MacArther
Staff Sergeant
AGREED!
Worst Naval Plane of WWII
- Thread starter SamPZLP.7
- Start date
Blitzrockie
Airman
- 22
- Jul 19, 2016
Seafire, good against a kamikaze but not suitable for a carrier.
fubar57
General
.......but it did serve from '42 to '51 on carriers
Glider
Major
Blackburn Roc has to be a contender
Next to a Roc the Skua must have seemed like a Sea Fury.
Blitzrockie
Airman
- 22
- Jul 19, 2016
A seafire was to fragile to be on board a carrier. A beautiful plane to fly but unsuitable for harsh carrier warfare
Blitzrockie
Airman
- 22
- Jul 19, 2016
The sea gladiator should be a contestant too.
True for the first but not the last.
Blitzrockie
Airman
- 22
- Jul 19, 2016
Honestly most of the planes we mentioned are bad, not all but some in some way.
Blitzrockie
Airman
- 22
- Jul 19, 2016
Most of the planes in this conversation are bad in some way.
buffnut453
Captain
I went with the Roc. The Defiant may have been a flawed concept but at least it had a Merlin to give it some giddy-up. The poor Roc with the Perseus engine just wasn't going to perform....period. And the concept of using it in the secondary role of dive-bomber? Let's take an overweight so-called fighter, plug bombs underneath, fly it towards the enemy and then dive it at the target....and hope the thing can pull out at the end.
Now...I have to say, I like the quirky look of both the Skua and the Roc. Neither are boring aircraft and the Skua did some sterling, albeit largely forgotten work. One of these days, I'll dig out my SH kit of the Roc and paint it in the markings of Sqn Ldr D H Clarke who managed to damage a German seaplane flying a Roc with "the Saint" painted in a yellow diamond marking on the rear fuselage.
Now...I have to say, I like the quirky look of both the Skua and the Roc. Neither are boring aircraft and the Skua did some sterling, albeit largely forgotten work. One of these days, I'll dig out my SH kit of the Roc and paint it in the markings of Sqn Ldr D H Clarke who managed to damage a German seaplane flying a Roc with "the Saint" painted in a yellow diamond marking on the rear fuselage.
parsifal
Colonel
The same old chestnuts trotted out time and again.
Seafires were far from ideal as a carrier aircraft and were far too specialised to be considered effective kit for the RN in 1945.
however the fragility issue is a total furphy as any even cursory examination of its operational record would show.
It was damned in 1942-3 because it was forced to operate from CVEs in still air environments (not enough moving air under the wings) with rookie pilots and undercarriages not properly strengthened for deck operations. Results were predictably abysmal.
Fast forward to 1945, when the Seafire III was operated by the BPF alongside Corsairs and Hellcats from proper fleet carriers, in better weather conditions for the a/c. The seafires in BPF service suffered the lowest attrition rate of the three types and achieved the highest kill/loss ratio. there was roughly a 30 mile difference in the operational range characterisitics between the Grumman and the Supermarine, though this was substantially bested by the corsairs operating with the BPF .
The Seafire III was still a lash up conversion, but its potential is written in spades in that it was developed into mk 47. Corsair was also developed by the americans as well, but nobody was interested in further development of the Grumman design after the war. The RN are aither complete idiots, or, saw enough potential in the Seafire III to warrant further development postwar
Seafires were far from ideal as a carrier aircraft and were far too specialised to be considered effective kit for the RN in 1945.
however the fragility issue is a total furphy as any even cursory examination of its operational record would show.
It was damned in 1942-3 because it was forced to operate from CVEs in still air environments (not enough moving air under the wings) with rookie pilots and undercarriages not properly strengthened for deck operations. Results were predictably abysmal.
Fast forward to 1945, when the Seafire III was operated by the BPF alongside Corsairs and Hellcats from proper fleet carriers, in better weather conditions for the a/c. The seafires in BPF service suffered the lowest attrition rate of the three types and achieved the highest kill/loss ratio. there was roughly a 30 mile difference in the operational range characterisitics between the Grumman and the Supermarine, though this was substantially bested by the corsairs operating with the BPF .
The Seafire III was still a lash up conversion, but its potential is written in spades in that it was developed into mk 47. Corsair was also developed by the americans as well, but nobody was interested in further development of the Grumman design after the war. The RN are aither complete idiots, or, saw enough potential in the Seafire III to warrant further development postwar
Sir Percy Ware-Armitage
Airman
At the Fargo Air Museum we volenteers have had a lengthy discussion on the worst Naval Plane of WWII.
Much appreciated!
The Brewster F2A was a horrid plane which guaranteed a tragic outcome. The American, Aussies, Dutch, and more pilots who flew these flying coffin were indeed very brave men. We should never forget them.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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.
Annals of the Brewster Buffalo
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.
Annals of the Brewster Buffalo
Last edited:
Sir Percy Ware-Armitage
Airman
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.
buffnut453
Captain
If you want to learn more, I can strongly recommend "Bloody Shambles" (Vols 1 and 2) and "Buffaloes Over Singapore", all published by Grub Street. Second-hand copies can be obtained quite reasonably. I agree with your sentiments about the bravery of the personnel involved. The experiences of 67 Sqn in Burma mentioned by Shortround in his prior post were also witnessed in Malaya and Singapore, with many aircraft destroyed on the ground due to lack of any workable early warning system (in northern Malaya "early warning" comprised of an erk on the airfield perimeter equipped with a red flag!), aircraft abandoned due to airfields being overrun, and accidental losses due to the pilots being, for the most part, an inexperienced bunch...not a criticism of them, just a reflection that most came straight out of flying training and had never flown a monoplane with flaps and retractable undercarriage until they arrived in Singapore.
Last edited:
Sir Percy Ware-Armitage
Airman
Thanks to all for the references.
Cherio!
Sir P.
Cherio!
Sir P.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
- Poll
