Underappreciated Aircraft of WWII

[Shortround6]

this this flimsy, totally unprotected contraption

Well, it did manage to totally dominate air combat in the Pacific/China theater for over 6 months and continued to be a threat for months more, At times while significantly out numbered.

It could carry the armament of a Bf 109E and do it for a round trip from Formosa to the Philippines at the end of 1941.

 

[magnu]

A further condemnation of the Buffalo was from No.71 Eagle squadron which were to be equipped with them in the BOB
The CO ordered his three best pilots to take off in the trio that had been delivered and land with the tail wheel unlocked, groundlooping them and totaling each one.

 

[buffnut453]

To be honest, I don't think the Buffalo should be considered within this list of underappreciated aircraft. Whenever I think of aircraft that are underappreciated, I think of aircraft that did sterling service in roles that seldom get recognition. Army cooperation, ASR, training etc all fall into this category. A fighter with very mixed operational history isn't really underappreciated - it merely polarises people's opinions (as discussed at length in various threads on this forum!).

My vote - the Lizzie (Lysander) - it did all sorts of stuff from reconnaissance to army cooperation to agent drops (and how important was that from a strategic perspective - I believe it was huge compared to the relatively few resources involved) to bombing missions. A couple of pilots even claimed to shoot down a couple of Bf109s each using the Lizzie. Ugly (to some!), unloved, scarcely remembered but absolutely vital to the war effort.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

It isn't a matter of resurrect the reputation of either aircraft - it's a matter of setting the record straight on each aircraft. Thanks to half-@ssed and poorly written books both aircraft got judged unfairly in some situations and their positives were never emphasized.

 

[Glider]

A further condemnation of the Buffalo was from No.71 Eagle squadron which were to be equipped with them in the BOB
The CO ordered his three best pilots to take off in the trio that had been delivered and land with the tail wheel unlocked, groundlooping them and totaling each one.

I do not believe that any CO would order such things and put his pilots at grave risk. 71 were asked fror an assesment and gave a withering one but there was never as far as I know any plans to equip them with the aircraft.

 

[claidemore]

With a litttle thought I can probably come up with a 'most underapreciated' plane in any of the relevant categories, but since my primary interest is fighters, I'll cast my vote for the Hawk 75A/P36 series.
Unlike the Buffalo, the Hawk was never a dismal failure in any theatre. France (Western Europe), Finland(Eastern Front), the RAF and the Dutch(CBI theatre) all used them with varying degrees of success. The US got it's first two confirmed kills at Pearl Harbor with P36's vs A6M2s. Hmmmm?

 

[JoeB]

Yes I think Hawk/P-36 is a good choice, generally brushed off as 'second rate' (though I'm not saying it was ever the best fighter around) but had conspicuous lack of failure compared to a/c with better general reputations. For example in CBI British Mohawks achieved about an even ratio v Japanese Army Type 1's (8 kills for 7 losses) when the Hurricane was still going about 1:4 (12 kills for 55 losses in 1943, "Air War for Burma") against the same opposition, flown by same air arm, same time period. It's hard to see what the explanation for a difference like that would be except the Hawk was at least as good a fighter v that type of opponent, at least. The Hawk 75's record in Battle of France v Bf109E was also better than the Hurricane's though not to the same degree (23:38 v74:151 as counted in "The Battle of France Then and Now") and that was different air arms flying the two though v the same opposition at the same time.

The minor exception to no failure was Dutch Hawks which achieved nothing v Zeroes with several losses, but in just a couple of engagements. Likewise the USAAF P-36 record of 2 kills to one loss in furball with Zeroes over Oahu doesn't prove a whole lot, though it is an interesting episode

Re: Buffalo, Zero as 'contraption', as flown by typical IJN units of 1942, is an amazingly ridiculous characterization. On the contrary, one obvious (though not necessarily the complete and total) explanation for Finn v. Western results with the Buffalo was flying v the Soviet air arms of early Great Patriotic War v flying against IJN (though the Buffalo did poorly v IJA fighters too) of 1942: big difference. And again as proxy, the Hurricane did about as badly v the Zero (and Type 1) as the Buffalo. I don't think the Buffalo deserves reputation as the No.1 bad fighter of all time, I just seek to set the record straight about who had success with the Buffalo: the Finns, exclusively.

Joe

 

[Vincenzo]

i've two considerations on Buffalo success only with Suomen/Finnish.

1st the success it's based on finns claims or it's cross checked with soviet admit losses?
2nd the Buffalos in Pacific go bad versus Oscars and Zeros that are same type of fighter (good turning and climbing, bad diving and mediocre level speed) maybe that the soviet fighter the Buffalos find a best target? relatively at its own capacity.

 

[timshatz]

Another point about the Buffalos in the Pacific v the Finnish Birds. The Japanese Aviators in the IJN were amongst the most experienced pilots, definitely the most experience naval aviators as a group, in the world. They'd been fighting against the Chinese since 1937 and had their tactics all worked out. The Buffalo pilots of Singapore, East Indies and Midway were low time, inexperienced in every facit of the word, pilots.

The inverse was mostly true with Finnish pilots v Soviet pilots. Also, Soviet pilots of the Winter War were not known to show initiative. Made life easier for the Finns if the opposition doesn't change or adapt quickly.

 

[buffnut453]

Joe,

As always, a useful contribution to the discussion. My only concern is that even "same aircraft, same opponent, same timeframe" is still something of an oversimplification. Individual combats are won and lost based on comparative aircraft performance, pilot ability and experience, and local tactical conditions at the time. An fighter climbing to attack an enemy fighter force is at a huge tactical disadvantage and the converse is true.

We also need to be careful of extrapolating a statistically insignificant number of actions into a general trend. According to Beauchamp's "Mohawks Over Burma" only 3 of the type were shot down by IJAAF fighters. According to "Hurricanes Over the Arakan", some 37 Hurris were shot down between 1 Oct 42 and 1 Jun 43 in air combat (does not state whether this was with fighters or return fire from Japanese bombers). At first glance, this seems a huge discrepancy in losses but there was only 1-2 operational Mohawk squadrons (depending on timeframe) compared to 6 Hurricane units across the RAF and Royal Indian Air Force. Also, Mohawks were more commonly engaged in ground strafing which offers fewer opportunities for engagements. So an average of approx 6 combat losses per Hurricane squadron when they are providing front-line fighter support and are engaged more often than the Mohawk perhaps doesn't compare too badly against the Mohawk average of 1.5-2 losses per squadron over the same time period.

Again, I'm not suggesting that the Mohawk didn't perform well (I agree with you it is underrated) but I worry that we're still not comparing apples to apples.

Just a few thoughts...

Cheers,
Mark

 

[Markus]

Well, it did manage to totally dominate air combat in the Pacific/China theater for over 6 months and continued to be a threat for months more, At times while significantly out numbered.

Oh, yes they did beat the Chinese and some western air forces that were predominantly equipped with second rate and or defective fighters flown by not so well trained pilots who operated with poor or no early warning. That was merely a case of the one eyed being king among the blind.

It could carry the armament of a Bf 109E and do it for a round trip from Formosa to the Philippines at the end of 1941.

And be downed by a single burst of an RCMG. Plus the Me109 had better cannon by the way.


The ZERO was without doubt one of the worst fighter designs ever as it sacrificed anything for low speed manouverability and climb rate. As long as the Japanese were fighting low intensity air wars against unpredared opponents the formidable japanese pilots could more than compensate the gross design flaws of the A&M but onec the IJN ran into cool headed professionals like the USN pilots their lucky days were over for good.

 

[Markus]

I got a new underappreciated plane: The Douglas TBD!

Despite her weak 900hp engine she could carry a 2,000lb torpedo over the Owen Stanley Range, at Coral Sea TBD annihilated the CVL Soho with ¾ of her crew and like all US planes she was VERY hard to shoot down with a pair of RCMG. Still, most of the time one hears nothing about her but the slaughter of the TBD at Midway, which was caused not by the result of the planes obsolescence but by the lack of a fighter escort.

 

[Nikademus]

I would agree that the Mohawk ratio loss comparison in Burma is so small that one should take it with a grain of salt. (I recorded it as 6 lost in exchange for 4 Ki-43) Not alot to compare in relation to the Hurricane and Spitfire experience. The plane's finest hour probably was in France. Shores commented that the Hawk was superior to the early D model of the 109 and a rough match for the Emil prior to the -3 varient when cannons became standardized.

Dutch fighter preformance was pretty bad in terms of exchange but i view this primarily in terms of behind the cockpit. I got a distinct impression that the Dutch underestimated the Japanese badly.

 

[Nikademus]

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

Well it did hold a 5.4:1 ratio at the start of may 42. Comparable to the overall German ratio on the Eastern front latter half of 41. The F2A might be cited as an example of what men and circumstances can do with a machine. For me, I don't look at the kill ratio in regards to the Buffalo as much as i do it's manufacturing history. The early basic design appeared sound (and beat out the first Wildcat prototype) but later weight additions and shoddy quality control seemed to bedevil the machine. Brewster, IIRC was the only US air manufacturer to close shop during the war. That says something right there.

 

[fastmongrel]

The Handley Page Harrow an aircraft that is hardly ever mentioned but was very nearly in service throughout the war.

 

[Nikademus]

the CR-42 and Fulmar also tend to get rasberried. Both did pretty good in their respective roles however.

 

[Markus]

Well it did hold a 5.4:1 ratio at the start of may 42. Comparable to the overall German ratio on the Eastern front latter half of 41.

You sort of explained the reason for this success:

Dutch fighter preformance was pretty bad in terms of exchange but i view this primarily in terms of behind the cockpit. I got a distinct impression that the Dutch underestimated the Japanese badly.

The Brits were no different and their Buffalos were even worse than the Dutch ones. USAAF fighter pilots in the PI had no clue about the Japanese too but their planes were mostly destroyed on the ground.

The F2A might be cited as an example of what men and circumstances can do with a machine. For me, I don't look at the kill ratio in regards to the Buffalo as much as i do it's manufacturing history. The early basic design appeared sound (and beat out the first Wildcat prototype) but later weight additions and shoddy quality control seemed to bedevil the machine. Brewster, IIRC was the only US air manufacturer to close shop during the war. That says something right there.

I could hardly agree more.

 

[Nikademus]

The man behind the machine was certainly a major factor IMO. There are so many variables that go into air combat however that one can argue any number of points in different combinations. One really good example was the slaughter of Soviet bombers during Barbarossa's opening stages. Yes, the vulnerability of the SB bomber was one major factor, citable as a technical reference, and the lack of fighter protection another from an air tactics perspective......however one very major factor probably not often cited was that the crews were more afraid of the wrath of their own superiors...(and their superiors fear of Stalin) than the Germans hence wave after wave of unescorted bombers went to the slaughter in late June, early July...a facet which exploded the German Experten kill score. In a different situation, descretion probably would have been the better part of valor.

Shores made some interesting comments regarding the Zero legend at the end of Vol II of Bloody Shambles. He theorized that the whole "legend" came about mainly because it was easier for Allied pilots to swallow their defeat as being due to machine (the A6M) vs. the men flying them, of whom many a derogatory comment had been made before the shooting started. In the end though the Zero's attributes, along with the Oscar, were also important. Shore's point was that while the plane was very good, it was not a super-plane and that the pilots were just as much the reason for success as the machine (along with a superior operational plan). It was the same for the Germans during Barbarossa. Shores considered the British to be somewhat better off than the Dutch given they had a smattering of experirenced pilots however an important cavet to it was that this exp could in some cases hurt them as they were used to having a turning edge over their opponents. I'm not sure i'd agree that their Buffalos were "worse" than the Dutch B-339's. They were more weighted down but this was a facet much appreciated and commented on by more than a few Commonwealth pilots. Armor saves lives.

 

[buffnut453]

They were more weighted down but this was a facet much appreciated and commented on by more than a few Commonwealth pilots. Armor saves lives.

This is valid in so many ways. At least one Commonwealth pilot, Lambert, died because the aircraft he flew had yet to be fitted with armour behind his seat. Conversely, the Aussies were able to remove a considerable amount of surplus weight to improve performance of the aircraft. The question is how much of the additional weight in RAF Buffalos was operationally valid and how much was superfluous.

 

[Marcel]

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.

Yup that about sums it up. One should be very careful using the loss-to-kill ratio as a measurement for the Buffalo's capabilities. Vast area to defend with only about 70 a/c, no radar or other early warning, most of the time altitude-disadvantage etc. This is true for the British as well.

Dutch fighter preformance was pretty bad in terms of exchange but i view this primarily in terms of behind the cockpit. I got a distinct impression that the Dutch underestimated the Japanese badly.

Once again, one should consider the circumstances. This was no Europe. No warning, defenses thinly spread, especially the a/c and there was no radar etc. One should remember the the NEI is vastly bigger than the whole of Europe, while being defended by only 200 a/c in total. Here the attacker has the advantage as he can concentrate on one point while the defender cannot, having no defense systems etc. This was not only true for the Dutch, but for the US (Philipines) and the British as well. This plus the fact that the Japanese were as good as any in the world in 1942.

On topic:
One unknown contender:
How about the Fokker C.X. Flew many dangerous missions (bombing and rec) for the Dutch ML without losses after the first day (with 200+ Bf109's around) and did well for the Fins as well.
I also propose the Miles Master as a training a/c.