Underappreciated Aircraft of WWII

[Glider]

Great list! I'm intrigued by your reference to the Airspeed Oxford in front line service - what did that consist of?

In Iraq during the defence of the base at Habbaniya twenty six Oxfords were in the early stages a key component of the defence together with ten Audaxes, eight Gordons, one Blenhiem 1 and nine Gladiators.

 

[michaelmaltby]

good choice pdfoot. The " BCATP" was one of the first concrete signs that Britain and the Commonwealth were going to WIN.
It was the local "recruiting office" for lots of young Yanks,

 

[billswagger]

I know this isn't as refreshing as hearing about some of the other planes, but i think the P-40 is as popular as it is under rated.

 

[kration]

Just to toss a totally unknown bird out there how about the Fleet 16 how many pilots in the Commonwealth and US air forces were trained on this virtually unknown trainer over 400 were made and was responsible for much intial training in the BCATP .Please note me beating off the crowds

Excellent suggestion PB. That's an aircradt I have never heard of, but it obviously did some great work. I like the way it looks like a cross between a Tiger Moth and a Harvard.

That's what I like about this forum, you ask a silly question, and you get some great well considered answers!

 

[JoeB]

see next

 

[JoeB]

Brewster Buffalo: The Dutch liked her, her perfomance in Finish hands was amazing but her reputation was ruined by a bunch of green Marines who lost one(!) air battle they should not have entred in the first place. Talk about bad press.

The Buffalo conundrum is Finnish use v everybody else, not USMC v everybody else. The overall record of Brit and Dutch Buffalo's was around 10 Japanese fighters and 10 other types downed for 53 Buffalo air combat losses, all to fighters (counting only specific combats where both sides' losses are given in "Bloody Shambles", but that's most combats which occurred*). The single Marine combat was more disastrous v Japanese fighters, losing 13 F2A and 2 F4F for perhaps 2 Zeroes in air combat (1 missing, one recovered pilot DOW but possibly from CAP action on the way back, one recovered with 30 hits, plus 1 definitely to AA per both sides' accounts) a Type 99 Carrier Bomber and 6 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes (at least 2 but possibly more of latter to AA), F4F's credited with 3 Zero's and 3 other, F2A's with 1 Zero and 4 other (per carrier group kodochosho v. USMC offiical victories list). So that's not really so different than the Brit/Dutch results in Pacific, nor interestingly are the results of that one combat far out of line with the generally better results of the F4F overall in 1942. Anyway it's not nearly as different from the Brit/Dutch results as it is from the Finnish results.

The FAA also briefly used the Buffalo in defense of Crete in 1941 but it had few opportunities for combat and no definitive results. It was preferred to the Fulmar by that unit (805 sdn) but that's not saying a lot.

*some people keep saying the JAAF losses in those campaigns aren't clear but I don't see much reason to believe the true results are much different than what I quoted. There's a recent thread on J-aircraft about that, for the Type 1 units the specific incidents in Bloody Shambles of the two regiments equipped with the a/c, and data on specific pilots in other Japanese sources, tie in pretty well. And Zero unit records for 1942 are pretty complete and accessible online, and show similar results to Type 1's. It is strange that the Buffalo did worse against the Type 97 than it did v Type 1 or Zero per the accounts in Shambles, but even the Zero and Type 1 results are a lot more similar to USMC than Finnish results.

Joe

 

[kration]

The Buffalo conundrum is

Thanks for the extensive contribution Joe. But I feel that the 'Buffalo conundrum' is worth a seperate discussion in itself. It's one of those planes which is easily dismissed as being 'disatrous' but which was misused.

My idea for this thread was to identify the aircraft which fulfilled their function (especially in combat, but 'support/training' aircraft too) but which have been ignored or forgotten. And particularly the pilots that that flew them.

 

[pbfoot]

Excellent suggestion PB. That's an aircradt I have never heard of, but it obviously did some great work. I like the way it looks like a cross between a Tiger Moth and a Harvard.

That's what I like about this forum, you ask a silly question, and you get some great well considered answers!

I think that Blakesee and Gentile amongst others learnt on it

 

[Markus]

The Buffalo conundrum is Finnish use v everybody else, not USMC v everybody else. The overall record of Brit and Dutch Buffalo's was around 10 Japanese fighters and 10 other types downed for 53 Buffalo air combat losses, all to fighters (counting only specific combats where both sides' losses are given in "Bloody Shambles", but that's most combats which occurred*).

I did not say that the Dutch were successful, just that they liked the plane. For success they would have needed a proper organisation on the ground; early warning, triple-A and so on. And the Marines should have escorted their bombers, not attacked the Japanese ones.

 

[Maxrobot1]

Hmm! underappreicated eh? How about the Lockheed PV-2 Ventura? Raiding Northern Japan from the Aleutians?
Or how about just any ship-borne catapult plane by Curtiss or Arado?
Another candidate would be the big Boeing flying boats ferrying vital personnel and cargo - when it absolutely, positively had to get there!

 

[JoeB]

I did not say that the Dutch were successful, just that they liked the plane. For success they would have needed a proper organisation on the ground; early warning, triple-A and so on. And the Marines should have escorted their bombers, not attacked the Japanese ones.

I don't see how that response backs up your original statement, which seemed to say the *results* of the single USMC combat spoiled the Buffalo's otherwise good reputation. But the actual results in both British and Dutch use v. the Japanese were basically similar to the Marine results at Midway: not good.

The Buffalo was liked OK pre war in the USN, though VMF-221 (Marine fighter unit at Midway) disliked the F2A-3 v the F4F-3's with which they were also partially equipped, even before that battle.

Who says the lack of success of British and Dutch Buffalo units was just because of factors like the ground organization or airfield AA, but not also pilots, or the airplane?

Whether to defend key installations on Midway or try to escort bombers v the Japanese carriers is about replaying the strategy of the battle, not really here or there as to the capability of the Buffalo. For the mission chosen the Marine a/c got off the ground in plenty of time, were able to attack from above though somewhat outnumbered (25 Marine fighters, 36 Zeroes present). Brit and Dutch Buffalo's were not always caught at tactical disadvantage either.

I don't think my point has been effectively contradicted: the big difference in the Buffalo was between the Finns and everybody else, not the Marines and everybody else.

Joe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Although JoeB is spot on, I believe the Buffalo's performance over Midway will always give the aircraft negative press and it seems that battle is told first in many "picture books" about WW2 rather than the success of the Finns. Additionally I think you also have lingering bad press about Brewster itself because of some the issues they dad during WW2. Aviation enthusiast who read the contemporary "stuff" about WW2 will always first hear how the Buffalo was slaughtered over Midway - Thanks Osprey!

 

[Shortround6]

Although JoeB is spot on, I believe the Buffalo's performance over Midway will always give the aircraft negative press and it seems that battle is told first in many "picture books" about WW2 rather than the success of the Finns. Additionally I think you also have lingering bad press about Brewster itself because of some the issues they dad during WW2. Aviation enthusiast who read the contemporary "stuff" about WW2 will always first hear how the Buffalo was slaughtered over Midway - Thanks Osprey!

the Finnish Buffalos and the US F2F-3 also had rather different power loadings and wing loadings which might affect the actual performance of the planes in addition to the quality of the both pilots flying the planes and the quality of the pilots flying the opposing planes.

 

[Markus]

I don't see how that response backs up your original statement, which seemed to say the *results* of the single USMC combat spoiled the Buffalo's otherwise good reputation. But the actual results in both British and Dutch use v. the Japanese were basically similar to the Marine results at Midway: not good.

Not good they were but the air combat in the DEI/Malaya is IMO off the general public´s radar screen, just like the immense success the Finns had. What they learn first is the defeat of the Marines at Midway.

Who says the lack of success of British and Dutch Buffalo units was just because of factors like the ground organization or airfield AA, but not also pilots, or the airplane?

With regard to Malaya, the RAF´s Buffalos had their flaws -the Dutch ones less so- but the RAF had only one AMU instead of two, not enough radar stations, their airfields lacked blast pens and triple-A was grossly insufficient, like a few Bofor´s guns in the best case or a handful of Vickers RCMG or nothing if my memory is right.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the Finnish Buffalos and the US F2F-3 also had rather different power loadings and wing loadings which might affect the actual performance of the planes in addition to the quality of the both pilots flying the planes and the quality of the pilots flying the opposing planes.

Of couse, but again when you pick up many books (especially older ones) on the subject, the Midway slaughter is always spoken of first.

 

[renrich]

The persistence of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the P40" is only exceeded by that of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the Buffalo". The fact is that the Buffalo was not well suited for combat use by the USN because of it's weak landing gear and because of the difficulty of installing SS fuel tanks. It had other performance handicaps in the Pacific which made it a poor match for Japanese fighters. How well it may have done in Finnish hands not withstanding, it was a failure in the Pacific and the US was fortunate that the Wildcat was available because the USN was able to hold it's own against one of the best fighters in the world, the A6M, in 1942 with the Wildcat.

 

[Willszenith]

Lysander anyone?

multi role platform, abielt not a glamourous fighter nor heavy...

but to nip in and out of france for the resistance, artillery support, air sea rescue support,

ok i know they had horrific loses at the start of the BOB but how many aircraft , succeded in alternative roles as well as the pluck lysander?

 

[zoomar]

Lysander anyone?

multi role platform, abielt not a glamourous fighter nor heavy...

but to nip in and out of france for the resistance, artillery support, air sea rescue support,

ok i know they had horrific loses at the start of the BOB but how many aircraft , succeded in alternative roles as well as the pluck lysander?

Good choice.

Another one might be the Hs-123 dive bomber

 

[Nikademus]

I'd add the Ki-27 and I-16 to the list of underappreciated. Ki-44 i don't see underappreciated as much as cursed in regards to it's early career.

 

[Markus]

The persistence of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the P40" is only exceeded by that of the "Committee to Resurrect the Reputation of the Buffalo".

We need to make up what our darling plane lacked in succes.

it was a failure in the Pacific and the US was fortunate that the Wildcat was available because the USN was able to hold it's own against one of the best fighters in the world, the A6M, in 1942 with the Wildcat.

You call the F2A a failure but say this this flimsy, totally unprotected contraption was "one of the world´s best fighters"?