The BV-141 wasn't a bad plane, ugly but not bad. It was a very efficient aerodynamic design and had an amazing field of view.
Worst aircraft of WW2?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The BV-141 wasn't a bad plane, ugly but not bad. It was a very efficient aerodynamic design and had an amazing field of view.
Please explain why you think so.
The Bv 141 was actually a very stable and maneuverable aircraft. It was perfect for observation. For its role as well, it had decent performance.
Just because an aircraft is not beautiful to look at, does not make it a bad aircraft.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Well the same problem would occur in the P-82 "Twin Mustang" and similar a/c. (Bf 109Z and other german Zwilling a/c, albeit you wouldn't be likely to make rapid maneuvers in the He 111Z)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Go to the beginning of the thread - it's been discussed about 20 times.
BIG BIRD
Airman
The finnish model of the brester buffolo the b-239 achived the highest kill ratio of world war two. 26-1. But it was largely upgraded and much superior to the englesh or american variants.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Read "Bloody Shambles." The Commonwealth Buffaloes really didn't do as bad as expected considering the conditions and the odds aganist them.
BIG BIRD
Airman
The duch used the buffolo efectivly during the japenesie take over of the duch east indeas, They acheved a 2-1 kill ratio over japepenes planes such as the zero and nate.
Re: Buffalo covered several times, one time I gave the results from "Bloody Shambles" counted up combat by combat for RAF and KNIL (ie. Dutch)...well maybe it was another thread on the Buffalo. Anyway to repeat, these are losses recorded by each side, only in combats where both sides' specific accounts are known, but that's most combats in the period (beginning of war to end of major Japanese conquests in April, by which time RAF/KNIL Buffalo's had been wiped out anyway).
Buffalo v Type Zero Fighter:12.5 Buffalo's lost for 4 Zeroes
Buffalo v Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 14 Buffalo's lost for 4 Type 1's
Buffalo v Type 97 Fighter ('Nate'): 13.5 Buffalo's lost for 1-1/3 Type 97's
Buffalo v Type 0 Observation Seaplane ('Pete') acting as fighter: 2 Buffalo's lost for no Type 0
Overall 1:4.5 against the Buffalo in fighter-fighter combat.
The fractions are prorating where more than one Allied or Japanese type was present in a particular combat. RAF/KNIL Buffalo's also downed a small handful of non-fighters, 5 that can be confirmed.
OTOH other Allied types with generally better reputations fared as poorly in that theater and period. For example the Hurricane with same air arms, same general period, actually had a worse record, particularly against the two modern Japanese types, Zero and Type 1. Whereas strangely, the Buffalo did worst against the obsolescent Type 97, where the Hurricane's record was almost 1:1.
USMC F2A's had just one air combat, flying from Midway, losing 13 F2A and 2 F4F for 1-2 Zeroes and perhaps 2 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes ('Kate').
"Worst airplane" I don't know, but the Buffalo didn't do well v the Japanese, that's no myth.
Joe
Buffalo v Type Zero Fighter:12.5 Buffalo's lost for 4 Zeroes
Buffalo v Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 14 Buffalo's lost for 4 Type 1's
Buffalo v Type 97 Fighter ('Nate'): 13.5 Buffalo's lost for 1-1/3 Type 97's
Buffalo v Type 0 Observation Seaplane ('Pete') acting as fighter: 2 Buffalo's lost for no Type 0
Overall 1:4.5 against the Buffalo in fighter-fighter combat.
The fractions are prorating where more than one Allied or Japanese type was present in a particular combat. RAF/KNIL Buffalo's also downed a small handful of non-fighters, 5 that can be confirmed.
OTOH other Allied types with generally better reputations fared as poorly in that theater and period. For example the Hurricane with same air arms, same general period, actually had a worse record, particularly against the two modern Japanese types, Zero and Type 1. Whereas strangely, the Buffalo did worst against the obsolescent Type 97, where the Hurricane's record was almost 1:1.
USMC F2A's had just one air combat, flying from Midway, losing 13 F2A and 2 F4F for 1-2 Zeroes and perhaps 2 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes ('Kate').
"Worst airplane" I don't know, but the Buffalo didn't do well v the Japanese, that's no myth.
Joe
B-17engineer
Colonel
A lot of FInnish Aces flew the Buffalo and had Numerous kills
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I think one of the B-239 airfrmaes holds the record for the most kills acheived by a single plane. (it was used by multiple pilots)
BIG BIRD
Airman
The b239 was capable of holding its own against any fighter it came up against in the early war period. But it was becoming outdated by 1942 because of lack of armerment and speed. Never the less that didint stop them as finland only operated 44 b239 during world war two. B239 pilots destroyed 477 enemy aircraft for the lose of only 19 of there own. All of there kills were acheved between 1941-1944. The russians didint always have there most advanced planes in the theature but later on the had yak 9s and La-5fns in the theature, wich were a force to contend with. Even thought other planes were superior to the b239 in the hands of a compitant pilot it was a threat to any plane allied or axis it encontered up to the arival of the me262 and late model mustangs and p-47s who had a huge speed advantige, The buffolo was just plane NOT the worst plane of world war two.
parsifal
Colonel
I]
Joe
I know this is not the time or the place to post this thread, but the question of admitted losses is something that i find very interesting.
I tend to agree with your point about claims made being exaggerated. On a slightly different tack, I have a new book "Japanese Army Operations In The South pacific Area - New britiain and papua Campaigns 1942-3" Its an English translation of the the Official Japanese history, which you might know is still being completed.
I also have detailed refeneces for the RAAF and the USAAF in that period, so i should be able to compare admitted losses for both sides and get a clearer picture of the actual losses
As as an example, I have looked at some raids over Lae On March 19th and 22 by the RAAF..
At the time the Japanese admitted the loss of 7 fighters on the ground and 2 in the air, to a force identified as hawker hurricanes and Hudsons in the japanese accounts. The japanese claimed to have shot down three aircraft 9although the report is vague on this)
In fact the attackers consisted of nine P-40s of the newly arrived P-40s of 75 sqn (which on the 4march had acomplement of 25 aircraft, and two hudsons from 32 sqn. The Australians reported the loss of twelve Japanese aircraft, including 5 damaged, and two shot down in air combat. Two RAAF P-40s were lost in this battle.
Just concentrating on the air combat losses for a minute, it seems on this occasion, the claims by both sides are accurate. Allied losses were 2 (3 claimed by the japanese) and Japanese losses were 2 in the air (2 claimed by the RAAF). On this occasion, the RAAF was more accurate in its reports.
The next day, 23 March, Rabaul launched a retalitory raid on Port Moresby. Japanese intruders amounted to 19 bombers and three Zeroes. They were intercepted by 75 sqn (strength unknown (but i believe about 12-15 were available). The RAAF reported the attack as 26 Bombers and 4 fighters.
In the nsuing battle, two P-40s were lost, and two zeroes were lost. the losses admitted by both sides appear to correlate, that is each admited the loss of two fighters each.
I will continue to make the comparisons, as i read through the japanese account. it is very interesting.
[/I]
Joe
I know this is not the time or the place to post this thread, but the question of admitted losses is something that i find very interesting.
I tend to agree with your point about claims made being exaggerated. On a slightly different tack, I have a new book "Japanese Army Operations In The South pacific Area - New britiain and papua Campaigns 1942-3" Its an English translation of the the Official Japanese history, which you might know is still being completed.
I also have detailed refeneces for the RAAF and the USAAF in that period, so i should be able to compare admitted losses for both sides and get a clearer picture of the actual losses
As as an example, I have looked at some raids over Lae On March 19th and 22 by the RAAF..
At the time the Japanese admitted the loss of 7 fighters on the ground and 2 in the air, to a force identified as hawker hurricanes and Hudsons in the japanese accounts. The japanese claimed to have shot down three aircraft 9although the report is vague on this)
In fact the attackers consisted of nine P-40s of the newly arrived P-40s of 75 sqn (which on the 4march had acomplement of 25 aircraft, and two hudsons from 32 sqn. The Australians reported the loss of twelve Japanese aircraft, including 5 damaged, and two shot down in air combat. Two RAAF P-40s were lost in this battle.
Just concentrating on the air combat losses for a minute, it seems on this occasion, the claims by both sides are accurate. Allied losses were 2 (3 claimed by the japanese) and Japanese losses were 2 in the air (2 claimed by the RAAF). On this occasion, the RAAF was more accurate in its reports.
The next day, 23 March, Rabaul launched a retalitory raid on Port Moresby. Japanese intruders amounted to 19 bombers and three Zeroes. They were intercepted by 75 sqn (strength unknown (but i believe about 12-15 were available). The RAAF reported the attack as 26 Bombers and 4 fighters.
In the nsuing battle, two P-40s were lost, and two zeroes were lost. the losses admitted by both sides appear to correlate, that is each admited the loss of two fighters each.
I will continue to make the comparisons, as i read through the japanese account. it is very interesting.
1. Yes, that's an excerpt from Vols 14 and 28 of Senshi Sosho (War History Series), the Japanese official history of WWII. It's available online:
Australian War Memorial - AJRP Essays
That 102 vol history was actually completed more than 20 years ago, but not much of it has ever been translated. Also it's out of print, various vols sell used for reasonable and unreasonable prices. I have a couple (vols. 24 and 34) the ones mainly relevant to the "Bloody Shambles" period and campaigns. The Japan Defense Agency has said it will re-publish the whole series on CD-ROM eventually ('early 2010's' I've heard), but again untranslated.
Note that vols 14 and 28 are both entitled "Army Operations in Southwest Pacific...", so the description of the Navy's air ops (75th Sdn's was strictly facing the JNAF), are not the most detailed available and those translated excerpts seem to skip certain periods. There may be more in Navy centered volumes like No. 49, and AIUI there's also lots of more detailed Navy air unit documents for that period in the JDA archives; remember that's the principal source about the 202nd Air Groups's ops over Darwin in 1943 rather than any Senshi Sosho vol.
A good book however which uses a different original source is "Seek and Strike-75 Squadron RAAF 1942-2002" by David J. Wilson. Wilson used the files of comms intercepts in the US National Archives which describe the losses reported via radio by the Japanese units in Papua back to Rabaul, for certain days, not complete unfortunately. Also 'standard' works like Hata/Izawa shed some light on this period.
2. March 22 1942: the comms intercepts in Wilson plus other source (Hata/Izawa) make clear one Zero was lost with pilot (PO3C Keiji Kikuchi, 4th Air Group) to defensive fire of a Hudson in strike after the P-40's. The 4th also reported (to Rabaul, intercepted and decoded by the Allies) the loss of 1 bomber and 5 Zeroes (8 more damaged) on the ground; and two pilots WIA, not clear if in air or on ground. But there's no mention of a second a/c's aerial loss, so that discrepancy with the Army's summary is something to be worked out with more research. With the actual Vol 18 we could see what source is footnoted in the Army summary.
3. March 23: I don't see where the Vol 18 excerpt mentions any Zero losses. But one was lost, PO3C Kyoichi Yoshii, 4th Air Group, to AA fire while strafing per Wilson.
For the whole period of 75 sdns first tour, sources SS=Senshi Sosho 18 translated excerpts, HI=Hata/Izawa JNAF book, W=Wilson
Kittyhawk air combat losses per W: 3/22 2; 3/26, 3/28, 4/6 2, 4/10, 4/11, 4/13, 4/17, 4/18, 4/24 3, 4/28 2: total 16
Kittyhawk claims: 15 Zeroes in air official, but only 12 mentioned case by case in W. 3 bombers, plus many of both types 'probable'/'damaged' plus ground claims.
Zero aerial losses to Kittyhawks: 3/22 (not in W); 4/5 (SS lost over Moresby but no pilot KIA in HI); 4/17 (SS, 1 pilot KIA in HI, 2 'a/c' lost per 25th Air Flotilla Diary per W), 4/28
Other Zero combat losses: 3/22 (to RAAF Hudson); 3/23 (to AA); 4/7 (to USAAF A-24 per W and pilot KIA, but not mentioned in SS).
2-5 lost to Kittyhawks. But as mentioned W's source for 3/22 seems the most original, 4/5 v 4/7 seems a possible date mixup, and one of the '2 a/c' 4/17 probably a non-fighter. So 5 is unlikely IMO, making the overclaim ratio probably >3:1. But that's not out of line for that theater and period. As we saw in 1943 over Darwin the ratio was around 6:1 (Spits credited with 33 Zeroes, v. 4 Zeroes and 1 Type 1 actually lost). In same general period as 75th Sdn in NG in 1942, USAAF 49th FG P-40's defended northern Australia and credited w/ 37 Zeroes, actually downing 10-11. So that's the ballpark to expect.
Joe
Canadian WWI Ace William "Bill" Barker is credited with destroying 46 enemy aircraft and balloons in his Sopwith Camel B6313. Its generally credited as the highest scoring airframe of all time and all by the same pilot, quite an amazing record.
slaterat
slaterat
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
But BW-364's 42½ kills were credits confirmed after cross checking with enemy loss records, can the same be said for William Barker's B6313?
parsifal
Colonel
Joe
I have found another series of battles that is possible to make a comparison. On the 26th and 27th December 1942, ther were a series of battles between the japanese qand the Allies over Buna. it is is interesting to compare the claims made by each side and compare that with the actual losses
26-12-42:
15 fighters of the 1st squadron, 11 sentai JAAF, flew aggressive patrols over the Allied airfield. according to the Japanese account the airfield itself was attacked , with a large number of "large aircraft" destroyed . There was a fierce aerial combat, in which the japanese claimed 4 P-40s for the loss of two Zeroes.
The Allied account is quite differnt to this. A special transport Flight had been established at Gona Mission station, 15 Hudsons drawan from No1 OTU, plus 11 civil aircraft. According to the RAAF sources, three Zeroes were shot down by the Hudsons, for the loss of one Hudson, to US army ground fire. According to the Australians there were no losses to the aircraft on the ground.
There are numerous errors in the accounts given by both sides. Firstly 11 sentai was an army unit, so there is no possibility of the Japanese aircraft engaged being zeroes. Secondly the Japanese claims are equally bogus, they claimed 4 P-40s shot down, when in fact no p-40s were in the area at the time. There is a report from the RAAF of Wirraway A20-103 being attacked by a "zero" (all Japanese fighters appear to be "zeroes" it seems), but far from being shot down, the claim is that the rear gunner of the wirraway shot down at least one "zero". Both sides appear to have grossly overclaimed, as usual. For the air combat (less AA) the Japanese admitted losses were 2 fighters (probably Oscars), whereas the Allies claimed at least four, all up. On the japanese side, once again the error rate between claim and actual losses inflicted is even higher. The Japanese claimed 4 P-40s shot down, when in fact no p-40s, or indeed any Allied aircraft were admitted by the allies
I am inclined to believe the Australians on the issue of the losses on the ground. The attacks to capture the Japanese beacheads were in absolute full swing at the time. The loss of a large number of the transport fleet would have completely stalled the Allied attack. Since ther was no easing on the pressure being applied, it seems illogical to me that there were any significant losses to the transports on the ground.
There were no reported losses to any fighter units at that time.
27-12-42
The Japanese mouinted yet another sweep over the beacheads, this time with 42 fighters and 12 bombers. 31 fighters were from the 11 Sentai, JAAF, whilst 11 fighters and 12 bombers were Navy carrier based planes. It was claimed in the japanese accounts that the force engaged 16 p-38s (I think from the USAAAF) The Japanese claimed 3 confirmed kills and four probables. for the loss of one Army fighter, and a Val D/B.
The allies say that there were twelve P-38s engaged, and that one was damaged. The allies for their part claimed to have shot down 9 zeroes (no mention of army fighters, and "at least two Val D/B".
Seems nobody can report losses and victories correctly at all.
I have found another series of battles that is possible to make a comparison. On the 26th and 27th December 1942, ther were a series of battles between the japanese qand the Allies over Buna. it is is interesting to compare the claims made by each side and compare that with the actual losses
26-12-42:
15 fighters of the 1st squadron, 11 sentai JAAF, flew aggressive patrols over the Allied airfield. according to the Japanese account the airfield itself was attacked , with a large number of "large aircraft" destroyed . There was a fierce aerial combat, in which the japanese claimed 4 P-40s for the loss of two Zeroes.
The Allied account is quite differnt to this. A special transport Flight had been established at Gona Mission station, 15 Hudsons drawan from No1 OTU, plus 11 civil aircraft. According to the RAAF sources, three Zeroes were shot down by the Hudsons, for the loss of one Hudson, to US army ground fire. According to the Australians there were no losses to the aircraft on the ground.
There are numerous errors in the accounts given by both sides. Firstly 11 sentai was an army unit, so there is no possibility of the Japanese aircraft engaged being zeroes. Secondly the Japanese claims are equally bogus, they claimed 4 P-40s shot down, when in fact no p-40s were in the area at the time. There is a report from the RAAF of Wirraway A20-103 being attacked by a "zero" (all Japanese fighters appear to be "zeroes" it seems), but far from being shot down, the claim is that the rear gunner of the wirraway shot down at least one "zero". Both sides appear to have grossly overclaimed, as usual. For the air combat (less AA) the Japanese admitted losses were 2 fighters (probably Oscars), whereas the Allies claimed at least four, all up. On the japanese side, once again the error rate between claim and actual losses inflicted is even higher. The Japanese claimed 4 P-40s shot down, when in fact no p-40s, or indeed any Allied aircraft were admitted by the allies
I am inclined to believe the Australians on the issue of the losses on the ground. The attacks to capture the Japanese beacheads were in absolute full swing at the time. The loss of a large number of the transport fleet would have completely stalled the Allied attack. Since ther was no easing on the pressure being applied, it seems illogical to me that there were any significant losses to the transports on the ground.
There were no reported losses to any fighter units at that time.
27-12-42
The Japanese mouinted yet another sweep over the beacheads, this time with 42 fighters and 12 bombers. 31 fighters were from the 11 Sentai, JAAF, whilst 11 fighters and 12 bombers were Navy carrier based planes. It was claimed in the japanese accounts that the force engaged 16 p-38s (I think from the USAAAF) The Japanese claimed 3 confirmed kills and four probables. for the loss of one Army fighter, and a Val D/B.
The allies say that there were twelve P-38s engaged, and that one was damaged. The allies for their part claimed to have shot down 9 zeroes (no mention of army fighters, and "at least two Val D/B".
Seems nobody can report losses and victories correctly at all.
1. The combat reported by the Japanese does actually correspond to one reported by USAAF: 9th FS P-40's intercepted 'Zeroes' which were attacking Dobodura a/f and claimed 7 for the loss of 1 P-40. Since the Japanese say the Type 1's were lost to P-40's that's probably what happened. The Type 1 and Zero would never be reliably told apart for the duration of the war (right through 1945 Allied aircrew reports of meeting combinations of Zekes and Oscars was common whereas the situation Dec 27 '42, where both types were present in a single combat, was actually unusual). Also remember that awareness that the Type 1 even existed occurred gradually over 1942 whereas the Zero's existence was known prewar. The 'nickname' system, where the Type 1 was 'Oscar', wasn't standardized until 1943.
2. Often true, though in some air arms/periods/theaters claims were more accurate than those examples. I think the important point is just how unpredictable real opposing losses are if all you have is one side's accounts.
Without at least some examples of contemporary claim accuracy of the same air arms in same theater, to give context, you can't tell much at all from claims (including 'official victories'). Just applying some standard discount factor doesn't help.
Re: Kool Kitty and particular Finnish Buffalo's score: Let's say we're sure a combat where some Buffalo's claimed 5 Soviet fighters, corresponds to a combat we see in Soviet records where they lost 2 fighters. How do you say which of the particular Buffalo's (or pilot's) credit are verified? You could do it proportionally (I would) or you could say the particular plane's credit is 'verified' in that case because it *could* be true (as I've seen in various articles of that kind trying to check individual pilot scores v other side's records, but I don't think is really valid). What's the source of that individual plane score?
Joe
