Which Fighter was least successful?
- Thread starter bigZ
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
The Soviets might disagree with you
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Like I said, I haven't read all posts. Good thing you mentioned them. The MiG-3 was ok and did achieve some success. But that cannot be said about the miG-1 which was a horrible aircraft.
I think we had this discussion before. All in all, I think that would have worked. Howver the R4M rockets were extremely effective and everybody could have achieved a kill with them. So I don't see any reason why to discard the armament. The aircraft could still easily be reused afterwards which was rather unlikely in case of a collision.
Kris
- Thread starter
- #84
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
Mark you hit the nail on the head.
You can't say the He162, Do 335, Bachem Ba. 349 etc are the worse as they did not have the opportunity to prove themselves.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The P39 was not the best. However I don't think it was worse then many other early WWII fighter aircraft like the Ki-27, MS.406, P-36, MB.152, Hurricane I, P-35 etc.
They will seem odd. Looking at combat reports from the era, which include overclaims and official confirmed victories that turned out not to be the case, give an impression that air combat is far bloodier than it really was in reality.
The above though represents losses only from enemy fighters and/or bomber fire. Other combat related losses were excluded. The above also excludes any CR-42's lost during 42 over Malta and the Med convoys. (Still colating that data.....real life must intrude
) By 42 however, the Italians were primary using Macchi's to escort raids over Malta. Same for Tunisia fighting.....CR-42 mostly relegated to 2nd line duties or ground attack missions.For Malta, one has to keep in mind the nature of the fighting. It tended to be low key in comparison to other theaters like Germany, punctuated by "blitzes" where activity greatly increased for a brief period of time. If given setbacks, the Italians (and Germans) would emphasis night attacks. In 40-41 in particular, UK scrambles were small in number, averaging 6 planes per alert. The Italians (and germans save for blitz periods) tended to raid in small #'s of bombers, escorted by large #'s of fighters. The UK fighters targeted the bombers as a rule, avoiding said fighters. Despite the large escort sizes often the bulk of Italian fighters often failed to get into the action.....lack of radios was a hinderance but it also highlighted the fact that you can only put so many planes in any one area of sky so a large escort is no gurantee of protection for the bombers. Another aspect pointed out in Shores was that unlike the Jagdwaffe, which emphasized collecting kills for prestige, the Italians lacked this killer instinct for the most part. This is NOT to say that the Italian fighter pilots lacked bravery. Quite the opposite. British pilots found many of them quite skilled and aggressive at times. However even during such, the light armament of the typical Italian fighter aided in preserving British lives. In general though, particularily in the desert it was often commented that the Italian fighter pilots seemed more interested in fancy acrobatics vs. the dirty business of killing enemy fighters. The Germans of course could not be acused of such an attitude. Their tactics specifically targeted enemy fighters using suprise and hit and run tactics.
Yes...and most other major planes involved in the campaigns i've researched.
beautiful info
have you info only for fighter vs fighter combat?
have you data for desert campaign more detailled (i.e. for year or unit?)
Yes and yes.
Unit loss data is more sporadic. I'd have to dig. I tracked primarily by theater and time period.
can you show us data for C.R. 42 versus fighters?
and for desert campaign also for year?
thank you
Malta 1940:
6 x Cr-42 lost to enemy fighters
(4 to Hurricane, 2 to Gladiator)
They shoot down 6:
4 x Hurricane
1 x Fulmar
1 x Gladiator
Malta 1941:
4 x Cr-42 lost to enemy fighters (Hurricanes)
They shot down 5
3 x Hurricane
1 x Fulmar
1 x Beaufighter
North Africa:
end of 1941
90 x Cr-42 lost to enemy fighters
(45 to Hurricane, 2 to Tomahawk, 43 to Gladiator)
They shot down 34 enemy fighters (Cr-32 adds 2 x Gladiator for 5 losses (4 to Hurr, 1 to Glad))
14 x Hurricane
19 x Gladiator
1 x Beaufighter
1 x Blenheim IF
1942 North Africa*
No other fighter kills scored (or at least verifiable)
They lose an additional 17 (18 if you count the friendly fire loss) to fighters
(8 to Hurricane, 1 to Tomahawk, 2 to Kittyhawk, 4 to P-40F, 2 to Beaufighter (+ 1 to a "friendly" Bf-109))
*by 1942, Cr-42's relegated to 2nd line duties , i.e. rear area deployment and ground support missions.
East Africa 1940
They lose 27 to enemy fighters
(18 to Hurricane, 9 to Gladiator)
They shoot down 12 enemy fighters
4 x Hurricane
8 x Gladiator
Additionally, given East Africa was a battle of 2nd line air units, there were a good number of Cr-32's present. They shoot down 19 additional planes (3 of them fighters - Hurricanes)
They lose 8
(7 to Hurricane, 1 to a Blenheim )
Last edited:
many thanks again
two notes
reading Hakans page i find (maybe missunderstand) only a C.R. 42 loss to Gladiator
C.R. 42 was used also in other theatre, France, England, Greek this have limited actions maybe around, in all, 10/15 C.R. 42 loss
p.s. i think no more a gruppo (3°) used C.R. 42 as fighter in NA in '42 and only for half year
Last edited:
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
When Italy entered World War II on June 10, 1940, Regia Aeronautica had 143 CR.42 in its squadrons. The aircraft first saw combat during the Italian campaign against Southern France flying bomber escort for Fiat BR.20 as well as strike missions against French airfields. On June 15, 1940, CR.42 shot down 3 Bloch MB.152 and 5 Dewoitine D.520 fighters at the loss of 5 aircraft.
But what about the other days ??
Kris
edit: and now it seems that FOUR out of five CR.42s shot down that day where shot down by one guy, Pierre LeGloan. That's right, he shot down 4 CR.42s in a single day! Plus he also shot down a BR.20 bomber the same day.
But what about the other days ??
Kris
edit: and now it seems that FOUR out of five CR.42s shot down that day where shot down by one guy, Pierre LeGloan. That's right, he shot down 4 CR.42s in a single day! Plus he also shot down a BR.20 bomber the same day.
Last edited:
afaik total loss of italian fighter in france campaign it's 5 fighters (42 and 200)
i need check but i don't remember fight on 15th june
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Ace in a day, one of the greatest things a fighter pilot can accomplish, especially when 80% of that total are other fighters.
paradoxguy
Airman
I don't have the references immediately at hand (most of my books and periodicals are in storage as I am in flux), but the P-39 was used very successfully by Soviet fighter pilots and many Soviet aces scored a portion of their victories flying the P-39. The 2nd-ranking Soviet ace, Alexander Pokryshkin, scored the majority of his kills with the P-39 and I vaguely recall another Russian ace who scored all of his 40+ or 50+ victories with the P-39. Contrary to popular belief, the P-39 performed well at 15K feet and below, which was the most common combat altitude on the Eastern front, and Soviet pilots generally liked the P-39. The P-39's performance weaknesses were at higher altitudes, which is why it did not perform well on the Western front and in the Pacific theatre. Thus I don't believe the P-39 can be considered the least successful fighter of WWII.
i remembered wrong
and the 5 fighters loss are all loss the 15th and are C.R. 42 (M.C. 200 losses aren't for enemy fighters, only incindets)
diddyriddick
Staff Sergeant
Brewster Buffalo. I've not heard of them after Midway; perhaps this is because they took such a mauling.
diddyriddick
Staff Sergeant
To whom was that addressed?
