Worst aircraft of WW2?

[ratdog]

ok so it was outdated as were some if not most of the foreign aircraft of wwII so what about the LWS-4 Zubr it was underpowered, prone to stress fractures, and couldn't carry even 800kg's. not to mention it was an ugly mother too.

 

[JoeB]

1. The summaries are the actual results.The 102 figure is admitted combat losses of the JAF and the JNAF 22nd Air Flotilla.

2. Trying to reconcile them with the day to day combat results is impossible, the daily records are incomplete. Many ORBs were destroyed and rewritten much later.

3. You have stated previously that you only count daily combats for which records exist for both sides, by definition that is incomplete.

4. I don't believe that using only fighter vs fighter stats is accurate either as the prime role of the defenders would be to break up the bomber formations first/ save your own a$$ later.

1. The 102 is 92 losses to all causes of the Japanese Army's 3rd Air Division and 10 known losses to all causes of the Navy's 22nd Air Flotilla. That should be fairly clear from the quote in BS p. 385, but it's clearer still if you look back to the original sources of those figures, which are volumes 24 and 34 of Senshi Sosho ('War History Series'), the Japanese official history.

2. Right, impossible to go from total losses to all causes on summary level to air combat losses on summary level, because the latter info is simply not provided on summary level. That's why we go to detailed descriptions in the *SAME BOOK* and build from the bottom up. Again your approach basically says to read two pages of a big two volume book which has the combat by combat information. That makes no sense.

3. 21 out of 28 combats reported in the book have a detailed RAF/Dutch and Japanese description. I'm not reconciling anything to the summary of total losses to all causes, simply saying here are the air combat loss results from a balanced sample of 21 combats for which we know the air combat losses of each side in each of those combat. There's no reason to believe the other 7 combats had very different results. Your approach depends on (mis)reading 'losses' as 'combat losses', then trying to guess which of the supposed 'combat losses' were 'air combat losses'. I don't see any doubt which of those methods is more valid.

4. Again, go through though 21 engagements, you have the book. When did the RAF fighters prevent Japanese bombers performing their missions or inflict serious losses on them? Seldom. Which is no surprise since there are few cases in air combat history where one side's fighters were battling enemy fighters at a ratio of 1:4+ but managed to inflict serious damage on escorted non-fighters, and this wasn't one of them. Adding their few non-fighter victories improves the Hurrican/Buffalo 1:4+ ratio a bit, but adding the more numerous Allied non-fighter victims of the Japanese fighters' ratios increases their ratio from 4+:1 by more.

There's a big hint here, the title of the book we're talking about: "Bloody Shambles"

Joe

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

ok so it was outdated as were some if not most of the foreign aircraft of wwII

You wanna try and explain that?

Lets see, while you are at it, explain in detail how each of these foreign aircraft was outdated:

Bf 109
Fw 190
Me 262
Ar 234
Ju 88
He 162
Hs 129
Do 215
Fw 200
Do 217
He 177
Ju 188
Ju 288
Ju 290
Ju 390
Me 264
Do 335
Ta 152
Ta 183
He 219
Ho 229
Ju 388
P.1101
Fi 282
Ar 232
Bv 222
Go 244
Me 163
G.55
C.202
C.205
Re.2005
Re.2001
SM.79
Aichi B7A
Mitsubishi J2M
Kawasaki Ki-61
Kawasaki Ki-100
Nakajima Ki-84
Kawanishi N1K
Il-2
LaGG-3
La-5
La-7
Mig-3
Yak-1
Yak-3
Yak-9
Lancaster
Mosquito
Meteor
Vampire
Sea Fury
Tempest
Spitfire

You might want to actually do some research.

 

[ratdog]

i meant as in they were outdated before the war you are putting planes like f-190 and meteor they were designed and built while it was going on im talking about planes that were outclassed out gunned or worse when the war started.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

ok so it was outdated as were some if not most of the foreign aircraft of wwII so what about the LWS-4 Zubr it was underpowered, prone to stress fractures, and couldn't carry even 800kg's. not to mention it was an ugly mother too.

Now that's when you have a "bad" aircraft - when it doesn't perform to its design requirement.

i meant as in they were outdated before the war you are putting planes like f-190 and meteor they were designed and built while it was going on im talking about planes that were outclassed out gunned or worse when the war started.

There were plenty of aircraft as you described - some out gunned, some out dated, but most performed to their design requirement. To call them "bad" isn't necessarily correct - even some very obsolete aircraft performed well (Buffalo in Finland, Swordfish, even the F4F) and pilot skill also had a play. When you had aircraft that were not only dated but couldn't perform to begin with (LWS-4, Breda Ba 88 ) then you have a point.

 

[kool kitty89]

i meant as in they were outdated before the war you are putting planes like f-190 and meteor they were designed and built while it was going on im talking about planes that were outclassed out gunned or worse when the war started.

I think you need to be clear by what you meant by "foreign aircraft" being outdated.

If you meant non-US aircraft that would be wrong as the best operational fighter we had was the P-40 which had performance slightly pooer than the BF 109E or Spitfire I. (similar in speed, but poorer in climb, albeit range was significantly longer) The only other fighter the USAAC that came close was the P-36 which was outdated and underarmed in its operational configuration.
Of course there's also the USN/USMC to consider with the F2A and F4F which had decent performance by contemporary standards but not superior to that of the Spitfire I of Bf 109E.


And BTW the Fw 190 was in development (and entered flight testing) prior to the start of the war.

 

[ratdog]

by prior to the war you mean what, before we entered after pearl or before Germany's Reich started to invade Poland and other European countries and Britain got involved?

 

[Venganza]

I have to agree with Ratdog on the Zubr (Bison). The Polish built some good airplanes (the P.7 and P.11 in their day, the Los, which could have turned into a very good bomber if the war hadn't ended its development) - however, the Zubr wasn't one of them. One of the priceless nuggets about the wretchedness of the Zubr is that the rectractable landing gear was so unreliable that it had to be fixed on service planes. If only looks could kill, the Zubr would've been a worldbeater. It was like the Medusa; anything looking at it should have turned to stone, it was so ugly.

 

[kool kitty89]

by prior to the war you mean what, before we entered after pearl or before Germany's Reich started to invade Poland and other European countries and Britain got involved?

By prior to the start of the war I mean the Fw 190 V1 (the first prototype) flew on 1 June 1939, 3 whole months before Germany invaded Poland.


And, technically speaking the P-40 didn't enter service until mid 1940. And the F4F didn't enter service until December of 1940. (and scored its first kill on Christmas day with the FAA)

So, technically speaking, the best frontline fighters in US service when war broke out in Europe were a handful of of F2A-1's, and the P-36.

 

[parsifal]

QUOTE=JoeB;403267]1.
2. Right, impossible to go from total losses to all causes on summary level to air combat losses on summary level, because the latter info is simply not provided on summary level. That's why we go to detailed descriptions in the *SAME BOOK* and build from the bottom up. Again your approach basically says to read two pages of a big two volume book which has the combat by combat information. That makes no sense.


Joe

Are we on the same wavelength here? I am saying that total losses to the Japanese over Malaya in December-January 1942 are not possible to be 331 (which is the figure quoted by Slaterat....he says that there were 102 losses to combat, and 331 to all causes). If this were the case, the whole air division would simply cease to exist in two months. it was not receiving regular, or significant reinforcement until after March, so to lose 331 aircraft means that the air force no longer exists by theend of January. This, in my opinion is patently untrue.

I approach the problem a bit differently (and admittedly a bit less accurately) than eityher you or slaterat. I look at the history of the units involved, and the strengths of those units at those times. The case in point are the strengths of the units sent to Burma, in late 1941. Basically 48% of the 3rd Air divs forces were detached for use over burma, This 48% had dropped from a starting strength of 172 at the beginning of the war in December, to a strength of 153 aircraft (+/- 2 or 3 aircraft) by the start of 1942. In other words, half the force had suffered only 20 losses in the time frame we are talking about.....does that accord to what you are thinking???

4. Again, go through though 21 engagements, you have the book. When did the RAF fighters prevent Japanese bombers performing their missions or inflict serious losses on them? Seldom. Which is no surprise since there are few cases in air combat history where one side's fighters were battling enemy fighters at a ratio of 1:4+ but managed to inflict serious damage on escorted non-fighters, and this wasn't one of them. Adding their few non-fighter victories improves the Hurrican/Buffalo 1:4+ ratio a bit, but adding the more numerous Allied non-fighter victims of the Japanese fighters' ratios increases their ratio from 4+:1 by more.

I am the first to challenge the size of the losses being touted here. i thik its a total crock. However, the Allies were not outnumbered 4:1 by Japanese fighters at the beginning of the camapign. There were 26 Zeroes, and 35 (or 41, the records confuse me) Oscars, and about 60-80 Nates. The Nates lacked the range to be effective, or get into the battle until later, and were mostly transferred to Burma anyway, so it was down to the Zekes and the Oscars really. The Zekes I believe were reinforced at the beginning of jauary, by about 60 Zeroes drawn from the Tainan air corps in Formosa

Even today, it irks many westerners to admit that they, the western powers, were completely outclassed by an oriental power. Contrary to popular opinion, the Japanese did not massively outnumber the Allies in the far east. They outnumbered them, but not by much. They massively outclassed them qualitatively, and were shooting down the allies at a massively lopsided rate, until well into 1942

 

[Marcel]

You wanna try and explain that?

Lets see, while you are at it, explain in detail how each of these foreign aircraft was outdated:

Bf 109
Fw 190
Me 262
Ar 234
Ju 88
He 162
Hs 129
Do 215
Fw 200
Do 217
He 177
Ju 188
Ju 288
Ju 290
Ju 390
Me 264
Do 335
Ta 152
Ta 183
He 219
Ho 229
Ju 388
P.1101
Fi 282
Ar 232
Bv 222
Go 244
Me 163
G.55
C.202
C.205
Re.2005
Re.2001
SM.79
Aichi B7A
Mitsubishi J2M
Kawasaki Ki-61
Kawasaki Ki-100
Nakajima Ki-84
Kawanishi N1K
Il-2
LaGG-3
La-5
La-7
Mig-3
Yak-1
Yak-3
Yak-9
Lancaster
Mosquito
Meteor
Vampire
Sea Fury
Tempest
Spitfire

You might want to actually do some research....

Wait a minute, what about the Fokker G.1 (I couldn't resist, you know)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

i meant as in they were outdated before the war you are putting planes like f-190 and meteor they were designed and built while it was going on im talking about planes that were outclassed out gunned or worse when the war started.

So do you think that most of the foriegn countries were sending up fighters built in the 1930s?

Come on now, do some research. Even aircraft like the Bf 109 and Spitfire were constantly evolved and made better so they were not "outdated" as you call it.

I mean did Germany only put up 5 Fw 190s and use a 5,000 Bf 109Bs throughout the whole war? Think about it...

How did the US put up more "Non Outdated" aircraft than Germany, England, Russia, etc.?

Come on, please explain...

by prior to the war you mean what, before we entered after pearl or before Germany's Reich started to invade Poland and other European countries and Britain got involved?

WW2 did not start when the US entered the war...

Again please explain how these aircraft (first flown before the war) were outdated.

Bf 109
Spitfire
Fw 190

 

[Waynos]

Give him a break guys, his line about 'foreign' aircraft being outdated got my goat too, as if the Bf 109 and Spitfire were left trailing in the technological wake of the Brewster Buffalo and Curtiss Hawk, but c'mon, he was spot on with the Zubr.

Also show him the Blackburn Roc (worst naval fighter in history?) and Botha (test pilot quote: "that thing is bloody lethal, but not to the Germans, I never want to see it again") to make him feel better about foreign planes.

btw, its a long thread, did anyone mention the Blackburn Botha? if you like bad aeroplanes, and haven't already read it, give Bill Gunston's 'Back to the Drawing Board' a go. Very entertaining, but a surprisingly high proportion of Blackburns in there. At least they made the Buccaneer as well.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

He will be alright. He started a discussion and it will be discussed.

 

[ratdog]

no ww2 did not start when we entered the war but it just feels that way seeing that im american and what i mean, yes i should be more descriptive in posts Adler, is that they were not in production and equipping squadrons when the war started and notice i said

"some if not most," not all, of them were bad. i have to admit though even if they were outclassed threefold it is mainly the pilot that is the one who flies it

 

[kool kitty89]

I'd say, comparatively speaking, US frontline fighter a/c at the outbreak of the war were about average compared to those of the European powers.

However, a couple points of merit worth mentioning: as the US aircraft were expected to be operational in a variety of environments they were already equipped with the necessary components for tropical/dessert conditions and would not suffer performance degridation due to bulky tropicalized filters etc. Additionally the range of the US fighters was considerably greater than their European counterparts. (in particular, the Brewster F2A had ther greatest range of any single engine fighter in the world at its time of introduction)


And if you want to get into aircraft in service at the time of the US's enterance into the war, by that time the Fw 190A-2 was in service.



Admittedly the Zubr was a good addition to note. (and one that I don't think has been brought up before)

So I think the list is pretty much:

-Ba.88
-Blackburn Roc
-Blackburn Botha
-LWS-6 Zubr

According to
LWS-6 Żubr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LWS-4 is incorect if you're refferring to the bomber. (the LWS-4 was a light fighter project)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

no ww2 did not start when we entered the war but it just feels that way seeing that im american and what i mean, yes i should be more descriptive in posts Adler, is that they were not in production and equipping squadrons when the war started and notice i said

I am American too. The difference is I do not let personal bias judge my quest for knowledge.

"some if not most," not all, of them were bad. i have to admit though even if they were outclassed threefold it is mainly the pilot that is the one who flies it

There you are are wrong again. The word "most" is very wrong. And this phrase is very very wrong as well:

"even if they were outclassed threefold it is mainly the pilot that is the one who flies it"

Please explain how the Fw 190, Bf 109 and Spitfire were outclassed threefold, and against what aircraft they were outclassed threefold by.

Where do you obtain your information from? You got yourself into this, now back it up.

 

[ratdog]

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.

 

[parsifal]

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

 

[JoeB]

QUOTE=JoeB;403267]1.


1. Are we on the same wavelength here?

2. I approach the problem a bit differently (and admittedly a bit less accurately) than eityher you or slaterat. I look at the history of the units involved, and the strengths of those units at those times. The case in point are the strengths of the units sent to Burma, in late 1941. Basically 48% of the 3rd Air divs forces were detached for use over burma, This 48% had dropped from a starting strength of 172 at the beginning of the war in December, to a strength of 153 aircraft (+/- 2 or 3 aircraft) by the start of 1942. In other words, half the force had suffered only 20 losses in the time frame we are talking about.....does that accord to what you are thinking???


3. I am the first to challenge the size of the losses being touted here. i thik its a total crock. However, the Allies were not outnumbered 4:1 by Japanese fighters at the beginning of the camapign.

1. Basically are, I believe
2. If all we had were total loss reports or unit strengths then your analysis method would be necessary. But, we instead we have a good numbers of cases, most combats in the period, where the authors of "Bloody Shambles" clearly report the air combat losses, only, of each side. In fact they usually go beyond that to report eg. this a/c crashlanded wheels up, etc. so we're not relying on somebody else's filtering (maybe an official total didn't count wheels up wreck as a 'loss', but I would). Given all that rich case by case data, that's the way to analyze it IMO. And the results are highly consistent, the Japanese fighter units in SEA Dec '41-Apr '42 end of campaign, were hardly every bested by RAF or Dutch units, seldom by USAAF either, although the AVG v Japanese Army fighters was a different story.
3. I wasn't clear. The *fighter v fighter kill ratio* of Japanese Army and Navy fighters v RAF/Dutch Buffalo's in those campaigns was >4:1. As you said, the initial Japanese numerical advantage was modest. In retractable undercarriage monoplane fighters (Zero and Type 1) the Japanese were outnumbered by the Allies (RAF, USAAF, KNIL throughout SEA) Dec 8 1941, though including the fixed gear Type 97 they had a moderate numerical advantage. After the war started their advantage increased in large part because of losses they inflicted on the Allies. For an extreme example, the USAAF P-40 force in the Philippines outnumbered the Zero force able to reach the PI from Formosa Dec 8, but within a few days it was heavily outnumbered itself, due to losses (on the ground mainly though was also bested in the air by the Zeroes 2~3:1) and establishment of Type 97's at based in northern Luzon. But again back to the 21 combat sample, most of those particular combats didn't feature a lot more Japanese than Allied fighters. Even if you outnumber somebody overall, formations of similar size will still often meet.

Joe