Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well, if you would lower it to >300 units I would nominate the Me163 Komet.
Bachem Natter
Doesn't have retracting landing gear
Thanks for sharing the article on the Buffalo. I did read it, and I agree with Admiral Beez, you won't convince me the Buffalo was the worst fighter in this category. Certainly, one could argue that the negative perception of the type was in part due to the very limited combat experience of its pilots. Both Germany and Japan had been involved in conflicts earlier and benefited significantly from that experience. Look at how Wildcat pilots improved within just 6 months from the start of the war and were able to close the gap with the Zero using the proper tactics and strengths of the Wildcat while leveraging the weaknesses of the Zero. The litmus test would be to have a head to head dogfight, with pilots of equal caliber, and no advantage going into the fight: The Buffalo vs the Zero. The Zero also benefited from production changes that continued to improve the type whereas the Buffalo was abandoned because the U.S. had so many other aircraft manufacturers producing all new types. I'm convinced there is another aircraft that is worse.Has anyone actually read the article reviewed here? Brewster Buffalo: AAHS Article
The Me163 was brilliant. I just wouldn't want to fly in one. Gotta remember the Komet was a "point" design, strictly developed for intercepting bomber formations. Period.More Me163s would be good for Allies...
So would the Bachem Natter
The Me163 was brilliant. I just wouldn't want to fly in one. Gotta remember the Komet was a "point" design, strictly developed for intercepting bomber formations. Period.
Was not aware of the negative kill ratio, nor the slow firing 20mm cannons. I've always believed the Germans had very good machine guns and cannons. Certainly they'd gotten a lot of use in their other fighter aircraft. Did they use a different cannon in the Me163?There are no denying its technological accomplishments. Unfortunately, it also has a negative kill ratio and was extremely vulnerable towards the end of each flight. IIRC it also suffered from the slow firing cannon limiting its lethality during high speed passes.
I vote for the I-16. Terrible gun platform and while fast it was hard to handle for the pilot
Nevadak, according to Wikipedia (and trust me, as one with a degree in military history Wikipedia is not the end all of sources) they are stating that the Me163 had between 9-18 allied kills against 10 losses. So, at worst the aircraft was had nearly a 1:1 kill ratio or better (depending on the source)There are no denying its technological accomplishments. Unfortunately, it also has a negative kill ratio and was extremely vulnerable towards the end of each flight. IIRC it also suffered from the slow firing cannon limiting its lethality during high speed passes.
There are no denying its technological accomplishments. Unfortunately, it also has a negative kill ratio and was extremely vulnerable towards the end of each flight. IIRC it also suffered from the slow firing cannon limiting its lethality during high speed passes.
Was not aware of the negative kill ratio, nor the slow firing 20mm cannons. I've always believed the Germans had very good machine guns and cannons. Certainly they'd gotten a lot of use in their other fighter aircraft. Did they use a different cannon in the Me163?
Nevadak, according to Wikipedia (and trust me, as one with a degree in military history Wikipedia is not the end all of sources) they are stating that the Me163 had between 9-18 allied kills against 10 losses. So, at worst the aircraft was had nearly a 1:1 kill ratio or better (depending on the source)
View attachment 583678
Perhaps the cannons were "slow" given the speed the aircraft was flying. It's all relative. If I'm not mistaken, some of the early jets actually ran into their own bullets when firing their guns. Can't recall the aircraft (F7U Cutlass?). The Me163 was definitely in the speed class with some of the early jets.The cannons were not that slow firing - 600 rd/min for one 30mm, 750-800 rd/min for one MK 151/20. Or, talk 10 rd/sec for a single MK 108; the Me 163 carried two cannons.
Here is text I copied from Wikipedia, I have read same comments from other sources. This is just the easiest to grab:
In service, the Me 163 turned out to be difficult to use against enemy aircraft. Its tremendous speed and climb rate meant a target was reached and passed in a matter of seconds. Although the Me 163 was a stable gun platform, it required excellent marksmanship to bring down an enemy bomber. The Kometwas equipped with two 30 mm (1.18 inch) MK 108 cannons which had a relatively low muzzle velocity of 540 meters per second (1,772 feet/sec), and were accurate only at short range, making it almost impossible to hit a slow moving bomber. Four or five hits were typically needed to take down a B-17.[32]
Perhaps the cannons were "slow" given the speed the aircraft was flying. It's all relative.
Perhaps the cannons were "slow" given the speed the aircraft was flying. It's all relative. If I'm not mistaken, some of the early jets actually ran into their own bullets when firing their guns. Can't recall the aircraft (F7U Cutlass?). The Me163 was definitely in the speed class with some of the early jets.