Which Fighter was least successful?

[Clay_Allison]

To whom was that addressed?

You. The Buff performed spectacularly in Finnish service.

 

[Civettone]

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 agree. Though it needs to be said that syscom said the worst fighter in US service...
But then I still don't know why the P-40 would be superior to the P-39. I am sure there is a thread about that subject somewhere on this forum ...

Kris

 

[Clay_Allison]

I agree. Though it needs to be said that syscom said the worst fighter in US service...
But then I still don't know why the P-40 would be superior to the P-39. I am sure there is a thread about that subject somewhere on this forum ...

Kris

The Buffalo was definitely the worst fighter in US service. If we hadn't given them to Finland, they'd be considered the worst ever.

 

[buffnut453]

The Buffalo was definitely the worst fighter in US service. If we hadn't given them to Finland, they'd be considered the worst ever.

I have 4 things to say:

P-35
P-36
P-43
P-66

Once again, this isn't about best or worst, it's about success (ie in air combat) - getting rather bored of repeating myself on this one!

And before everyone jumps down my throat to say "How can you possibly think the P-36 was worse than the Buffalo?", examine the performance of the 2 types in Finnish service. They were employed in similar numbers, in the same operating theatre and flown by pilots from the same training and experience background, and yet the Buffalo kill-to-loss ratio was significantly higher than that of the P-36.

As for the others in the above list, all were in service in the US Army around the time of Pearl Harbor and none were fit for purpose, although it's perhaps a tad unfair to include the P-35 since only a few were operational in the Philippines. However, the P-43 and P-66 both achieved air-to-air victories over China.

Just adding more grist to the mill....!

KR
Mark

 

[Civettone]

And the P-36 was the second best fighter in the French AF in 1940, second only to the D.520.


Interesting that you are mentioning the P-43 and P-66. This is indeed about the least succesful fighters. But both types simply didn't see combat, except for in the Chinese AF. But we cannot discard a fighter simply because it didn't see combat.

But then again ... that would also mean we cannot say the Roc was unsuccesful.

Kris

 

[buffnut453]

Interesting that you are mentioning the P-43 and P-66. This is indeed about the least succesful fighters. But both types simply didn't see combat, except for in the Chinese AF. But we cannot discard a fighter simply because it didn't see combat.

But then again ... that would also mean we cannot say the Roc was unsuccesful.

Sorry, Kris, but you're contradicting yourself. Is combat in the CAF somehow not worth considering compared to combat in the RAF or USAAF? The P-43 and P-66 both saw combat with the CAF and both secured air-to-air victories. The Roc had at least 2 air-to-air engagements with the RAF and FAA but, IIRC, only damaged the opponents.

Therefore, per my previous posts, we can say that the Roc was unsuccessful because it was engaged in air combats but didn't shoot down an enemy aircraft. The P-43 and P-66 were not unsuccessful. My response to Clay was to point out that there were, in my view, fighters that were worse than the Buffalo in US service during WWII - but that's a "best/worse" subjective argument and not an objective assessement of success.

KR
Mark

 

[Civettone]

I am not contradicting myself. I am safely discarding the service of the P-66 in the Chinese AF as these data are totally non-representable! Let me explain.

Take a look at these sites for some more information:
Hkans Aviation page Sino-Japanese Air War 1942 and search for the P-66
Hkans Aviation page Sino-Japanese Air War 1943 and do the same
It is one sorry affair!
More from here:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/dunnp664.htm
http://www.warbirdforum.com/dunnp665.htm

The conclusion seems to be that most P-66s were lost while achieving no success. I have read about one guy making three kills in one time with a P-66 but I have my doubts about the soty - propaganda? - and the guy did receive the highest reward in Chinese military, and got a huge promotion. That's how rare these stories were. In any case it still means the ratio of combat losses would be tens of times bigger than the kills. Definitely making it one of the least succesful.
But as I consider the P-66 to be at least a mediocre fighter, probably on par with the P-40, I think this cannot be right.
So for that matter I am not considering any data from the Chinese AF as being representable!

Read this about an American rapport on the Chinese AF:

More detailed insight into the operations of the C.A.F. is contained in a report by Kenneth M. Warder, a Vultee Aviation service representative, who spent three months with the C.A.F. (November 1942 to January 1943) and observed its operating and maintenance practices. Warder toured all the airfields and factories where the P-66 was operated and maintained.

When Warder first arrived he found all the aircraft on each airfield were actively engaged in flying - some in formation flying, some in gunnery and others practicing landings. He soon concluded this was a show for his benefit for as his stay lengthened he found the aircraft sitting inactive on the ground day after day. He had a difficult time checking flying time on aircraft. "However, I obtained one flight time record for 45 days on 10 airplanes which averaged 12 minutes per plane per day. At another airfield I obtained the time on 15 airplanes for two weeks. One airplane had flown for eight hours; the other airplanes had no time at all for two weeks."

Warder recounted a morale flight by three P-40s to a town a couple hundred miles from Chengtu (the citizens had raised money for C.A.F. aircraft and were receiving a demonstration of gratitude). Only one P-40 returned to Chengtu. The other two ran out of fuel on the return flight and crash-landed. One was a complete loss.

Warder also observed and heard reports of Chinese combat missions during November 1942. In one disastrous mission by twelve SB and Hudson bombers four failed to return despite the fact that no enemy opposition was encountered. On other missions bombers returned to base singly often strung out at intervals of an hour.

From conversations with C.A.F. pilots Warder concluded that most of them had very limited flying hours. He flew with one pilot who told him he had been a pilot for ten years - all during the early China war. When asked, the pilot said he had 1,000 flying hours. In flying Warder from one airport to another, a distance of about 50 miles, the pilot became lost for an hour.

Warder brought with him several dozen specialized tools of various kinds and turned them over to the Chinese Aeronautical Commission with the intention that they would be distributed to the tactical squadrons. He found that the tools were never distributed but retained as samples. Why so many "samples" were needed was never explained. Warder managed to personally deliver a few screwdrivers and cowling wrenches to two squadrons.

Warder found all the mechanics on each field shared a single small tool kit basically limiting maintenance to one aircraft at a time. If more than one aircraft had to be serviced at the same time, work had to be done with inefficient borrowing of tools among the mechanics involved.

Warder's report gives several specific examples of shoddy maintenance practices. He also discovered large quantities of tools, spares and materials kept in storage. In asking why the tools and materials could not be issued: "I was informed that they had to be kept in stock. That was my answer."

Warder's report concluded by saying concerning the Chinese war effort and flight operations, "a person can hardly see any." In three months in China he was aware of only three missions being flown. Warder estimated that when he left China in early February 1943 the Chinese had forty-five serviceable P-66s.

How frustrating that must have been!

Kris

 

[Nikademus]

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

Hi,

I have the figures now for Greece from the Italian invasion to the eve of the German invasion.

Counting just losses in the air to enemy planes, 31 x CR-42 lost in exchange for 36 planes shot down. (+1 Yugoslavian Floatplane during Ger invasion)

Fighter vs. Fighter (same period) 26 Cr-42 lost to enemy fighters

(4 to Hurricane, 19 to RAF Gladiator, 3 to PZL P.24)

They shoot down 10 enemy fighters

5 x PZL P.24
1 x Gladiator (greek)
4 x Gladiator


Additionally, Cr-32's were active. They account for 4 more enemy planes losing none in the air.

 

[buffnut453]

I am not contradicting myself.

'Fraid I disagree, Kris per your statement "But both types simply didn't see combat, except for in the Chinese AF". They either did see combat or they didn't but caveating the statement to demean the CAF is rather unworthy, irrespective of the multiple problems (training, logistics, organisation, leadership) demonstrated by the Service. The poorly trained, relatively unskilled pilots of the CAF were flying to defend their homeland from aggression and did so against some of the best-trained aircrew in the world - just because China is seen as a backwater campaign by the West should not diminish the courage and tenacity of the people.

I tend to agree that 3 kills in one day seems implausible but Mr Dunn (whose article you cite) records a couple of more believable accounts of P-66s achieving victories. And, if I'm proved wrong, and the P-66 didn't achieve a kill then we can add it to the Boomer and Roc as unsuccessful fighters. My response to Clay was more to do with the assertion that the Buffalo was the worst fighter in the US inventory during WWII.

KR
Mark

 

[claidemore]

EDIT: WOOPS! missed this link in earlier post above. Please disregard.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/dunnp66.htm

Good link about the P66

 

[Vincenzo]

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 )

From "La Regia Aeronautica 1939-1940" east africa until 10 january 1941 losses 29 fighters were shoot down (also from AA) and an other 11 losses for incidents or ground attack. you give a 35 fighter losses only for air combat can you explain the difference?

 

[Vincenzo]

Hi,

I have the figures now for Greece from the Italian invasion to the eve of the German invasion.

Counting just losses in the air to enemy planes, 31 x CR-42 lost in exchange for 36 planes shot down. (+1 Yugoslavian Floatplane during Ger invasion)

Fighter vs. Fighter (same period) 26 Cr-42 lost to enemy fighters

(4 to Hurricane, 19 to RAF Gladiator, 3 to PZL P.24)

They shoot down 10 enemy fighters

5 x PZL P.24
1 x Gladiator (greek)
4 x Gladiator


Additionally, Cr-32's were active. They account for 4 more enemy planes losing none in the air.

very high losses i thinked low losses why the RA loss only 16 fighter "in operation" until 28th february '41 so i don't thinked so heavy loss the last seven weeks

 

[Clay_Allison]

Sorry, Kris, but you're contradicting yourself. Is combat in the CAF somehow not worth considering compared to combat in the RAF or USAAF? The P-43 and P-66 both saw combat with the CAF and both secured air-to-air victories. The Roc had at least 2 air-to-air engagements with the RAF and FAA but, IIRC, only damaged the opponents.

Therefore, per my previous posts, we can say that the Roc was unsuccessful because it was engaged in air combats but didn't shoot down an enemy aircraft. The P-43 and P-66 were not unsuccessful. My response to Clay was to point out that there were, in my view, fighters that were worse than the Buffalo in US service during WWII - but that's a "best/worse" subjective argument and not an objective assessement of success.

KR
Mark

I still pick the Buffalo as the worst in US service because they got more people killed.

 

[buffnut453]

I still pick the Buffalo as the worst in US service because they got more people killed.

Like I keep saying, Clay, that's a subjective assessment whereas the thread is about success, or otherwise. However, the P-43 and P-66 weren't even trusted to go into combat so, again, it's all about how you measure "worst". A heck of a lot of Zero pilots were killed during the Marianas Turkey Shoot but I don't hear anyone calling that aircraft the worst of WWII.

KR
Mark

 

[Shortround6]

I still pick the Buffalo as the worst in US service because they got more people killed.

It is the worst US fighter because it got 14 US pilots (some green) killed in combat total for the war?

 

[davebender]

I think the enemy had something to do with that. Even good aircraft like the Spitfire, Me-109 and P-51 were shot down by the thousands.

 

[claidemore]

How do we measure success for a fighter?
Do we look at; how many enemy planes it shot down?
how long it remained in service?
kill / loss ratio?
mission success?
accident/loss rate?
did it meet design specs?
was it versatile?
was it easy and inexpensive to produce?
If we are looking for the' least successful fighter', would that be the exact opposite of' most successful fighter'? If so, what are the criteria for most successful?

There is no set standard for success, so discussions as to relative merits, ie best/worst, are relevant.
It's through these discussions and postings, including those that take off on a tangent and go down rabbit trails not foreseen by the original question, that we get new information and are prompted to research ourselves.

 

[buffnut453]

Claidemore,

Some answers:

Do we look at; how many enemy planes it shot down?
This is heavily dependent on relative conditions so making direct comparisons is virtually impossible. Also, Type A shooting down more than Type B is irrelevant because both were successful to a greater or lesser extent whereas my contention is that a fighter which, despite opportunity, failed to achieve a single kill is, by default, the least successful.

how long it remained in service?
Irrelevant as all aircraft have a shelf-life driven by the rate of advance of technology, the degree to which requirements showed, or did not show, foresight, and funding to procure replacement aircraft. A fighter is there to shoot down enemy aircraft - that is the measure of success.

kill / loss ratio?
This is such a variable measure, dependent on local conditions and the strength of the adversary, that it is largely meaningless. For example, the Zero was supreme over Malaya, the Dutch East Indies and the Phillippines in 1942 but was roundly trounced at the Marianas Turkey Shoot - how can we measure success across such a broad spectrum of performance?

mission success?
To do this, you need to define mission success so we're caveating a caveat - and there be monsters down that path.

accident/loss rate?
Irrelevant - all aircraft have an accident and loss rate. A fighter's success is not measured in terms of its accident rate but in terms of it's primary job - shooting down the adversary.

did it meet design specs?
If it didn't meet design specs, it wouldn't have been selected for service. Again, I see this as an irrelevance for this particular thread.

was it versatile?
The question was about the least successful fighter not the least successful multi-role aircraft. Happy to discuss versatility but it isn't germaine to thread.

was it easy and inexpensive to produce?
That's a procurement decision not a measure of success.

The question was "which was the most unsuccessful fighter" so we're not measuring success, we're identifying the absence of it for a fighter aircraft. You're right that there is no relative measure of success but we can, with some certainty, define lack of success. A fighter is designed to shoot down the adversary's aircraft. A fighter which, despite opportunity, failed to achieve a single kill is, by default, the least successful.

I don't disagree that heading off on a tangent may lead to new insights in different areas but the exam question for this thread was quite neatly defined and, in my view, is straightforward to answer. The more challenging question of measuring success has been around since Pontius was a pilot, and it remains as subjective as it always was. If we want to explore WHY I reached my answer, then by all means let's do so but let's not change the original question (by all means, we can start different threads to explore some of the factors you identified in your last posting).

KR
Mark

 

[vikingBerserker]

I think some of the float plane fighters have to rank towards to the top. Sorry at work, and don't have any books to list the specific types.

 

[davebender]

That's certainly true in terms of combat performance. On the other hand float plane fighters did provide a measure of aerial protection in places like Kiska which lacked facilities to operate land based aircraft. So if the choice is float planes or none at all those A6M2-N (i.e. Rufe float version of Zero) start to look pretty useful.