Worst Aircraft of WW2

[SaparotRob]

At one time it was a green and verdant island. There were many delightful settlements scattered about its length. It even had a city, Long Island City. Then, during the Great Tymes of Doing Great Thyngs, the great inter dimensional force of the Empire City of the Empire State that came to be known as Greater New York reached out across the Eastern River and absorbed the pleasant but lesser townes that were upon the western shores of the island. They would never again be joined by any mortal force except maybe roads, streets, foot paths, bus routes......

 

[Shortround6]

I am tired of being gaslighted by the Defiant "legend".

No Defiant, no basis of creating OTUs, of which the Defiant provided numbers for. No Defiant, no stop gap night fighter available in numbers

Apparently the Blenheim's were incapable of being used in OTUs?
Especially as Beaufighters replaced in service Blenheim's?
And any Defiants in OTUs in the spring of 1941 didn't have radar.
Better than nothing but not quite the standard of training one might have wished for.
The Blenheim might have been slow but at least it offered a more complete training mission.

Let's see about the no stop gap night fighters.

Only 8 Squadrons used them during the Blitz. They started with 3 and ended in May with 8 squadrons.
OK, No 85 squadron used them for 3 operational sorties while they went from Hurricanes to Havocs so call it 8 1/2 or however you want to count it.



Now the British took several squadons of twin engine aircraft with a speed of over 300mph and
1. Hung a 2000ft steel cable on them with an explosive charge on the end to tow through the air in hope of tangling the cable in a German bomber.
2. Used the radar equipped aircraft to mount a big searchlight but no guns to shoot at the Germans with.

Net result of these 70 aircraft were one German aircraft caught with the steel cable which impressed every one so much that they carried on until well into 1942 and the searchlight scheme resulted is shooting down one British aircraft with the result that they didn't give up totally on the search lite scheme until Jan 1943.

What they didn't do in the Spring of 1941 was put guns on them and fly them like Beaufighters.

I don't blame them for trying, I blame them for keeping up the experiments for so long after they should have been seen as rubbish.

Much like the Defiant. Use what you have in 1940 and into 1941.
But don't try to gaslight me with claims that the radar equipped Defiant was a success (one plane shot down?) or formed an important part of the British defenses in the winter of 1941/42. They may have been flying around but they didn't do much.

The use of the Defiant is something like the Typhoon in 1942. The Typhoon wasn't working for a number of reasons. But they didn't have much in the way of other choices (the two stage Merlins weren't on line yet) and they ordered over 1000 of the Typhoons and factories all over Britain were making forgings for assemblies, landing gear parts, brake parts and other things to be shipped to Hawker/Gloster for assembly.
You couldn't stop Defiant production and make Hurricanes or something else (Fulmars?) without a large drop in production and workers standing around doing next to nothing.
So you keep them busy building Defiants.

Not just a British thing. Most of the American P-43s were a make work project.

 

[nuuumannn]

And any Defiants in OTUs in the spring of 1941 didn't have radar.
Better than nothing but not quite the standard of training one might have wished for.
The Blenheim might have been slow but at least it offered a more complete training mission.

Actually, Blenheims, Defiants and Beaufighters were used by the OTUs.

Only 8 Squadrons used them during the Blitz. They started with 3 and ended in May with 8 squadrons.

Actually, it was eleven in total. I listed them in an earlier post.

I blame them for keeping up the experiments for so long after they should have been seen as rubbish.

By whom? Again, talk about not doing your research!

So, we'll say it again, The Beaufighter was slow to enter service in large numbers and was proving unreliable, despite its good performance when they could coax the radar to work. The Mosquito was simply not available in numbers until mid 1942, the Blenheim was wholly inadequate and that leaves Hurricanes, Havocs and Defiants. I'll repeat again what I said, The RAF needed as many night fighters as it could get its hands on and Beaufighters and Mosquitoes were not appearing in whole squadrons all at once, but in ones and twos to the squadrons in 1941 and 1942, which meant the Defiants had to stay in service until full squadrons could be declared operational on the new types, simply because there would have been a shortage of aircraft.

So the RAF certainly didn't agree with you about either the Defiant or the turret fighter, and although it was a flawed concept, it worked better in a night fighter capacity, but don't take my word for it, take the Air Ministry's.

Specification F.18/40 was released on 11 October, which called for a fixed gun, two-seat night fighter equipped with six 20mm Hispano cannon to be put into production and service relatively quickly. On 9 December 'Corigendum No.1' was added to the text: "Armament changed to include dorsal power operated turret. Endurance increased by one hour." Actual wording from the original specification text. The specification was designed to replace the Defiant in service and Boulton Paul, Fairey, Miles, Hawker and Vickers submitted tenders. Bristol fitted a Boulton Paul Type A turret to a couple of Beaufighters and in April 1941, following demonstration of the Mosquito prototype's excellent performance, de Havilland was instructed to build two prototype Mosquitoes with a gun turret.

Now, the Beaufighter Mk.V with a turret was offered a production contract, but it was not undertaken as operationally the aircraft was slower than the Defiant it was meant to replace, and the turret obstructed the pilot's entry and exit point from the aircraft. de Havilland couldn't get the Bristol built turret to work and the performance of the Mosquito NF.II, which was ordered in 1940 to specification F.21/40 proved better than the turret fighter Mosquito and the two built were converted into the T.III trainer prototypes.

So, the Defiant was doing what the RAF expected of it and it was believed, rightly or wrongly that its replacement should have a turret. Defiants were well entrenched into the OTU training syllabus and had to remain in service into 1942 until sufficient replacements arrived. The RAF had no choice but to hold onto them. Otherwise we are doing that wishful thinking thing that you hate so much where we conjure up non-existent aeroplanes, engines and units before they are available.

But don't try to gaslight me with claims that the radar equipped Defiant was a success (one plane shot down?)

Who specifically mentioned Defiants with radar? I think you're doing the gaslighting! You're changing your story with every post! Now you're agreeing with me that the Defiant was useful in that first period after banging on for so long about how few enemy aircraft it shot down back then, so it was rubbish! Now you are mentioning its dearth of radar kills as the reason you think it should be retired!

Pick a line and stick to it. Your argument's getting desperate.

 

[Big Jake]

NOPE! All part of the same land mass but two different cities/ counties!!!!! You're talking to someone who grew up there!!!

The Brewster factory was in Long Island City which is part of Queens. Any which way you look at it - Queens, NY is on Long Island.

 

[GrauGeist]

So...this means the Bay Area is actually part of California??

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Brewster factory was in Long Island City which is part of Queens. Any which way you look at it - Queens, NY is on Long Island.

Sorry Jake and my fellow current and former New Yorkers will agree with me. Although the same land mass, Long Island starts at the Queens east border!

Scotland and England are on the same island, are they the same!? Do we say Farnborough is in Wales because they're on the same landmass?!?

 

[buffnut453]

Scotland and England are on the same island, are they the same!?

Actually, yes...depending on which question is being asked.

They are both part of the British Isles (which is a a purely geographic construct without political considerations), as well as being part of Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales), and the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Just to add to the confusion, there are separate national football and rugby teams for England, Scotland and Wales, and in rugby there are also the British Lions and Great Britain (depending on whether you're a fan of League or Union).

Confusing isn't it?

I'm sure the Scots among us would tell a different story but that's the current state of things.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually, yes...depending on which question is being asked.

Or who is answering it! LOL!

They are both part of the British Isles (which is a a purely geographic construct without political considerations), as well as being part of Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales), and the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

And again, Queens is part of a land mass in geographic construct BUT WITH political considerations! Besides the Pizza is better in Queens!

Just to add to the confusion, there are separate national football and rugby teams for England, Scotland and Wales, and in rugby there are also the British Lions and Great Britain (depending on whether you're a fan of League or Union).

Confusing isn't it?

Naw - Just talk to a NY Islanders fan!

I'm sure the Scots among us would tell a different story but that's the current state of things.

As with Long Islanders!

 

[SaparotRob]

I explained it all before and Brooklyn pizza RULES!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I explained it all before and Brooklyn pizza RULES!

Hey, Staten Island Pizza is right up there but then again more than half the people living there are from Brooklyn anyway!

 

[wuzak]

Sorry Jake and my fellow current and former New Yorkers will agree with me. Although the same land mass, Long Island starts at the Queens east border!

Scotland and England are on the same island, are they the same!? Do we say Farnborough is in Wales because they're on the same landmass?!?

The island of Great Britain has England, Scotland and Wales, though parts of those countries are also on other islands.

The equivalent of saying Queens is on Long Island would be that Farnborough is on Great Britain.

The westernmost end of Long Island contains the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn (Kings County) and Queens (Queens County). The central and eastern portions contain the suburban Nassau and Suffolk counties. However, colloquial usage of the term "Long Island" usually refers only to Nassau and Suffolk counties.

Long Island - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Economic regions of New York:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Map_of_New_York_Economic_Regions.svg/638px-Map_of_New_York_Economic_Regions.svg.png

Counties of Long Island

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Map_of_the_Boroughs_of_New_York_City_and_the_counties_of_Long_Island.png/800px-Map_of_the_Boroughs_of_New_York_City_and_the_counties_of_Long_Island.png

 

[wuzak]

I guess the colloquial distinction comes because Queens and Brooklyn are part of New York City and the rest of Long Island is not.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The equivalent of saying Queens is on Long Island would be that Farnborough is on Great Britain.

As is saying Long Island City Queens is on Long Island!

 

[wuzak]

As is saying Long Island City Queens is on Long Island!

It is on the island of Long Island, but not in the "economic region" of Long Island.

Now, a person who is from a part of Long Island that is not part of New York City is a Long Islander, those from the parts of Long Island that are a part of New York City are New Yorkers?

But is a person from the state of New York also a New Yorker. Meaning that a Long Islander is also a New Yorker?

Or are you all just Yankees?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It is on the island of Long Island, but not in the "economic region" of Long Island.

Yep

Now, a person who is from a part of Long Island that is not part of New York City is a Long Islander, those from the parts of Long Island that are a part of New York City are New Yorkers?

Yep

But is a person from the state of New York also a New Yorker. Meaning that a Long Islander is also a New Yorker?

Yep

Or are you all just Yankees?

Exactly! - But who's on third?

 

[SaparotRob]

Yep

Yep

Yep

Exactly! - But who's on third?

Who's on second. What's on third.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Who's on second. What's on third.

No who's on first, what's on second!

 

[SaparotRob]

It's late. I'm tired.

 

[buffnut453]

It's late and I REALLY don't care anymore.

One more comment about Long Island and I'll start throwing in cricketing quotes. That'll learn y'all.

 

[FLYBOYJ]