Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
You. The Buff performed spectacularly in Finnish service.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You. The Buff performed spectacularly in Finnish service.To whom was that addressed?
I agree. Though it needs to be said that syscom said the worst fighter in US service...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.
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 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.
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.
How frustrating that must have been!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.
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
I am not contradicting myself.
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 )
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.
I still pick the Buffalo as the worst in US service because they got more people killed.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.
I still pick the Buffalo as the worst in US service because they got more people killed.