Most ignored combat aircraft of ww2

[Schweik]

Certainly not questioning your experience with F-15s Biff nor was my comment in particular directed at you.

I also did not say that Eric Brown couldn't be questioned. I do think he knew more about flying WW2 fighters than anyone else here, and the man had some brass balls to survive 24 hours in the cold sea when everyone else he was with died. That doesn't necessarily make him more knowledgeable but it does impress me, maybe I'm a rube.

I don't think that means everything he ssid is gospel, but I also wouldn't dismiss it put of hand. The man did fly a fighter in combat, people shot at him who were trying to kill him even if it was from a condor, and he didn't just fly Martlets i"for reals" apparently either. Maybe he was a little out of practice in spite of flying fighter sweeps with the Canadians and so on but I think he was well qualified to provide an insightful assessment. I don't think it's fair to dismiss him as "just" a test pilot.

That said of course even experienced fighter pilots contradicted each other routinely in such analysis so it's quite clear they were fallable. I would never argue otherwise.

Trying to make a nuanced statement here, in a nutshell , no I'm not saying you can't question the man I am saying I respect what he said. I read a post which sounded overly dismissive and b.c was replying specifically to that.

For the record an F-15 pilot is very impressive to me as well. No disrespect intended.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Gentlemen,
I have a slightly different interpretation of the subject of this thread: How about an aircraft that was not recognized for its accomplishments and quality at the time of its service but may have received recognition since the war?

Consider the Kawasaki Ki-100 Army Type 5 Fighter.
It was one of the best Japanese fighters toward the end of war in actual performance if not in design performance.
It had excellent handling, fairly decent speed, and good firepower and protection, yet was not even recognized by the Allies as a distinct type and never received a Code Name.

Even the Japanese didn't seem to have any name for it other than "Type 5 Fighter".

Thoughts?

- Ivan.

 

[Schweik]

Wasnt the Ki 100 usually grounded due to maintenance problems?

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Wasnt the Ki 100 usually grounded due to maintenance problems?

Actually the Ki-100 was one of the most reliable of the late war Japanese fighters that generally lived up to the performance capabilities of its design. It used the Ha-112 engine which was generally reliable as compared to the Ha-140 inline it replaced in the Ki-61-II airframe and often gave more actual power in service than the nominally more powerful Ha-45 engines.

Speed was a bit lower than the Ki-61-II but engine power was comparable and it weighed less.

- Ivan.

 

[BiffF15]

Certainly not questioning your experience with F-15s Biff nor was my comment in particular directed at you.

I also did not say that Eric Brown couldn't be questioned. I do think he knew more about flying WW2 fighters than anyone else here, and the man had some brass balls to survive 24 hours in the cold sea when everyone else he was with died. That doesn't necessarily make him more knowledgeable but it does impress me, maybe I'm a rube.

I don't think that means everything he ssid is gospel, but I also wouldn't dismiss it put of hand. The man did fly a fighter in combat, people shot at him who were trying to kill him even if it was from a condor, and he didn't just fly Martlets i"for reals" apparently either. Maybe he was a little out of practice in spite of flying fighter sweeps with the Canadians and so on but I think he was well qualified to provide an insightful assessment. I don't think it's fair to dismiss him as "just" a test pilot.

That said of course even experienced fighter pilots contradicted each other routinely in such analysis so it's quite clear they were fallable. I would never argue otherwise.

Trying to make a nuanced statement here, in a nutshell , no I'm not saying you can't question the man I am saying I respect what he said. I read a post which sounded overly dismissive and b.c was replying specifically to that.

For the record an F-15 pilot is very impressive to me as well. No disrespect intended.

Schweik,

Upon rereading my post I think I might have come across a bit harsh. That was totally not my intention and apologize if you read it that way.

Winkle will probably end up being one of if not the most experienced pilots ever. I have no doubt his skill set and knowledge were very broad. I would have thoroughly enjoyed talking with him as he flew a bunch of planes I would love to fly as well.

My only reason for posting my background was to show I was open to being questioned, called out or challenged as would Winkle if he were still around.

Don't be impressed by having flown the Eagle, I'm just a sarcasm as humor 50+ year old Dad and airline pilot who likes old planes (childhood trait). My predominant roles in here is as a student of history and a pilots perspective liaison if you will. Wes, Fliger, Greg, FBJ all fly as well and do the same as well.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Dimlee]

Could you summarize some of his other evaluations? P-39? P-40? Spit? Yak series? Lavochkin series?

Valid question. But I don't have his books in my e-library today. What I remember though that Mark Gallai wrote positively in general about aircraft which were easier to handle for "average" pilot. He valued them more than "state of art" but dangerous creations. He was very fond of I-15, of many if not all of Tupolev aircraft (according to him, Pe-8 and SB shared something in common in handling despite huge difference in size and weight), praised high La-5, was not too happy about MiG-3. He flew German and Allied aircraft but didn't describe them in many details. Me 163 was tested with engine shut down in many flights and it seemed he enjoyed that "glider".

 

[Rei-Sen]

That is truly amazing. Not only have i never read about that I have actually read in at least one" history" book that there was no exchange of arms at all between Germany and Japan until a few minor things twards the end of the war. Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read.

That's definitely untrue. The "Tony" used a license-built (albeit somewhat modified) DB601 for its powerplant.

 

[fredleander]

I would like everyones opinion on the most ignored combat aircraft of ww2. This goes beyond aircraft that don't get there due to aircraft that get pretty much ignored completely inspite of a major contribution to the effort at least in what I would call the popular press. My nomination would be the SBD Dauntless.

Totally disagree on this one. Sure, if you only talk about the ETO - it was never there - but the Dauntless was one of the most important airplanes in the PTO. I mean to have read that the Dauntless, a dive-bomber - shot down more enemy fighters than those lost by enemy fighters.

The most ignored planes in my book are the Breda Ba.65 and the P-36. The Breda performed as well as the SBD and the Ju-87 and the P-36 was the best US dogfighter when US entered the war.

Fred

 

[Shortround6]

The BA 65 was on it's way out when the war started and was only kept in service by the failure of two of it's intended replacements. It did see service in a number of wars/air forces but never did anything critical/noteworthy, not saying it was bad, just never made the headlines by sinking an aircraft carrier or other major target.

The P-36 In US service fought for one day. After Dec 7th 1941 it never saw combat in US service again so it tends to be forgotten in US history and books. It's service in other AIr Forces was much greater but aside from France in 1940 it was in secondary areas/fronts and also failed to be mentioned in the headlines/newsreels of the day.

 

[GrauGeist]

Totally disagree on this one. Sure, if you only talk about the ETO - it was never there - but the Dauntless was one of the most important airplanes in the PTO. I mean to have read that the Dauntless, a dive-bomber - shot down more enemy fighters than those lost by enemy fighters.

The most ignored planes in my book are the Breda Ba.65 and the P-36. The Breda performed as well as the SBD and the Ju-87 and the P-36 was the best US dogfighter when US entered the war.

Fred

The SBD most certainly did see action in the ETO. It also saw action in the MTO as well.

 

[michael rauls]

Totally disagree on this one. Sure, if you only talk about the ETO - it was never there - but the Dauntless was one of the most important airplanes in the PTO. I mean to have read that the Dauntless, a dive-bomber - shot down more enemy fighters than those lost by enemy fighters.

The most ignored planes in my book are the Breda Ba.65 and the P-36. The Breda performed as well as the SBD and the Ju-87 and the P-36 was the best US dogfighter when US entered the war.

Fred

When I started the thread I was thinking in terms of most ignored in relationship to its contribution. I probably should have included that in the title but that would have been awfully long and unwieldy.
There are definitely more ignored aircraft but I don't think there's another one that did so much to change the course of events yet still gets comparatively little attention.
Such is my impression and reason for my pick anyway.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The most ignored planes in my book are the Breda Ba.65 and the P-36. The Breda performed as well as the SBD and the Ju-87 and the P-36 was the best US dogfighter when US entered the war.

Fred

Ba.65 was ill able to replicate capabilities of either SBD or Ju-87. Bomb load of 200 kg (total 'useful' load, including crew, fuel, guns, ammo, bombs was 1100 kg), inability to dive bomb well - no wonder the Italians themselves were buying Ju-87s, bombing-up obsolete fighters, and trying their best to employ Ro.57 and SM.79.
Manual for the Ba.65 can be found here.

 

[GrauGeist]

It does appear that the SBD would qualify as being ignored to a certain extent as it seems that few people are aware of it's MTO and ETO conteibutions. Granted, it's successes were nowhere near as stellar as it's PTO record.

And while the Ranger (CV-4) was operating in Norwegian waters, it was taunting the Tirpitz to come out (which it didn't) so the SBD missed a chance at another major enemy warship to add to it's long list.

 

[GregP]

The Ki-102 might be overlooked because there were only 238 built, of several variants. That means not many were about, ever.

I'd nominate the Bell P-59 series. They only made 66 Bell P-59 Airacomets of 4 varieties (three XP-59As, 13 YP-59As, 20 P-59As, and 30 P-59Bs). So, they were SCARCE. But they did introduce our WWII fighter pilots to jets, and most of the pilots transitioned into P-80s soon after the war. It DID make a contribution, but not to WWII combat. It has a large hand in getting pilots ready for Korea by helping the jet transition.

 

[special ed]

May I throw in a surprising, to me, encounter off Tunisia between the British navy and the French navy in port. " a pair of Ark Royal's spotter aircraft were being attacked by five French Curtiss Hawks. Three Skuas tried to intervene but one was shot down. Four French Morane 406s also arrived. Lt. Bill Bruen, Skua sqdn commander now outnumbered 9 to 2, attacked with Sub-Lieutenant Guy Brokensha." In short, a Curtiss 75 was hit and broke off and shortly after, a Morane was hit and broke away. Three more Hawks showed up and after 3 guns on each Skua jammed,and after fighting with only one working gun on each plane, they left for the carrier. On the way, they discovered a French flying boat attacking a British destroyer and Brokensha knocked out one of it's engines before the two Skua landed aboard after sunset. Who knew? I built an Airfix Skua over fifty years ago and felt it was a poor battle aircraft. The book is " Vichy Air Force at war" by Jon Sutherland and Diane Canwell.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The P-36 In US service fought for one day. After Dec 7th 1941 it never saw combat in US service again so it tends to be forgotten in US history and books. It's service in other AIr Forces was much greater but aside from France in 1940 it was in secondary areas/fronts and also failed to be mentioned in the headlines/newsreels of the day.

Bought from German war booty stocks, 44 in five variants, it was the third best fighter in Finnish service, behind the Bf-109 and the B-239. Ahead of the G-50, MS 406, and D-XXI.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The SBD most certainly did see action in the ETO. It also saw action in the MTO as

I never knew it was in the ETO. The Ranger is a bit of a mystery ship.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

About Eric Brown, I did actually participate in a long interview with him some years back (alongside an experienced pilot on the type) regarding the Whirlwind fighter as we were trying to create a documentary about it specifically to raise its profile and led by someone who's father was the first Squadron Leader of the type. I guess that aircraft qualifies here too by the way.

Anyway it was very interesting to compare his view of the type with that of an active pilot on the aircraft. The pilot loved it as did nearly all his compatriots it seems however Eric Brown was totally dismissive of it which perhaps gives perspective on the attitudes between combat pilots and test pilots. He was certainly very opinionated and very good at putting his point across with impact shall we say. It made you both impressed by his self belief and very (even in his then late 80s) clear sharp mind and memory on such matters, that to be as successful as he was in his profession was I suspect a necessity. It would also on the other side of the coin probably create in himself strong views that might not necessarily be entirely fair (and certainly not nuanced) in all cases because perhaps the bigger/wider picture wasn't as important as the immediate and clear assessment. In the case of the Whirlwind he didn't fly it (I understand) till rather late in its cycle and as an aircraft that was never updated in its 4 year lifespan was probably for example too dismissive because by that time it was competing with aircraft that had gone through endless development, but then that was not his problem he would claim. Don't know if that is insightful or not in regards to the man but no one would survive in his capacity without strong opinions that gave answers in the immediate circumstances, especially within a wartime scenario, when instant answers were required for good or bad at times and he was the go to man for that.

Pilots tend to love the aircraft that got them through combat. On the other hand what is their frame of reference? Did they have that broad base of knowledge that Brown did? If you've eaten nothing but spam all your life you'll think that how food tastes.

 

[GrauGeist]

I never knew it was in the ETO. The Ranger is a bit of a mystery ship.

The Ranger is probably best known for the photos of it's decks packed with P-40s destined for North African service.
But after she offloaded the P-40s, she spent a large part of '42 in support of Operation Torch, then spent a considerable portion of '43 assisting the Royal Navy in Norwegian waters.

I'm sure the Germans and Italians didn't know what to think of the F4Fs and SBDs they encountered.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Well I'm sure the Germans were well familiar with F4Fs, since they had been buzzing about in British livery as Martlets since 1940.