Which Fighter was least successful?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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

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

So while the Boomerang achieved 0 kills as an interceptor, it did have a successful combat career.
 
Civettone said:
Yeah if it's in the Osprey books it must be right
Click to expand...

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

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


Think I'll shut up now - the expired equine has been sufficiently flaggelated.
 
claidemore said:
So while the Boomerang achieved 0 kills as an interceptor, it did have a successful combat career.
Click to expand...

Hi Claidmore,

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

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

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

This is a fun discussion!!

KR
Mark
 
Colin1 said:
...
There were many unsavoury reasons why the Whirlwind's career met such an untimely end but one of the more legitimate (and understandable) reasons was the arrival of its greater-potential stable-mate, the Merlin itself.
Click to expand...

A typo?
 
buffnut453 said:
Hi Claidmore,
As for none being shot down by enemy aircraft, what interpretation do you put to "lost in combat"? Those aren't the words normally associated with an aircraft shot down by ground fire.

This is a fun discussion!!

KR
Mark
Click to expand...

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

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

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

KR
Mark H
 
Colin1 said:
I don't understand
Click to expand...
It was Peregrine that got replaced by Merlin, not Whirlwind:
 
Vincenzo said:
the hakan page give loss not claim it's crossed with british source

and in '42 C.R. 42 as day fighter was rare
Click to expand...
Of course Vincenzo, I meant it the other way around. It shows the kills while the footnotes show what was actually claimed. That's the beauty of this page.

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

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

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

Kris
 
Colin1 said:
lol well OK, you have a grammatical point
I rather saw the Peregrine and the Whirlwind (as a result) going down together. I could've worded it better though.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

sure in level speed Type 1 it's superiour but hard tell they never fightning, the only advantage maybe the speed maybe not enough for easy kill, but i'm agree Ki 43 was a moder fighter
 
I don't think kill/losses ratios should be the sole deciding factor in determining the least succesfull fighter. Other factors should be included too, which is why I submitted the Do-335 and the Ba 349. While the aircraft's performance and mechanical reliability (or lack thereof) are very important, I think it's equally important to take into account the aircraft's life before it took to the air, in other words the energy and time it took to design and build the aircraft and iron out it's many kinks, vs. the end result.
 
Hi Arsenal,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

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

Kind regards,
Mark
 

Counting only combat vs. enemy planes:

East Africa:

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


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

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

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

In my opinion, hardly a failed design. Diminishing returns as the war advances naturally, being one of the last biplane fighters designed and built.
 
Last edited:
My nomination for worst US fighter would be the P39.

A fine ground attack plane for the early war years, but hopelessly outclassed by anything the LW had. And it could barely hold its own with the Zero.
 
Thanks a lot for the figures but it seems a bit odd. According to these figures ... the Italians lost only 155 CR.42s (in air combat) up to late 1942.
Do you also have similar figures on the other Italian fighters? I wonder if they achieved an even better ratio.



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


Kris
 

I mentioned the MiG 1 with the MiG 3. The MiG wasn't a bad plane, but a lot of the planes (which are far worse) mentioned were either produced in small quantities or quickly had their roles swapped. The MiG was produced in large amounts and whilst an effective high altitude interceptor, it had to battle on as a low altitude fighter. So not the least successful, but it wasn't flash.
 
The Bachem Ba. 349 should have been used as a suicide fighter without the silly pretense to armament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
10K
Irregualr23
I
Why was it?
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
nuuumannn
American fighter ops, 1944 and beyond
Replies
5
Views
2K
Barrett
B
C
Tricycle Training(?) for Fighter Directors
Replies
5
Views
2K
EAIAnalog
S
Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
Steamed_Banana
S
Menu
Log in
Register