 

Another poster child for why _NOT_ to order off the drawing board.


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2012)

Hi Vikingberserker,

I went back and read my post ... and you are right. I unloaded on you rather unnecessarilty. Apologies and I sent you a PM of apology as well. When I lost my temper a bit, I didn't mean to take it out on YOU, just vent a bit and you happened to be the post I replied to ... but it was a buildup of other posts, too.

Just goes to show you, venting a bit can easily be construed as an adolescent attack. Sorry, it wasn't meant the way it now sounds to me; it was frustration at best and rather churlish of me. Since I usually endeavor NOT to be a churl, mea cupla. Hopefully, I am not a repeat offender. Somebody slap me, please.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 2, 2012)

I apoligize as well for my part, but I am NOT going to hug you!


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2012)

The B.88 reminds me of the LWS Zubr. It was originally designed for one engine and a much more popwerful one was substituted ... without restressing the airframe. That meant the Zubr had airframe stress issues in the extreme. It wound up being hardkly used at all, except in training and, in that guise, was very short-lived. Alotgether useless.

Vikingberserker, thanks for the non-hug ...


----------



## Milosh (Jul 2, 2012)

Using Greg's criteria for the Buffalo, then the P-39 is right up there as well. It sure didn't have a stellar career with any of the Western Allies. It did have a good career with the VVS despite the so-so pilot training.


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2012)

I think the P-39 was a pretty darned good fighter ... below 15,000 feet ... albeit with a BAD cannon in the nose. Not much to recommend it, is there?

Still, if they had fitted the turbocharger and a decent cannon, then maybe it would have been a good one.

Alas, in real life, Milosh is right and it IS on the worst-of list but, at least on mine, not at the bottom. Maybe 3rd or 4th up, or even a bit higher considering Juha's list and the B-88.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 2, 2012)

> Blackburn Roc would get my vote. Slow (even a Stuka could outrun it), underarmed, miserable climb, heavy and I don't know if they shot anything down.



Yep, pretty awful all round, really, although somewhat unbelieveably the Roc is credited with shooting down enemy aircraft from the ground whilst stationary! They were so bad as a fighter that Rocs were used as fixed airfield anti-aircraft defence! Fitted with floats it could barely get airborne. One is credited with shooting down a Ju 88 in 1940 though, but still, a miserable aeroplane.

Most of you will not be surprised to learn they were bult by Boulton Paul and were chosen over a naval fighter version of the Defiant. Naturally BP was not very happy with having to build an inferior product than the one it offered.

Which brings us back to the Defiant as a day fighter. Let's not forget that it wasn't designed as a fighter, but as a specialised bomber interceptor.

It was not an abject failure as statistics show. Between May and August 1940 Defiants claimed 88 enemy aircraft for the total loss of 32 Defiants - from all causes. During this time it equipped only two squadrons, one of which had devised tactics to enable its turret to gain a bead on its enemies. Both squadrons were also carrying out night fighter patrols at this time too. In almost every case in which Defiants were shot down in numbers, the British were confronted by superior numbers of enemy fighters.

On 19 July 1940 the event that killed the reputation of the Defiant took place; 9 aircraft of 141 Sqn were bounced by what is claimed to be thirty Bf 109s. six were lost with four Defiants shot down in less than a minute. Two Bf 109s were claimed. The 141 Sqn CO had ignored advice from 264 Sqn's CO Sqn Ldr Philip Hunter about utilising the aircraft's turret to his advantage and so his sqn was decimated.

The biggest problem behind the use of the Defiant in the BoB was that although it was recommended before the war that it should avoid conflict with the Bf 109, the squadrons were placed with 11 Group, rather than with either 12 or 13 Group, where its true role - that of bomber interceptor could be exploited.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 2, 2012)

> The first RAF kills, unfortunately own goals:
> 6 Sept 39 The Battle of Barking Creek, Spitfires of ”A” Flight of 74 Sqn shot down 2 Hurricanes of 56 Sqn (1 KIA)



The first combat kills of the Supermarine Spitfire! Brilliant start!

Almost a good as the Germans, who with one He 111 managed to do something the British couldn't in the first few months of the war, sink two German destroyers in one sortie!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ssnider (Jul 2, 2012)

GregP said:


> I think the P-39 was a pretty darned good fighter ... below 15,000 feet ... albeit with a BAD cannon in the nose. Not much to recommend it, is there?
> 
> Still, if they had fitted the turbocharger and a decent cannon, then maybe it would have been a good one.
> 
> Alas, in real life, Milosh is right and it IS on the worst-of list but, at least on mine, not at the bottom. Maybe 3rd or 4th up, or even a bit higher considering Juha's list and the B-88.


 
In convesations with pilots that flew both the P39 and P40 in combat, the biggest difference in the two planes was the P40 could be depended on while some system broke on the P39 every mission. One pilot told me he never had a mission in the P39 that everything worked.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 3, 2012)

It's interesting that three of the aircraft mentioned here are often in these worst aircraft lists, but still have their protagonists. These aeroplanes have had their reputations irrepairably quashed, but perhaps don't deserve all the negative publicity they receive.

The P-39 - not the most reliable machine, but quite an advanced concept when it flew - perhaps it was introduced into service before it had its bugs ironed out. nevertheless, Chuck yeager flew them was quite praiseworthy of the P-39, not to mention Russian experience vindicating the design. If the Russians with their harsh conditions and basic equipment could make something of a complex and frequently malfunctioning aircraft means that perhaps its reputation is not entirely deserved.

The same can be said for the Brewster Buffalo; certainly not the most capable fighter, but not a complete dud. Sure, it's undercarriage design left a lot to be desired, but its poor reputation largely came about from its participation in a scenario that it could not influence nor change, that was the Fall of Singapore, in which had the British been equipped with better aircraft, could not have changed the outcome. Nevertheless, like the P-39, a foreign country made something of the type and it gained fame as the mount of aces in an especially harsh environment, one that its detractors probably did not expect it to succeed in.

Next, the Defiant; with all intents and purposes, an excellent aircraft that performed superbly in the role it was designed for - as a specialised bomber interceptor. Unlike the P-39 and Buffalo, the Defiant was not stricken with unreliability issues and very few of the pilots that flew it did not enjoy the experience. Of course in combat against enemy fighters they changed their perspective, but somewhat unfairly, it was placed into an arena it was not designed for nor for which could it adequately cope. 

It is a shame that it is thought of because of the Battle of Britain, which constituted only three months of a five year service career in which it performed every other duty it was tasked with well and with some satisfaction, it is infamously remembered. What is even more surprising is that the role for which it is most remembered is one that it was not designed to undertake. The worst thing about the Defiant's reputation is that it was not considered so poorly during the war - the airmen who were told they were going to undertake solely night ops in the summer of 1940 were actually quite surprised and shocked by the move. It has only been since the end of WW2 that it is thought of so negatively.

If you compare these three aircraft with some of the real duds here, such as the Breda 88 Lince or the Blackburn Roc, they fare pretty well if you consider their overall combat experience and not focus on their reputations alone.


----------



## GregP (Jul 3, 2012)

VERY well said!

I wish I had your grasp of the words to post the real potential of the platforms. They probably weren't so bad when compared with their situations and the likely outcomes of different scenarios.

Nice post!


----------



## Tankworks (Jul 3, 2012)

I have always thought the P-39 should have and could have performed the way it looked. It is very streamlined compared to some fighters of the era and if it had a supercharged engine should have been comparable in performance to P-40 and Hurricane and maybe early Spits and 109s?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2012)

Tankworks said:


> I have always thought the P-39 should have and could have performed the way it looked. It is very streamlined compared to some fighters of the era and if it had a supercharged engine should have been comparable in performance to P-40 and Hurricane and maybe early Spits and 109s?



The P-39 did have a supercharged engine - it was basically the same as the one in the P-40.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 3, 2012)

> VERY well said!
> 
> I wish I had your grasp of the words to post the real potential of the platforms. They probably weren't so bad when compared with their situations and the likely outcomes of different scenarios.
> 
> Nice post!



Thanks Greg, very kind of you.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Chuck yeager flew them in combat and was quite praiseworthy of the P-39.



Yeager never flew the P-39 in combat. 

_"General Yeager's first assignment was as a P-39 pilot with the 363d Fighter Squadron in Tonopah, Nev. As a member of the 363d he trained at various bases in the United States before going overseas to England in November 1943. While in England he flew P-51s in combat."_

Charles E. Yeager Biography


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 3, 2012)

> Yeager never flew the P-39 in combat



Oopsy.


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2012)

GregP said:


> ...Juha, I may have a dim view of Soviet avation at the start of the war, but it comes from what I've read about it. It is quite likely that there were indivudual commanders out there who were solid and ran a good squadron or wing. Still, what I have read tells me that when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, most of the planes did not even get airborne without orders from Stalin to do same. Perhaps that was not the entire case, but a good many planes were shot down or destroyed on the ground due to bad leadership, poor dispersement, and the few that did get airborne were quickly dealt with.
> 
> I am open to a more positive view if it can be backed up historically, and will take an interest in that subject for awhile to see if what you are saying might be, in fact, the case.
> 
> One thing is certain, since you are from Finland, you are much closer to what was the front line that I am and, as I said above, you reached your opinion for SOME reason or reasons ... so it's worth investigating. I still wonder what the Fins might have done with, say, Spitfires or Me 109's instead of Buffalos ...



In fact many VVS fighters were scrambled when alarm came but it might be that some commanders hesitated fearing possible reprisals if their actions were seen as taken a bait of mere German provocations. And yes the force disposition was much too front oriented, too many planes near the demarcation line/frontiers based on too few a/fs. But one must remember that the German attack was a "sneak" attack just like the Japanese attack on PH. And LW was greatly helped by rapid advance of the Heer, that means chaos among ground echelons and command echelon of VVS, most of the damaged but repairable planes were lost because of hasty retreats etc.

One fairly good and cheap book on Khalkhin-Gol/Nomonhan conflict is Dimitar Nedialkov's In the Skies of Nomonhan, the translation isn't always first-class but understandable, the middle of the books is in places tedious to read but the first 50 pages give a good introduction to VVS and JAAF forces participating and the last 75 pages give good conclusions and exact info on the participating a/c even if, without checking, IMHO some of the info on I-153 is incorrect.

Juha


----------



## Francis marliere (Jul 4, 2012)

I remember reading somewhere that the P-39 ahd hudge reliability with its 37 mm guns. In short, it almost always jammed afetr a few shots. Do you confirm ?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 4, 2012)

I thought the Supercharger was removed from the P-39 production aircraft?


----------



## Denniss (Jul 4, 2012)

vikingBerserker said:


> I thought the Supercharger was removed from the P-39 production aircraft?


The turbo, not the supercharger.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 4, 2012)

Gotcha, thanks for the education!


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2012)

vB, the only Allisons that didn't have a supercharger were those used on airships.


----------



## JoeB (Jul 4, 2012)

Juha said:


> One fairly good and cheap book on Khalkhin-Gol/Nomonhan conflict is Dimitar Nedialkov's In the Skies of Nomonhan,


I don't have that one yet, but here's a summary of other accounts of claim/loss in that war (quoting myself from another forum):
"The most common total for Soviet claims seems to be 660, (for example
Stepanov "Air Warfare in the Khalkin Gol", or Pages of Russian Military
History), though other estimates have appeared, (589 in Bergstrom/Mikhailov
"Black Cross Red Star").

Actual Japanese losses are given variously as: 164 of which 90 combat losses
(Stepanov, though mentions lack of detail and possibility of combat write
offs among the other 74 in his source, which he doesn't name, and he doesn't
mention AAA), "around 100" (Japanese Monographs No. 144, Military History
Section HQ AAF Far East), and by counting up individual incidents and
monthly statistics in "Nomonhan" by Coox, 115, with some mentioned instances
of AAA and combat/operational losses, though there's not a systematic break
out. It seems a large majority of the 115 were air combat losses. Coox's
sources are Japanese archives and interviews with Japanese participants and
his book is generally viewed as the definitive account, albeit focusing
heavily on the ground war."

So according to those figures, the actual Soviet kills fall well below their own recorded combat losses in the Nomanhan war (around 200 IIRC) though through numerical superiority (Coox's account also agrees) they achieved air superiority over the battlefield; OTOH this wasn't so central to the Soviet success on the ground (as it usually wasn't). Likewise, though I can't offer comprehensive stats, Soviet piloted fighters on the Chinese side in Sino-Japanese War seemed to have an unfavorable real kill ratio v the JNAF, that being mainly Type 96 Fighters (the Soviets arrived mainly after the JNAF stopped using biplanes and Stalin shifted his policy against direct help for the Chinese Nationalists before the Zero appeared in China). I'm not aware of accurate statistics on Soviet air combat achievements in the Spanish Civil War.

Anyway I agree with your earlier point. Even if the Soviets suffered perhaps 1:2 fighter-fighter kill ratio v Japanese Army Type 97's at Nomohan, that's better than what the RAF achieved v Type 97's in Burma and Malaya. The Japanese also used Army Type 1 and Navy Zero fighters in Malaya (in lesser numbers), and the JAAF also used Type 95 fixed undercarriage biplanes in lesser numbers at Nomonhan. And of course all sorts of other factors differed, as always. But still it doesn't put the Soviets in such a bad light. Most fighter arms could be called 'just targets', at their worst moments, including the British, Americans, Japanese and Germans, in particular episodes. That's not to say I believe the Soviet AF(s) were on a par with Western ones in general in WWII, that's IMO questionable subject to learning more about real combat results, but Soviets fighters were not generally on par with USAF in the direct test in Korea a few years later. However the Soviets were not 'just targets' in many phases of WWII, or in Korea.

As far as worst monoplane fighter, when a/c like the Buffalo or P-39 are nominated the implication is that we're measuring air combat success. This was in fact quite poor for the Buffalo in US/British/Dutch service but not in Finnish service as we all know. The P-39's success had less variation but it was considered a good enough fighter by its biggest user, the Soviets, performed passably v the Japanese too in 1943, and didn't do particularly worse than a number of other Allied fighter types v the Japanese in 1942. The P-39 was generally viewed by the USAAF as the worst major fighter type they introduced into service during or on eve of WWII (ie not counting P-26 in WWII etc), but if in fact true, only marginally v the P-40. Any broader 'worst' label on the P-39 is not reasonable IMO. Again the Buffalo is a conundrum due to its so widely varied combat success, but again the USN and USMC generally considered it the worst of their fighters, though depending on version the F4F's advantage wouldn't be great, on paper at least.

If fighter combat success in WWII is to be the yardstick, we might have to nominate the I-16 as worst. It was arguably the best fighter in the world when introduced, was considered a credible opponent in conflicts like China, Nomonhan and Spain as mentioned, if perhaps not outright successful in those conflicts, but it took extremely heavy absolute losses to the Germans at a very unfavorable exchange rate, and helped create the huge cadre of German super-aces in the early stages of the Russo-German war.

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2012)

> So according to those figures, the actual Soviet kills fall well below their own recorded combat losses in the Nomanhan war (around 200 IIRC) though through numerical superiority (Coox's account also agrees) they achieved air superiority over the battlefield; OTOH this wasn't so central to the Soviet success on the ground (as it usually wasn't). Likewise, though I can't offer comprehensive stats, Soviet piloted fighters on the Chinese side in Sino-Japanese War seemed to have an unfavorable real kill ratio v the JNAF, that being mainly Type 96 Fighters (the Soviets arrived mainly after the JNAF stopped using biplanes and Stalin shifted his policy against direct help for the Chinese Nationalists before the Zero appeared in China).



Soviet airpower doctrine for nearly all of the war never stressed or sought complete or front wide air superiority. Certainly not at kursk or even subsequent to that. Application of soviet airpower during the war was always wedded closely to battelfield support. This meant, they were intersted in disputing control of the skies over their over the land battle, but never sought control of the air per se. This was generally in recognition that such control was only of limited value to their style of warfare. They used their fighters to keep the enemy fighters off the backs of their own strike aircraft long enough to complete the mission and inflict enough losses on the enemy bombers to make completion of their missions difficult. they never showed a lot of interest in the war in defeating an enemy's fighters. Does not surprise me therefore that their losses of fighters or indeed total aircraft exceeded those of thir opponent. within limits, losses were not important to the Soviets.


----------



## JoeB (Jul 4, 2012)

parsifal said:


> They used their fighters to keep the enemy fighters off the backs of their own strike aircraft long enough to complete the mission and inflict enough losses on the enemy bombers to make completion of their missions difficult. they never showed a lot of interest in the war in defeating an enemy's fighters. Does not surprise me therefore that their losses of fighters or indeed total aircraft exceeded those of thir opponent. within limits, losses were not important to the Soviets.


Familiar topic and point , the history of air warfare right from WWI onward shows that whatever your doctrine, if your fighters have a poor enough exchange ratio v enemy fighters they won't achieve other missions. 1:2 ratio might be good enough (when a fighter force suffered 1:4 or 5 or more and it's partisans still say 'it still accomplished its mission' that's when it gets a little silly IMO). In this case as I said, even if you quibbled with the term 'air superiority', the Soviets were able to bomb the Japanese forces and limit the degree of bombing of their own, what I meant. I think you may be thinking of what's termed air supremacy, but anyway the VVS wasn't particularly thwarted overall, we agree. Whether that made much difference in the outcome of the Nomonhan war is another question, reading Coox's detailed accounts from Japanese side I'd say not much, IJA force doomed anyway.

Still, a load of literature from the Soviet Union and Russia since has maintained that the Soviets scored a favorable kill ratio v Japanese fighters at Nomonhan. It certainly seemed to matter to them. So this might also quibble with particular wording but 'never showed a lot of interest in defeating enemy fighters' does seem not wholly accurate IMO. Soviet and later Russian history makes a big point of the improvement of relative combat performance of Soviet v German fighters over 1941-45; makes a big point of the claimed kill ratio at Nomonhan, and bridled bitterly under the self imposed secrecy about Korean air operations until the 1990's again mainly because only the US side of claimed ratio's were public, and their very different 'other side of the story' had to be kept secret. It wasn't as if the US claimed that MiG's didn't put a halt to daylight B-29 operations, which was always admitted. And it wasn't as if the Soviets could have believed that MiG's put a halt or even serious crimp in UN fighter bomber operations. The fighter bombers kept coming without respite as they could clearly see at the time. The relative losses were at the heart of how the Soviets measured their success in that conflict, and how they believed it was mistold in the West. And I don't see any evidence this consideration was ever unimportant to them in the previous air wars.

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Jul 5, 2012)

> The history of air warfare right from WWI onward shows that whatever your doctrine, if your fighters have a poor enough exchange ratio v enemy fighters they won't achieve other missions. 1:2 ratio might be good enough (when a fighter force suffered 1:4 or 5 or more and it's partisans still say 'it still accomplished its mission' that's when it gets a little silly IMO).



The soviets suffered far worse exchange rates than that until the very last months of the war, yet still genuinely considered they had achieved their air mission. This is because the air mision per se was not the important objective, it was the application of airpower as a force multiplier to their ground offensives. Typically Soviets would suffer loss rates 5-10 times those of thei opponents, and still consider such actioons a victory. 

Why would the Soviets consider such a poor exchange rate a success? There are a number of reasons for that. in no particular order of imporstance I think the following are relevant

1)	As a percentage of the total force structure the losses were always quite small for the soviets. Conversely as a percentage of their Force Structure the losses suffered by the Axis were far more serious and un-replaceable
2)	Related to the above, it was relatively cheap and easy for the Soviets to replace their lost aircrew. At Kursk, the average flight experience of Soviet pilots were about 40 hours. They generally received about 20 additional hours in OTUs before being assigned. Their pilots were undertrained, but cheap to replace. By comparison German rookies were receiving about 250 hours of training with about 60 hours in the OTUs. Their experten were basically unreplaceable. 
3)	In the same vein as their aircrews, their airframes were also very cheap. I don’t know the exact cost, but common sense at least suggest their main types were low cost. Unarmoured, made of wood, with just a basic armament and often even without radios or basic equipment, Russian airframes had to cost just a fraction of their german counterparts to replace. 
4)	With one or two significant exceptions, Soviet airpower was all about providing direct support to their ground offensives. And by all accounts they were very successful in achieving that objective. On the Eastern Front there isn’t the concentration of effort that we see in other TOs. This means that fighters are less important than on other fronts….they cannot achieve the necessary concentration to rack up the loss rates achieved in other TOs.

The Russians began to develop these theories during the Spanish Civil War though there remained more western ideas of achieving air superiority and conducting deep penetration “strategic strikes” right through to the end of the war. Im unsure what the priority was over Nomonhan, but I would expect that support of the land battle would have been the main focus. There is ample evidence to support that. The Russians thoroughly defeated the Japanese forces, despite the numbers of ground troops being committed being near parity at the very end (during the battle it swung from one to the other but at the end, with massive defeat staring them in the face, the numbers of troops were about the same). 



> In this case as I said, even if you quibbled with the term 'air superiority', the Soviets were able to bomb the Japanese forces and limit the degree of bombing of their own, what I meant. I think you may be thinking of what's termed air supremacy, but anyway the VVS wasn't particularly thwarted overall, we agree. Whether that made much difference in the outcome of the Nomonhan war is another question, reading Coox's detailed accounts from Japanese side I'd say not much, IJA force doomed anyway.




I don’t know, but I would be surprised to think the Soviets had won anything like air superiority (I do understand the theory incidentally). But I agree, whether they won air superiority or simply were successful in applying their theories on tactical air power the fact remains that they got more out of their air mission than the Japanese got from theirs. The Japanese air resistance weas essentially a strategic blind alley…. 



> Still, a load of literature from the Soviet Union and Russia since has maintained that the Soviets scored a favorable kill ratio v Japanese fighters at Nomonhan. It certainly seemed to matter to them. So this might also quibble with particular wording but 'never showed a lot of interest in defeating enemy fighters' does seem not wholly accurate IMO. Soviet and later Russian history makes a big point of the improvement of relative combat performance of Soviet v German fighters over 1941-45.



I do agree that the heavy and one sided losses being suffered up to the middle of 1943 were cause for concern to the Soviets. The losses they were enduring, whilst survivable were too heavy for comfort. Moreover their experiences in the Kuban offensive showed that losses and exchange ratios could be massively affected by even a modest improvement in training and equipment. From their experiences in Kuban and over Kursk, they realize d that quality did count for something. By the end of 1943, according to Krivosheev (I think) Soviet pilots were upt to about 100 hours of training which dramatically improved their survivability.

So losses are of course important, but the loss rates suffered over Nomonhan and after 1942 were not significant enough to matter. By improving their aircrew survivability they were simply enhancing the numbers game by reducing the attrition rate. This in turn exponentially affected the expansion rates of the VVS.


----------



## Juha (Jul 7, 2012)

Hello JoeB
according to Nedialkov's book, at Nomonhan VVS suffered at first very lopsided negative exchange rate against JAAF, but in every phase exchange rate became less disastrous to VVS and during the last phase, in Sept, it was already positive. If I recall correctly, Coox in his Nomonhan book, it was over 2 decades ago when I read the book, indicates same sort of development.

1938-42 VVS wasn't anywhere near LW but it tended to learn fast, and against smaller enemies its huge resources allowed it easily withstand early trashing and use its numerical superiority to wear down weaker enemies. And being rather fast learner it became fairly dangerous opponent after its initial fumbling. That was seen at Nomonhan and also during the Winter War, during latter in late Dec 39 it had became clear that war against Finland wasn't a walkover in spite of earlier expectations, so Soviet leadership put in action energic measurements to improve the Red Army's (incl. VVS's) effectiveness, and already at the beginning of Feb 40 they had introduced drop tanks to VVS fighters which allowed them to make fighter sweeps and escort missions much deeper in Finland.

Juha


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 7, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Next, the Defiant; with all intents and purposes, an excellent aircraft that performed superbly in the role it was designed for - as a specialised bomber interceptor. Unlike the P-39 and Buffalo, the Defiant was not stricken with unreliability issues and very few of the pilots that flew it did not enjoy the experience. Of course in combat against enemy fighters they changed their perspective, but somewhat unfairly, it was placed into an arena it was not designed for nor for which could it adequately cope.



Actually, the Defiant did rather well but it depended heavily on pilots employing the correct tactics. Sqn Ldr Hunter who led 264 Sqn, the first Defiant unit, is largely forgotten but, IMHO, was something of a master-tactician. He took a fighter that wasn't competitive in air-to-air combat against other single-engine fighters and developed tactics that provided mutual for a formation while enabling his gunners to get good shots at any attacking fighters. When engaging Stukas, he took his squadron down to low level where the German dive bombers were at their most vulnerable - and a number of kills were attained by the Defiant crews.

Reading accounts of 264 Sqn's engagements with the Defiant and one gets the sense that Hunter really knew how to fight his aircraft and, more importantly, his squadron. Sadly, Hunter and his gunner disappeared chasing a Ju-88, and shortly thereafter 141 Sqn, which didn't use Hunter's tactics, was massacred by Bf109s which led to the Defiant being removed from the day fighter role.

Was the Defiant a great aircraft? Absolutely not but Boulton Paul did a great job meeting a flawed requirement with an aircraft that actually beat Hawker's offering. One-on-one against a Bf109, the Defiant was pretty much dead meat but Hunter proved that when used in squadron-sized numbers employing the correct tactics, it could be a formidable adversary. 

For those who haven't read it, I heartily recommend Andrew Thomas's book from Osprey about Defiant, Blenheim and Boston/Havoc aces which has more detail on 264 Sqn's exploits.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 7, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Similar to "We don't need more guns on the bomber as it will fly faster than any fighter!" mentality.



Errr...you mean like the Mosquito?

Sorry for joining late - been out of power for 6 days.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 7, 2012)

GregP said:


> The people who say the losses in the pacific were due to circumstances and poor training seem to conveniently forget the very similar but opposite circumstances that occurred during the Finnish experience with the Buffalo. If they had come up against good planes flown by veteran pilots, they might not like the Buffalo so well and might well be losses instead of Aces. If circumstance work against you sometimes, then they also almost certainly sometimes work FOR you, as in the case of the Finnish Buffalos.



But by that logic, the A6M should also be on the list as one of the worst fighters of WWII. It succeeded well against inferior aircraft flown by inexperienced pilots but, per the Marianas Turkey Shoot, didn't do so well against higher-performance Allied fighters. Methinks you're presenting a rather specious argument.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 7, 2012)

GregP said:


> But in 1940, it was like shooting sitting ducks, and the Fins DID, even with Buffalos.



Err...first Finnish combat in a Buffalo was 25 June 1941.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 7, 2012)

Glider said:


> Blackburn Roc would get my vote. Slow (even a Stuka could outrun it), underarmed, miserable climb, heavy and I don't know if they shot anything down.



One Roc did damage a German floatplane. The Roc in question was serving in a second-line unit and flown by a RAF pilot.


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2012)

With the obvious exception of the Italian the Roc still gets my vote for being the worst (or should that be, second worst)

Thanks for the info. In terms of financial cost, it must be the most expensive damage claim ever


----------



## Marcel (Jul 8, 2012)

Another candidate: Caudron-Renault C714. Even the Finns grounded it.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 8, 2012)

> 141 Sqn, which didn't use Hunter's tactics, was massacred by Bf109s which led to the Defiant being removed from the day fighter role.



The incident was referred to as "The slaughter of the innocents", which is largely why the Daffy has the reputation it does, but it is worth picking holes in the legend if only to gain some perspective. Firstly, the action on 19 July 1940 was 141's combat debut against Bf 109s, most of its aircrew were inexperienced in combat, i.e. no combat experience. 

Secondly, there was at least, according to the official count, some thirty Bf 109s that attacked the nine Defiants - even nine Spits would have had a hard time of it.

Thirdly, the number of aircraft lost by 141 Sqn in one action (seven, although one got back to base damaged and was repaired), although sad and tragic, was not unique during the Battle of Britain. Shortly after the action, Chinese Whispers spread through Fighter Command Squadrons, with the number of Daffys lost and the time taken getting higher and shorter with every telling. It's no wonder that Dowding was cautious toward the type.

Fourthly, had 141's CO not disregarded the type and taken Sqn Ldr Hunter's advice, perhaps the sqn would have been better prepared for combat - as is the general understanding of the action. It's interesting to note that the Lufbery Circle tactics adopted by 264 Sqn were also used by Bf 110s when numbers of them encountered British fighters.

Fifthly, regarding the Defiants selection for night fighting duties only, that didn't happen for another six weeks after the 141 Sqn losses, despite the gloomy reports of the action. 141 was sent north to Prestwick for rest, but 264 continued in action subesquently, although it was sent north the day after the 141 debacle as a result of the shock of the action, but was sent to Kirton-in-Lindsey three days later. The squadron then went to Manston on 24th August, two days after claiming three Ju 88s shot down and a fourth damaged, which, right on the front line, sealed the type's career as a day fighter. It was on that day that Sqn Ld Hunter went MIA. Thay day however, nine enemy aircraft were shot down by 264 Sqn for the loss of four Defiants.

By the end of August, 264 Sqn claimed 19 E/A for the loss of 11 of their own - not an unfavourable kill-to-loss ratio by any squadron during the Battle. 264 Sqn airmen had nothing to be ashamed of and they had complete confidence in their mount as a fighting machine. As I recounted earlier, the losses of Defiants between May and end of August 1940 was only 32.

Not brilliant, but not bad in the scheme of things.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2012)

It should be remembered also that in its initial deployment in france, it did very well. It claimed over 64 victories in the BOF, 37 in one day alone

It suffered pretty badly as a day fighter after that, but enjoyed considerable success as a night fighter until 1942. It was graduaklly replaced by the beafighter, but in 1940-41 Beafighters were a pretty rare beast, and it was the Definat that shouldered most of the burden of the edefence until May 1941. And in the last three months of the LW Blitz, their losses became very heavy.....144 aircraft shot down in may 1941 over Britiain alone.

_"After suffering heavy defeats against the enemy the Boulton Paul Defiant was relegated to nightfighter duties, this was where it was to find its greatest success. Still with 264 squadron Frederick Hughes flying the Defiant and later the Bristol Beaufughter was to become the fourth top RAF night fighting ace with 18.5 victories.
Initially Frederick Hughes was with 26 Squadron, but soon joined 264 Squadron flying Defiants in the Battle of Britain aged twenty one. He partnered Sergeant Fred Gash who was his rear gunner and together they made a deadly team. 
On August the 26th 1940 they claimed two Dornier Do 17s but the Defiants proved to be too vulnerable to face Messerschmitt Bf 109s, 264 Squadron was converted to night operations. In December 1940 Hughes and Gash claimed their first nightfighting victory. The next two kills came in the spring of 1941. After that Hughes became one of few Defiant aces, but contrary to his colleagues he did not stop scoring after the withdrawal of the Defiant.
In June 1942 Hughes was posted to 125 Squadron as a flight commander. There he scored one day victory while flying the Merlin engined Beaufighter Mk. II and later another one day victory while flying a Beaufighter Mk. VI F. Both kills were accompanied by radar operator Pilot Officer Lawrence Dixon.
In late 1942 Hughes and Dixon were posted to Africa to 600 Squadron. There they scored nine more victories before they returned home. In July 1944, after six months of staff duties, Hughes joined 604 Squadron as its new CO. Now flying Mosquitoes he managed to score two more kills over North Western Europe"._


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 9, 2012)

Interesting info Parsifal. The Daffy's first confirmed NF victory was a Ju 88 by Sgts G.Laurence and W.Chard of 141 Sqn on the night of 17/18 September 1940, although 264 Sqn's PO Whitley and Sgt Turner shot at a He 111 in July 1940 whilst on a NF sortie out of Kirton-in-Lindsey, but the '111 escaped.



> 37 in one day alone



264 Sqn's "Day of Glory" - 29 May 1940, unfortunately subject to myth as well. Post war research show that the RAF shot down only 16 E/A on that day, with 264 Sqn scoring "...less than ten..." of those, according to an article I once read.
Still worth celebrating by the squadron. This was also the action in which the official RAF historian wrote that the Germans mistook the Defiants for Hurricanes and got a nasty surprise when the Daffy's gunners opened up. What the RAF scribe didn't mention is that on that day it was the Defiants attacking the Bf 109s, not the other way round.


----------



## Juha (Jul 9, 2012)

I second Nuuumannn
Mason and others say that in reality 264 shot down 12-16 LW planes in May-June 40.

Juha


----------



## baclightning (Jul 10, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> The first combat kills of the Supermarine Spitfire! Brilliant start!
> 
> Almost a good as the Germans, who with one He 111 managed to do something the British couldn't in the first few months of the war, sink two German destroyers in one sortie!



The Spitfire's first kills were Hurricanes; the Spitfire's last kills were...Spitfires. The last Spitfire victory came on January 7, 1949, when two Israeli Spitfire 9s of 101 Squadron shot down three RAF Spitfire 18s of 208 Squadron in an incident that still has not been satisfactorily explained.


----------



## baclightning (Jul 10, 2012)

If Gerg is still looking for us to give our own lists, five I'd nominate would be:

Blackburn Roc
Lavochkin LaGG-3
PZL P.7 (which pains me to say, because it was such an advanced aircraft when it was introduced, but long past its sell-by date in 1939)
Bloch 152
Curtiss-Wright CW-21

I don't count the Breda Ba.88 as a fighter, more a ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 10, 2012)

Why the Lagg-3 and the Bloch 152?


----------



## baclightning (Jul 10, 2012)

To quote from Yefim Gordon's _Soviet Air Power in World War Two_, "It can be confidently stated that no other aircraft type has ever been so greatly affected by problems with the initiation of production as the creation of Lavochkin, Gorbunov, and Gudkov...In the early war period no other combat aircraft had problems as serious as those of the LaGG-3."

Gordon lists a litany of problems, some of which were solved, and some of which never were - a tendency to stall unexpectedly, hydraulic locks on the undercarriages that would malfunction and retract the undercarriage while it was sitting in a hanger overnight, cockpit hoods that would come off in flight, severe vibration at diving speeds of more than 600 km/h, and weight gain that severely impacted its speed and climb rate. The workmanship, including the glue used to bond the airframe, was poor. The designers did their best to fix the problems; over 2,200 changes were made in the production drawings in February 1941 alone, but much of the time the production lines couldn't stop to make changes, and things remained as they were. The LaGG-3 had some good points - it was manueverable, and the wood airframe withstood enemy damage well - but it was slow and lacked climbing and diving performance compared with the German fighters it opposed. It was massively unpopular with its pilots, due in part to the shoddy workmanship often seen.

As for the Bloch 152, well, what can you say about a fighter that wouldn't even take off when they first tried to fly it (the Bloch 150)? 

The Bloch 151 was rejected as unsuitable for operational use, and the Bloch 152 was accepted partly because it was clocked at 329 mph during acceptance trials, thus meeting its specification. Later it came out that faulty measuring equipment had been used, and it couldn't top 300 mph. It was a handful to fly - French pilots called it "avion a quatre mains", or "the four-handed aircraft", because they felt they needed that many hands to fly it. It had by far the worst record of the four major French single-seat fighters flown in the Battle of France. It probably should never have gone into production - other, better fighters were available to France - and the time and effort spent trying to fix its faults could have been best spent elsewhere.


----------



## Juha (Jul 10, 2012)

Hello Baclightning
I tended to disagree, while early GPW era LaGG-3s were bad fighters those later lightened versions with automatic slats were significantly better.

MB 152 wasn't even worst French fighter CR. 714 was clearly worse. the MB.150 proto was a fiasco at first but MB. 152 was a passable fighter with good firepower. I'd say a fairly ugly and fairly bad fighter but not the worst around in 1940.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jul 10, 2012)

I think I would agree that both these aircraft had their problems, but it still seems rather harsh to name them as the worst fighters of WWII. They flew as contemporaries to the CR32 the PZL-11, the Gloster Gladiator, the Dewoitine D-371 and other lacklustre designs. They at least flew close to spec in the finish.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2012)

baclightning said:


> I don't count the Breda Ba.88 as a fighter, more a ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft.


That's not what it was entirely designed for.
_
"The Breda Ba.88 was designed to fulfill a 1936 requirement by the Regia Aeronautica for a heavy* fighter *bomber capable of a maximum speed of 530 km/h (329 mph)"_

It was designed to be a heavy figher capable of performing ground attack.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 10, 2012)

i've looked more for the classification of Ba 88. The Regia Aeronautica competition was for one "Caccia assaltatore" (this is translatable llike attack fighter) but afaik in all the war the Assaltatori units never were used as fighter ever as ground attack unit, i think is like today the Tornado (IDS) are Cacciabombardieri (fighter bombers) but they are not thinked for air to air combat (just can use sidewinder for selfdefence)-

At the start of the war the Ba 88 were the alone plane of Combattimento branch (the Assaltatori units stay with old planes single engined or light observation twin engined) it's true after failed as attack plane in NA the Ba 88 was give to CAP patrol mission but they totalized only 38 hours (w/o actions, and a 32 planes unit) before to grounded


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> i've looked more for the classification of Ba 88. The Regia Aeronautica competition was for one* "Caccia assaltatore" (this is translatable llike attack fighter)* but afaik in all the war the Assaltatori units never were used as fighter ever as ground attack unit, i think is like today the Tornado (IDS) are Cacciabombardieri (fighter bombers) but they are not thinked for air to air combat (just can use sidewinder for selfdefence)



Found the same thing. Most of the time it seemed to be used for dropping bombs (when it was able to get into the air) but I think it had the capability to perform air-to-air providing it could get out of its own way!


----------



## claidemore (Jul 10, 2012)

The problem with listing the LaGG 3 as a 'worst' fighter, is that it evolved into the La5, La5FN, La7 (basically with just an engine change) , which were arguably the Soviet Unions 'best' fighters. The potential inherant in Lavochkins design would preclude it from the 'worst' category despite it's teething problems. 
Also, a quote from Guther Rall "Yak and LaGG, very good...."


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 15, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Also advertised as a fighter bomber or heavy fighter/ destroyer like the Bf 110


Just to be clear, when you say "advertised" do you mean by the Italian Air Force? And did they seriously view the plane as being a fighter despite saying they did?

The F-111 for example despite being classified as a fighter, I can't think of a single case where it was intentionally used as a fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Just to be clear, when you say "advertised" do you mean by the Italian Air Force? And did they seriously view the plane as being a fighter despite saying they did?


 By the Italian AF. They really touted this aircraft as being something or a multi role aircraft, but at the end of the day it was a royal pig, one of the worse combat aircraft of WW2 and was barely able to get out of it's own way.


Zipper730 said:


> The F-111 for example despite being classified as a fighter, I can't think of a single case where it was intentionally used as a fighter.



The F-111 was basically a multi role fighter bomber that did have a limited air to air capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 16, 2019)

Anyone ever come across this Italian twin?
IMAM Ro.57 - Wikipedia
So far my pick is:-
Blackburn Roc - hopelessly slow
Blackburn Firebrand - a whale is a shark designed to Admiralty specifications
Caudron C 714 - no one wanted it
Vultee Vanguard - even the ROC left them in their packing cases
Definitely not the P-64 because of its small numbers, and the Aussie Boomerang its cousin found a niche use in an army co-operation role alongside the Kiwi Corsair.
No to the Defiant because of its usefulness as night fighter during the Blitz.
Maybe the CW 21 Demon. Did it actually shoot anything down? Like the Boomerang of course but that was kept in production.
Bloch Mb 150, yes, 151 possibly, 152 no.
Me 210's problems were sorted out.
Republic Lancer was used for recce, so no.
I-16, no. The later versions were quite effective. 
LaGG-3. The most shot down fighter by the Luftwaffe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Anyone ever come across this Italian twin?
> IMAM Ro.57 - Wikipedia



Ro.57 was a dive-bomber.
Roc seems to fit the bill here.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 16, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Ro.57 was a dive-bomber.
> Roc seems to fit the bill here.


Designed as a fighter dive-bomber, Ro 58 was improved version with Db 601's, two seats, longer fuselage and 15% bigger wings. It makes one wonder just how easily the Whirlwind could have been improved.
IMAM Ro.58 - Wikipedia


----------



## special ed (Mar 16, 2019)

The Fisher P-75

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 16, 2019)

If one accepts prototypes, there's always the various experimental fighters, like the XP-54, XP-55, XP-57, and XP-77. For something in large scale production, the Blacburn Roc wins the booby* prize. 


* Except boobies can fly well

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Mar 17, 2019)

Not one of Russia's finest engineering moments...







(Air International March 1993)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Mar 17, 2019)

Some fighters relied on a mechanism to compress the oleo length on retraction. Certainly a Corsair's fully extended Oleo's wouldn't fit into the wells.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 18, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> If one accepts prototypes, there's always the various experimental fighters, like the XP-54, XP-55, XP-57, and XP-77. For something in large scale production, the Blacburn Roc wins the booby* prize.
> 
> 
> * Except boobies can fly well



The XP-56 was pretty woeful.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 18, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The XP-56 was pretty woeful.


I don't think that you can call any experimental fighter that never entered service in WW2, the worst fighter, but you could add something like the Blackburn Firebrand because it underwent a re-design to a torpedo strike aircraft so that it could do something useful after WW2.


----------

