Worst aircraft of WW2?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 27, 2008

ratdog said:
again i never said all, the main countries in the war had some very nice aircraft at the beginning and throughout example: Britain, Germany, Japan, and the US. but what about the other small output eurasian countries? not all of their ideas were up to par at the beginning.

You said "if not most", and that is not really correct either. The majority of them fielded airforces that were made up of aircraft from other countries. Romania built great aircraft and also used German built aircraft such as the 109 and 190. Hungary, Slovakia, Switzerland, Bulgaria all used German built aircraft. The French had decent aircraft, but were knocked out of the war too early. Spain used German built aircraft for the most part. The Netherlands and Belgium can not be compared, they were knocked out two early, but when they were in the war, the aircraft they used were not necessarily outdated and certainly not "threefold". Finland used German built aircraft. Yeah Polish aircraft were outdated, but they were knocked out in 1939...

So again I ask you this:

What Foreign Airforces were outclassed "threefold" by the USAAF during WW2?

The sooner this question is answered the sooner we can all move on.

parsifal said:
well, you should be careful even about that. If you look at just two that i can think of, the Rumanian IAR 80, and the Yugoslavian IK-3 and IK-5, you are going to find very competitive aircraft. These countries were labouring under severe productive penalties....the biggest problem was engine development, but they nevertheless wrung the very best out of the resources they had available.

I f you look at the other minor Axis partners, you will find the Finns very successfully re-engined their MS 406's to the so-call3ed Morane-Lagg configuration.

The hungarians undertook a major overhaul of the Italian fighter they had purchased a licence for, and in the process turned it from a leaky flying coffin, to a competitive little early war fighter. They also produced a satisfactory level bomber, and modified the me 210 that they were producing to make it airworthy as well. Similar stpories exist for the Bulgarians, the Swiss, the Swedes, all of whom were able to produce competitive types.

In the case of the Rumanians and the hungarians, they provided somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the air resources for the southern fron in Russia throughout 1943. Not bad for a couple of back woodsy little twirpy nations IMO.

Your position is clearly untenable. You should retract what you have said, and move on to learn something in this place

Very well said and thought out post.

ratdog · Sep 27, 2008

not necesarily by the us many of the countries germany invaded had no chance of surviving the onslaught that was going to occur same thing about manchuria and other small south pacific countries, they stood no chance against japan. some countries did their very best as parcifal said they wrung out all they could with limited production capabilities. and some of the aircraft i think of are just in a case of going up against better pilots or they could be just outdated, as in flying planes from early 30s.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 27, 2008

ratdog said:
not necesarily by the us many of the countries germany invaded had no chance of surviving the onslaught that was going to occur same thing about manchuria and other small south pacific countries, they stood no chance against japan. some countries did their very best as parcifal said they wrung out all they could with limited production capabilities. and some of the aircraft i think of are just in a case of going up against better pilots or they could be just outdated, as in flying planes from early 30s.

That still does not answer the question of how "Most foreign aircraft were outdated and outclassed threefold".

What aircraft were outclassed threefold?

What were they outclassed threefold by?

Marcel · Sep 27, 2008

ratdog said:
not necesarily by the us many of the countries germany invaded had no chance of surviving the onslaught that was going to occur same thing about manchuria and other small south pacific countries, they stood no chance against japan. some countries did their very best as parcifal said they wrung out all they could with limited production capabilities. and some of the aircraft i think of are just in a case of going up against better pilots or they could be just outdated, as in flying planes from early 30s.

Most of the small countries in Europe (The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Poland etc.) were overpowered by sheer numbers. As for my own country, I think you're right that the D.XXI was somehow outdated (not threefold), but still proved to be quite able against the Bf109 and Bf110. I believe the G.1 belongs amongst the best twin engined fighterplanes of 1940. Problem was that there were only 23 of them and 28 D.XXI's. The Luftwaffe came with about than 240 fighters.

kool kitty89 · Sep 27, 2008

parsifal said:
I f you look at the other minor Axis partners, you will find the Finns very successfully re-engined their MS 406's to the so-call3ed Morane-Lagg configuration.

It was called the "Mörkö Morane" Mörkö meaning Goblin I belive. (but uther translations give "Ogre" and "Ghost")

ratdog · Sep 27, 2008

and maybe not threefold but generally outweighed

wingnuts · Sep 28, 2008

I think experience had as much to do with it as the quality of the aircraft, The German and Japanese pilots had either more experience or were trained by those with recent experience... gained in Spain in in Germany's case or in China or against the Soviets in the Japanese case.

Some UK, US and European pilots may have flown in Spain and China but their national airforces were slow to adopt the lessons and tactics learned.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 29, 2008

ratdog said:
and maybe not threefold but generally outweighed

Define outweighed.

ratdog · Sep 29, 2008

more likely lose a fight than win it

Elvis · Sep 29, 2008

wingnuts said:
I think experience had as much to do with it as the quality of the aircraft, The German and Japanese pilots had either more experience or were trained by those with recent experience... gained in Spain in in Germany's case or in China or against the Soviets in the Japanese case.

Some UK, US and European pilots may have flown in Spain and China but their national airforces were slow to adopt the lessons and tactics learned.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think this is the exact reason why the F2A didn't fare so well in the PTO.

Elvis

kool kitty89 · Sep 29, 2008

In the specific US pilot combat experience, I think it would also have to do with the fact that only the overweight F2A-3 ever saw combat. (in addition to the situation they were used in)

JoeB · Sep 29, 2008

wingnuts said:
I think experience had as much to do with it as the quality of the aircraft, The German and Japanese pilots had either more experience or were trained by those with recent experience... gained in Spain in in Germany's case or in China or against the Soviets in the Japanese case.

Some UK, US and European pilots may have flown in Spain and China but their national airforces were slow to adopt the lessons and tactics learned.

True in some match ups, but in case of Buffalo and Hurricane's similar poor performance v Japanese Army and Navy fighters in 1941-42, the RAF had been at war already 2+years. Again see the references, "Bloody Shambles" and more detailed books from Allied side like "Buffaloes over Singapore". The British units were a mixture of men with combat experience in Europe, including some who were already aces, and those less experienced. They may have had less combat experience on average than their Japanese opponents but it wasn't 100% v 0%. Whereas USN and USMC F4F units did have zero combat experience starting against Japanese units with some previously combat experienced pilots, but they did a lot better v Japanese fighters in 1942, on average. Or the AVG which also did better: only 1 of the 100 original AVG pilots had prior combat experience ('Ajax' Baumler, who flew for the Republians in Spain). But the AVG members were mostly pretty experienced peacetime military pilots, not the same as the mass-produced wartime pilots in 1942 RAF units. So there are surely many factors even just about pilots skill. Then there's for example leadership and morale within units, it wasn't just about skill or experience.

Joe

parsifal · Sep 29, 2008

In the case of the RAF, I think it was their combat experience that in fact worked against them. The lessons learnt in Europe, when fighting the Luftwaffe , were precisely what NOT to do against the japanese.

Against the Luftwaffe, the best tactic was to dogfight, reduce the combat to a tight turning engagement. I know that there is a lot of material in other forums that attests to the equal ability of the 109 in a turning fight, but the facts are that the RAF found the best tactics to employ against the Luftwafffe fighters in the period up to 1942 was to turn as much as possible.
Against the Zero , or any Japanese SE fighter really, this was about the worst thing you could do.

In addition, for the hurricane reinforcements for Singapore, it is important to note that only 24 trained pilots were accompanying the 50+ planes being sent out as reinforcements. It was expected that the survivors of the buffalo squadrons would provide the balance for the wing (three squadrons). This never occurred, and no pilot conversion training was ever undertaken. More than half the hurricanes were in fact destroyed on the ground, having never flown. They were destroyed in bombing raids against Palembang, wher the majority of them were initially deployed

Elvis · Sep 29, 2008

kool kitty89 said:
In the specific US pilot combat experience, I think it would also have to do with the fact that only the overweight F2A-3 ever saw combat. (in addition to the situation they were used in)

...

Crap, that's right. I'd forgotten about that.
Thanks for the reminder.

Elvis

Chriss1958 · Oct 7, 2008

Probably the ugliest aircraft of all time, ever!

F.F.G Berlin B.9

You know how car designs go rounded then angular?? Well this one falls into the angular design spec.

wingnuts · Oct 7, 2008

Chriss1958 said:
Probably the ugliest aircraft of all time, ever!

F.F.G Berlin B.9

You know how car designs go rounded then angular?? Well this one falls into the angular design spec.

I've seen worse!.... Form follows Function ... from what I just read (see URL) it was an experimental aircraft to test out the prone pilot position, it seems it was quite sucessful in doing what it was designed to do.

Berlin B9 Luft '46 Prototypes entry

kool kitty89 · Oct 7, 2008

There are several threads dedicated to ugly aircraft, try the forum's google search feature. (I believe you'll fine ones far worse than that)

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Oct 8, 2008

Chriss1958 said:
Probably the ugliest aircraft of all time, ever!

F.F.G Berlin B.9

You know how car designs go rounded then angular?? Well this one falls into the angular design spec.

Since when does ugly mean worst? Wrong thread...

Captain Dunsel · Oct 9, 2008

I do get a chuckle out of the Berlin's registration code, though.

CD

Airframes · Oct 9, 2008

Agree Captain! The aircraft itself is almost as ugly as one of my ex-girlfriends!

Worst aircraft of WW2?

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

rotartsinimdA

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman

Airman 1st Class

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Airman

1st Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Colonel

1st Sergeant

Airman

Attachments

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Airman 1st Class

Benevolens Magister

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads