Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
AGREED!Other.
Curtiss Seamew.
View attachment 220560.
One of the few planes that was replaced by it's predecessor.
Curtiss Seagull, planes were pulled from second line units and re-issued to front line units to replace the Seamews.
View attachment 220561
Next to a Roc the Skua must have seemed like a Sea Fury.Blackburn Roc has to be a contender
Seafire, good against a kamikaze but not suitable for a carrier.
True for the first but not the last.A seafire was to fragile to be on board a carrier. A beautiful plane to fly but unsuitable for harsh carrier warfare
At the Fargo Air Museum we volenteers have had a lengthy discussion on the worst Naval Plane of WWII.
Much appreciated!
While the Buffalo is unlikely to make the list of worlds best it was nowhere near as bad as often portrayed.
In the Far East in 1942 operational difficulties (shortages of fuel, equipment, parts and so on) often degraded the ability of all aircraft in the theater.
One also has to be very careful looking at statistics. for example of the 30 Buffaloes that 60 squadron came into possession of only 6 made it back to India. This sound terrible but a further look reveals only 8 aircraft shot down by the Japanese in combat. 3 were destroyed in their crates in a bombing attack. Even Mustangs could not help that
5 others were destroyed in bombing raids in dispersal pens, 2 were destroyed while awaiting test flights after assembly.
One was blown-up/burned when repair men attempted to weld a battle damaged fuel tank without properly purging the gas fumes inside. A few assorted crashes and engine failures account for most of the rest ( several destroyed to prevent capture when airfield evacuated.)
The squadron claimed 27 Japanese aircraft destroyed during this period. Allowing for typical over-claiming it seems that in the air the British Buffaloes gave as good as they got.
Fighting to a 1 to 1 loss ratio while on the defensive is hardly guaranteeing a tragic outcome because of faults of the plane.
Edit: here is a website with a lot of information on the Buffalo. It's career in the Far East makes for interesting, if depressing reading. One wonders how well any other aircraft would have done in same circumstances. Granted a bit better in air to air but many of the losses were on the ground and a lot of the troubles were due to not enough mechanics and ground crew.
Thank you very much Shortround6 for a most informative comment. Yours truly stand corrected.
Cherio!
Sir P.