Worst aircraft of WW2? (1 Viewer)

[Elvis]

3. Don't underestimate the rivalry between the Army and the Navy. The Navy wanted nothing to do with the Army's liquid-cooled Allisons. Instead, the Navy preferred the lighter, more reliable radials. It was hard, too, to get the Army to accept the R2800 for the P-47, because it was pushing the Allison so much.

CD

Its my understanding that the Navy liked radial engines so much because they were capable of making lots of power in a more compact and lighter-weight design, compared to a more "normal" engine lay-out.

You have to remember, each and every carrier on the high seas is really a floating "company town".

What's a "company town", you ask? Its any town that centralizes its prosperity around a single business.
I grew up near such a town. Port Gamble, Washington, which was built around the Pope Talbot lumber mill.

What you have with an aircraft carrier is an entire "town" built around a floating airport.
The whole reason for its existence is to utilize and maintain that airport and the vehicles that use it, just like any "company town".

The problem with any ship is that you have limited space in which all the "support industries" can exist, so efficient use of that space quickly becomes a #1 priority.

If my "airport" can house 50 airplanes with inline engines, and each airplane is 40 feet long, think how many more it can house if they're powered by equally powerful radial engines that cut the length of that airplane by 9 feet (Its ok, I did the math for you ).
That's roughly an extra 14 planes my airport can now house.
If a flight is 5 planes, that's two more flights (maybe one fighter and one bomber?), plus extra room for another repair / maintenance facility.
This means fewer planes down for a lesser amount of time.

Folding wings aside, I think you start to see the Navy's high regard for the radial engine powered airplane, considering how they were utilizing said planes.

I think it always had more to do with a more efficient use of space in a limited space area, than any reliability issues that may exist between air-cooled radial engines and liquid-cooled inline engines.




Elvis

 

[Elvis]

I wanted to touch on another debate that I saw happening, although I hope I'm not a day late and a dollar short on this one.

This was the debate between the TBD and the P-38.

Aside from everything else that I read (granted, I only went back a page), there's a design / structure / balance issue here that I saw no one address.

Ok, so you've got a cross, "+" (TBD), and a square "[]" ( P-38 ).

If you have to load a torpedo that's 13.5' long and about 2100 lbs. onto one of those shapes, which would it be?

At first you'd think, "oh, the square would work much better, structually, because it can spread the load over more points, more equally and it has more surface area to support that load.

...however....

If you do that on a P-38, then you have to support part of the torpedo with the horizontal stabilizer and rig some kind of quick release sling to hold it in place.
Even if you made that a four line affair, with each line attaching at the fore and aft parts of the booms, is that really practical?
...and then you have all that darn "string" hanging out from under the plane after the torpedo's dropped.
If you're going to use the plane as a fighter after dropping the torpedo, I'm sure you wouldn't want that flopping around in the wind.
So you're left with the other "logical" place to set the torpedo - under the fuselage.

...and where's the fuselage on a P-38?

My point exactly.
Seems like it would make, not only for a rather unwieldly airplane, from a balance standpoint, because the fuselange (or most of it anyway) actually sticks out ahead of the wing.
This places the torpedo (especially the heaviest part) ahead of the wing, meaning the pilot would seem to have to constantly pull back on the stick, to keep the plane on a level attitude. It would also be much better to place the load out on the wing, where the natural lift tendency would work more to your favour, but then, the torpedo would laying across the plane that then how are you supposed to deliver it.
Additionally, from a structural standpoint, placing all that weight on one "axis" (if you will) of the square would seem to make the point of using the square moot to begin with.

With the cross, you actually have more "points" from which to support the torpedo and its easier to position its weight under the central line of the airplane, making balance of the added weight less of an issue.
Thus, you actually have less plane that better supports your load, making for a more practical application of the shape.



Elvis

 

[parsifal]

something further I recently uncovered. The two squadrons emabarked on Victorious Nos 800 (with 6 Fulmars) and 825 (with 9 Swordfish) were actually land based units hastily embarked without adequate deck landing qualifications (they had received their basic carrier qualifications, but were not actually cleared at the time of emabarkation). A further squadron of land based Albacores located in the orkneys could have been embarked but the station commander (an RAF man) refused to release them.

These essentially untrained crews launched the first of their raids at midnight on the 24th May. To quote my source " All nine swordfish found their quarry and despite their lack of training and experience the squadron succeeded in scoring a single hit amidships . All nine aircrew made it back to the carrier safely, despite the appalling weather conditions".

During the preceding battle with the Hood and the Prince Of Wales, the weather had been a force 5 gale. The subsequent strikes by Ark Royal were undertaken in force 6 conditions, so my guess is this strike was delivered in some sea state of between 5 and 6....in other words attrocious.....

 

[BombTaxi]

However, the specialist training and equipment of the Stringbag crews didn't always pay off - at 1550 on 26th May 1941, 14 Stringbags from HMS Ark Royal launched 11 torpedoes at a radar contact the believed to be Bismarck. My source implies that visibility was so poor that visual verification of the contact was impossible. The contact was in fact the Town class light cruiser HMS Sheffield, which had failed to inform Ark Royal that she had been detached to shadow Bismarck. Sheer luck saved the cruiser - of the 11 torpedoes launched, two exploded on contact with the water, three as they crossed the cruisers wake, and the remainder were evaded by Sheffield combing their tracks. I'm not sure which is the scarier prospect - that the Swordfish tried to kill one of their own cruisers, or that had the target really been Bismarck, equipment malfunction might have given her a temporary stay of execution.

Source is Correli Barnett's Engage The Enemy More Closely: The Royal Navy In The Second World War, p.307.

 

[parsifal]

The premature detonations witnessed by the Sheffield did assist however. Sheffield passed on her observations to Somerville, who wqas already preparing another strike. The defective magnetic pistols that had caused this malfunction were quickly replaced with contact pistols. The change allowed the second strike to be a success

 

[JoeB]

Back to an earlier theme of the thread, re: the Buffalo, a post on another forum (by me ) giving details, I don't think are all found in published works, of the only air to air combat of US Buffalo's, VMF-221 F2A-3's and F4F-3's based at Midway intercepting the Japanese carrier strike against the island, morning of June 4 1942. 'Worst' is always subjective and relative to the conditions, the opponents etc. But this gives an idea why the Buffalo had such a bad reputation in the US naval services albeit based on just one combat, even in that one combat it seems to have done worse than its F4F stablemate when you look at the details:


VMF-221 attacked in two groups, 7 F2A-3's (plus one turned back with engine trouble) and 5 F4F-3's in the first, 12 and 1 in the second (USMC official history). Both managed to attack the Japanese formation from above. They were however, outnumbered: 36 Zeroes, 9 from each of the 4 Japanese carriers were escorting 18 Type 99 Carrier Bombers each from Akagi and Kaga, and 18 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes each from Soryu and Hiryu.

13 F2A's and 2 F4F's were shot down, 14 MIA/KIA, 1 bailed out WIA two returned WIA. Only two of the surviving a/c were immediately ready for further operations but the damaged ones were apparently all repaired as only the 15 outright losses were written off*. They were credited with 6 'Aichi 99', a 'bomber' and 4 Zeroes destroyed, an Aichi 99 'probable', and an Aichi 99, a bomber and 2 Zeroes damaged (USMC official credits list). 5 of the outright victories were credited to F2A's, 6 to F4F's (including 3 of the 4 Zeroes, so this combat didn't so negatively affect the *F4F's* record v the Zero, see actual Japanese losses below). AA of the 6th Defense Battalion claimed 'at least 10' a/c (USMC official history), and other VMF-221 details: Brewster Buffalo: VMF-221 at Midway

The tactical operations records of the 4 carrier groups survived (???????????(???) | Japan Center for Asian Historical Records(JACAR) National Archives Japan) and give details, for the Zeroes:
Akagi: claimed 11 'Grumman' including two 'probable', one Zero holed once; another piloted by PO1C T. Kikuchi 30 times, but all returned (Kikuchi fought from PH until killed in the Battle of Marianas, claimed 5 incl 2 probs v RAF Hurricanes in one combat at Ceylon, 4 incl 2 probs in this action and 3 shared credits in defense of the carriers later than morning).
Kaga: claimed 9 'Grumman', 2 'small a/c' and a floatplane; PO1C's Yukuo Tanaka and Hiromi Ito: 'war death'.
Soryu: claimed 4 'Grumman' incl. 2 prob, no damage to Zeroes though one pilot wounded (pretty clearly stated so, though not clear how, the flight also intercepted B-17's later and of course the ship was hit later)
Hiryu: claimed 18 'F4F' incl. 4 prob, no damage to Zeroes

For the attack a/c:
Kaga lost one Type 99 Carrier Bomber no cause given, just crew= 'war death'.
Two Soryu Type 97 Carrier Attack planes ditched, no cause given; they claimed 3 of 30-40 F4F-3's (specific subtype given!), including a probable.
Hiryu lost 4 Type 97's, one 'suicide crash' (outright losses were usually 'suicide crash', 'missing', or just 'war death') due to enemy a/c, one suicide crash due to AA, one ditched from enemy a/c, one ditched from AA. They also claimed 3 a/c downed.

So altogether the strike lost 2 Zeroes, a Type 99 and 6 Type 97's (some reputable sources give slightly lower total but that's what the original logs appear to say), at least some to AA.

One sided outcomes in favor of Zeroes against Allied fighters were quite common through the middle of 1942, but the land based Zero units had most of those opportunities.

*F2A-3 Bureau Nos: 1518, 1520, 1522, 1524, 1525, 1528, 1537, 1541, 1542, 1548, 1559, 1563, and 1569.
F4F-3: 3989 and 4006 (source: list of USN 'overseas' a/c losses)

Joe

 

[parsifal]

great post Joe, and clearly demonstrates why the Zero had such a fearsome reputatiohn at this time. I agree completely with your summation.....the buffalo could not undertake its mission effectively against a Zero environment

 

[Elvis]

+1, although it should be noted that of all the versions of the Buff that existed, the "-3" was the worst.
Woefully overweight and "out-of-balance", it would be interesting to have seen how an earlier "-2" or "-1" would've faired in a similar conflict.



Elvis

 

[Doughboy]

The Brewster Buffalo.Brewster Buffalo - Google Search

 

[Elvis]

Doughboy,

Are you pointing me to something in particular?
Please post the link to something besides a general Google search result.



Elvis

 

[r2800doublewasp]

I agree about the Breda 88 it was so bad they were used as target decoys on the air fields

 

[Airbone Bunny]

I also vote for the Breda 88, what a piece of junk!!!


I don't know how reliable is wikipedia, but the information on the Breda 88 is quite telling:

Two Gruppi (Groups) were equipped with the Breda Ba.88 on June 1940, operating initially from Sardinia against the main airfield of Corsica, with 12 aircraft on 16 June 1940 and three on 19 June 1940. The crews soon found that the Bredas were extremely underpowered and lacked agility, but the lack of fighter opposition resulted in them being able to perform their missions without losses.

Later, 64 aircraft became operational serving 7imo Gruppo in the North African Theatre with 19imo stationed in Sardinia, but their performance remained extremely poor resulting in the 7imo Gruppo being grounded from the end of June until September, when the Italian offensive against British forces started. Of three aircraft used, one was not even capable of taking off, and another could not turn and was forced to fly straight from their base at Castelvetrano to Sidi Rezegh.

With anti-sand filters fitted, a maximum horizontal speed of 250 km/h (155 mph) was reported in some cases and several units were even unable to take off at all. These machines were fitted with "Spezzoniera" Nardi dispensers (with 119 kg/262 lb bomblets), 1,000 rounds for the three 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns and 500 rounds for the 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Bredas. Although the weapons were not loaded to full capacity and the aircraft was lightened by eliminating the rear machine gun, observer, bombs and some fuel, lessening the weight did not substantially affect the aircraft's performance. Every attempt to reduce weight didn't achieve positive results.

Just five months after the start of the war, on 10 June 1940, Bredas were phased out as bombers and given new tasks as decoys on airfields. This was a degrading end for the new, (theoretically powerful) Breda Ba.88 [1]. This action forced the Regia Aeronautica to use totally outdated aircraft in North Africa, such as the Breda Ba.65 and Fiat C.R.32. As an additional problem, Regia Aereonautica remained without any suitable heavy fighter, a notable weakness for a major air arm

 

[Negative Creep]

The Axis Aircraft Guide I have says the Ba.88s in Libya had to abort an attack after they could not gain enough height and reached only half their claimed speed. Many that weren't decoys went straight to the scrappy apparently!

 

[vikingBerserker]

Breda 88 without a doubt.

Not sure if it's the same book, but "The Hamyln Concise Guide to Axis Aircraft pf WWII", page 28 states:

"...which represented perhaps, the most remarkable failure of any operational aircraft to see service in WWII"

 

[airboiy]

I personoly think the Fiat CR.42 Falco was a piece of cr@p. After all, biplane with a rotary engine is dead against even the P-40, which was slow but powerfully tough in its own right, no matter what.

 

[trackend]

I personoly think the Fiat CR.42 Falco was a piece of cr@p. After all, biplane with a rotary engine is dead against even the P-40, which was slow but powerfully tough in its own right, no matter what.

The Stringbag was a bi plane but did'nt do too bad with a toss up between the Bag and the SBD in the naval tonnage/kill ratio war.

 

[airboiy]

The Stringbag was a bi plane but did'nt do too bad with a toss up between the Bag and the SBD in the naval tonnage/kill ratio war.

Of course it was...it was a solid design, born out of neccesity (or so I heard).

P.S.-Was the "stringbag" was produced by the same company that produced the Spitfire or the Hurricane?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I personoly think the Fiat CR.42 Falco was a piece of cr@p. After all, biplane with a rotary engine is dead against even the P-40, which was slow but powerfully tough in its own right, no matter what.

Hmmmm.....

In certain if not many combat situations, the CR.42 could out maneuver a number of modern WW2 monoplanes INCLUDING the P-40. The CR.42 was far from a "piece of crap" as the aircraft performed as designed; the only real handicap is its design was outdated. Operationally the aircraft worked as advertised.

I suggest you study how these aircraft were flown operationally and understand how they could be flown to their maximum advantage. In essence the CR.42 was one of the best bi-plane fighters ever built abet being one of the last.

An aircraft is a "piece of crap" when it can't perform to its design specification. The Breda 88 is one at the top of the list. All major WW2 combatants had dogs of their own.

 

[airboiy]

Hmmmm.....

In certain if not many combat situations, the CR.42 could out maneuver a number of modern WW2 monoplanes INCLUDING the P-40. The CR.42 was far from a "piece of crap" as the aircraft performed as designed; the only real handicap is its design was outdated. Operationally the aircraft worked as advertised.

I suggest you study how these aircraft were flown operationally and understand how they could be flown to their maximum advantage. In essence the CR.42 was one of the best bi-plane fighters ever built abet being one of the last.

An aircraft is a "piece of crap" when it can't perform to its design specification. The Breda 88 is one at the top of the list. All major WW2 combatants had dogs of their own.

Oh...but I thought that agility was as good as nothing when your dealing with enemies who are tougher and have better armament...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Oh...but I thought that agility was as good as nothing when your dealing with enemies who are tougher and have better armament...

Tougher? In what way? Faster? Longer combat duration? More agressive? That involves pilot skill, not the aircraft. You could have all the armament in the world and if you can't hit anything, what good is it? The Finns used Buffalos and had one of the best kill ratios of the war against more modern aircraft but yet there are some on here who thing the Buffalo was one of the worse fighters of WW2. There comes a time where equipment will make a difference but pilot skill will also be a deciding factor.

Again, if the equipment doesn't work as advertised, its one thing. If you're trying to use obsolete equipment that works as advertised, that's another.

From Wiki..

"The manoeuvrability of the Falcos concerned the British. "A RAF Intelligence report in late October 1940 circulated to all pilots and their squadrons, with copies to Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and the War Cabinet, declared: 'The manoeuvrability of the CR.42s, in particular their capacity to execute an extremely tight half roll, has caused considerable surprise to other pilots and undoubtedly saved many Italian fighters from destruction.'"

and....

"On 11 and 23 November 1940, CR.42s flew two raids against Great Britain as part of the Corpo Aereo Italiano. German Luftwaffe aircraft had difficulty flying in formation with the slower biplanes. Even if slower, with open cockpit, no radio, armed with only two machine guns (a 12.7 mm/.5 in and a 7.7 mm/.303 in Breda-SAFAT) the Falcos could easily out-turn the Hurricanes and the Spitfires and proved difficult to hit. "The CR 42 turned to fight using all the aeroplane's manoeuvrability. The pilot could get on my tail in a single turn, so tightly was he able to pull round." [7] As the RAF intelligence report stated, the Falcos were able to half-roll extremely tight, when attacked. "As I fired he half rolled very tightly and I was completely unable to hold him, so rapid were his manoeuvres. I attacked two or three more and fired shorts bursts, in each case the enemy aircraft half-rolled very tightly and easily and completely out-turned me. In two cases as they came out of their rolls, they were able to turn in almost on my tail and opened fire on me." [8]

Against English monoplanes, the CR.42 were not always outclassed. "I engaged one of the British fighters from a range of between 40 to 50 metres (130–165 ft). Then I saw a Spitfire, which was chasing another CR.42, and I got in a shot at a range of 150 metres (500 ft). I realised that in a manoeuvered flight, the CR.42 could win or survive against Hurricanes and Spitfires, though we had to be careful of a sweep from behind. In my opinion, the English .303 bullet was not very effective. Italian aircraft received many hits which did no material damage and one pilot even found that his parachute pack had stopped a bullet." [9]. During the winter, the CR.42s were transferred back to the Mediterranean theatre."

and finally....

"The fighter was widely used in Africa Orientale (North Africa). "At the beginning of the war in Italian North Africa there were 127 CR.42 of 13° Gruppo (2° Stormo) in Castel Benito, 10° Gruppo e 9° (4° Stormo) in Benina, including reserve aircraft." Initially, the Falco was pitted against their contemporaries, Gloster Gladiators and Hawker Harts of the South African Air Force. The experienced Italian pilots, most of them veterans from Spanish Civil War employed the exceptional manoeuvrability of the CR.42 to "force the Hurricane pilots to adopt the tactic that Messerschmitt pilots had used against them: to avoid dogfights and to attack them with sudden dives." [10] It was "in Africa that this Italian machine performed best".[1] The Falcos proved to be able to shot down not only the Gladiators but even the Hurricanes and Spitfires. In April 1941, with delivery of the first 14 CR.42 Bombe Alari (Wing Bombs), the CR.42 started to be used mainly as a fighter-bomber, performing well due to its strong construction and radial engine. On 19 June 1942, the last 82 CR.42 came back to Italy. When production was stopped in 1942, a total of 1,784 CR.42s were built. By 1943, when Italy surrendered, only around 60 of the aircraft were in flying condition."