Worst Piston Monoplane Fighter of WWII

[vikingBerserker]

Well Vikingberserker, you don't mince words. Can'y say I agree with you.

OK, the Soviets had some comabt experience in Spain. Didn't seem to do them any good because they were shot out of the sky at the beginning of WWII in droves. I think maybe it is you who don't let the facts get in your way, huh? Read your history, particularly the aerial history of early WWII. The Soviet Air Force from 1939 to 1941 or a bit later were targets. Maybe if you don't think so, you are reading different books than I am.

It wasn't until about April 1941 that they flew the Yak-3 and mid-1942 when they flew the La-5. By that time, most of the older planes of the Soviet Air Force had been shot down with little or no resistance. After that time, the Soviet Union came into their own right as a modern, well-equipped Air Force and drove the Germans from their skies gradually from autumn of 1943 onward. In late 1944, a German plane could not hope to live long in a Soviet sky.

But in 1940, it was like shooting sitting ducks, and the Fins DID, even with Buffalos. I'm sure they were happy about the outcome, but better planes might have done much better.

So, hurl your insults after you read up on the early Russian Front aerial war. I think I am on solid ground here. Naturally, you disagree ... I don't mind or take offense, but you might at least be civil. Go eat some South Carolina BBQ and chill.

Actually I have been quite Civil, even after your post #67 to me from http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...falo-worst-us-fighter-fought-ww2-33111-5.html and there really is no reason to treat me like a 5 year old.

I have already read up quite a bit on Russian Air Service during WW2 as it's an area of interest for me and there was a vast difference between The Winter War and the German invasion of Russia. Question anything I say and I'm either more than happy to provide backup or admit I am wrong and there are several posts where I have thanked people for "the education". I am mainly here to learn and I place far more emphasis on facts and data than emotions.

You are obsessed with your hatred of the Buffalo - that's your opinion and that's fine. When you start making claims about why it was the worst USN fighter in WW2 that are refuted by facts and data posted by members which you then claim are wrong (but then refuse to post anything to support why they are wrong) you come across as totally ignoring facts and data, thus my post.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Gentlemen, play nice!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Breda Ba.88 hands down if you want to consider it a fighter (was actually designed as a fighter bomber). From Wiki;

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. Such attempts to reduce weight failed to achieve positive results.

By mid-November, just five months after the start of the war on 10 June 1940, most surviving Ba.88s had been phased out as bombers and stripped of useful equipment, and were scattered around operational airfields as decoys for attacking aircraft. This was a degrading end for the new, (theoretically powerful) Breda Ba.88. 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.

Similar "heavy fighter-zerstorer" projects were developed in several countries. In France, the Breguet Br.690 even with only 1,044 kW (1,400 hp) was more capable than the Ba.88. Despite some problems of reliability, the Br.690 showed a practical usefulness that the Breda never achieved. It is notable that the Ba.88 was also a contemporary of the Messerschmitt Bf 110, with no great differences in hp, weight, P/W ratio or wingload. But the difference in success was immensely in the Bf 110's favour.

Niclot was the only pilot capable of flying this machine at its best (and only in the racer version which was much lighter), while the average pilot was not capable of using it effectively. Despite its impressive world records and aggressive, slim shape, the Ba.88 was a failure and totally unable to undertake combat missions. Its structure was too heavy, wing loading too high, and the engines were quite unreliable with insufficient power. The Piaggio P.XI was quite powerful, but never reliable.

At least the Buffalo, Defiant, I-16 and even the Me 163 drew some blood and was at least able to go into combat. It's pretty bad when you can't event take off to fight and in the end just pushed off to the side to be used as a "decoy"!!!!

 

[Marcel]

@GregP another worst/best thread doesn't make sense if you don't discuss it as you'll have to make clear by what standards you consider your claim. I guess you'll have to live with that ...
@ Joe, totally agree on the Breda, just wasn't sure if we could consider it to be a fighter.
@ Juha, the Dutch D.XXI was definately a different beast from the Finnish one. While it wasn't great and quite obsolete, it wasn't bad either and had some distinct merrits to the Dutch. Unfortunately the war didn't last long enough to profit from it.

@nuuuman, I'm not knowledgable about the nightfighters. Do you know how many a/c were destroyed by the Defiant in the nightfighter role and which types were also deployed in that role at the same time?

 

[GregP]

Pretty good FlyboyJ, and true. To be used as a decoy is sinking pretty low on the totem pole of useful aircraft, as you pointed out. I read of that more than once, but did not include it becasue I remembered it as a light bomber. Looking it up again, I see it was a fighter-bomber, so it certainly qualifies.

I suppose the debates are inevitable, but I was trying to at least keep them down a bit. Someone's opinion, redered after being asked for, should perhaps be commented upon, but not attacked. If you ask for it, you should be prepared to hear it.

Juha, I may have a dim view of Soviet avation at the start of the war, but it comes from what I've read about it. It is quite likely that there were indivudual commanders out there who were solid and ran a good squadron or wing. Still, what I have read tells me that when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, most of the planes did not even get airborne without orders from Stalin to do same. Perhaps that was not the entire case, but a good many planes were shot down or destroyed on the ground due to bad leadership, poor dispersement, and the few that did get airborne were quickly dealt with.

I am open to a more positive view if it can be backed up historically, and will take an interest in that subject for awhile to see if what you are saying might be, in fact, the case.

One thing is certain, since you are from Finland, you are much closer to what was the front line that I am and, as I said above, you reached your opinion for SOME reason or reasons ... so it's worth investigating. I still wonder what the Fins might have done with, say, Spitfires or Me 109's instead of Buffalos ...

 

[Vincenzo]

probably Ba 88 easy get 1st place
atm it is my 1st place

 

[norab]

just like to point out that I was the first one to mention the Breda 88 in post #35

 

[tyrodtom]

Is there any record of a Breda 88 ever shooting down another aircraft ?

 

[rank amateur]

Nothing beats the Breda 88, but who is gonna be runner up. How about the Morane 406? Or did the Fins manage to score in that aswell

 

[Juha]

Was Breda Ba 88 a fighter? I have always thought that it was a fast bomber/attack bomber.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Nothing beats the Breda 88, but who is gonna be runner up. How about the Morane 406? Or did the Fins manage to score in that aswell

406 was slow and slow climber but very manoeuvrable. While IIRC it was the least succesful of the main fighters of the French AF, FiAF used it to the end of WWII, During Winter War in A2A 14 claimed victories/ 0 losses, During the Continuation War 121 / 18. With Fiat G.50 the most difficult fighter to maintain of all FiAF fighters, constant difficulties with the central gun. But of course both 406 and G.50 were designed for warmer climate than that in Finland, but strangely both suffered for overheating engines during summers even in Finland.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Defiants were an abject failure as a day fighter, but did some vital work and were quite successful as some of the first night fighters in RAF service, not fully withdrawn from this role until 1943, after having shot down nearly 1000 enemy aircraft 1940-43

If I were to nomnate some candidates, I would look at aircraft that could not even complete their mission specs. I would be relatively kind to aircraft that could not complete their mission specs but found an alternative role. Definat fits into this latter category.

Types that basically added nothing to the war effort of their owners, might include

Loire 43, 45, 46, French carrier borne fighters were grounded from service entry, remained on the inventory from 1934 to 1939. never flew a single combat mission.

Dewoitine 371 and 376. Shipboard and land based fighters, roughly in the same class as the P-11C. They at least flew, operationally, but were basically withdrawn after 1939 because under military conditions had a tendency to break their cranshafts in midflight

Ki60 heavy Fighter. A single seat heavy fighter, was accepted by the japanese for service, then realizewd that it had vicius take and landing characteristics. Was withdrawn before any service delivery

Breda BA27: First flown in 1935, just prior to the first flights of the hawker Hurricane and Macchi MC200had poor speed, performance and armament. Used by the Chinese, all were shot down for no loss

Breda BA65 Multi role aircraft. Was meant to be a colonial jack of all trades. Was never operated in one of its intended roles as a fighter, and had poor results as an attack fighter. sent to the desert with no sand filters, were permanently grounded within days of their deployment, unil the arrival of sand filters some months later.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Was Breda Ba 88 a fighter? I have always thought that it was a fast bomber/attack bomber.

Juha

Also advertised as a fighter bomber or heavy fighter/ destroyer like the Bf 110

 

[Marcel]

As a fighter the Fokker T.V was pretty bad, too.

 

[rank amateur]

406 was slow and slow climber but very manoeuvrable. While IIRC it was the least succesful of the main fighters of the French AF, FiAF used it to the end of WWII, During Winter War in A2A 14 claimed victories/ 0 losses, During the Continuation War 121 / 18. With Fiat G.50 the most difficult fighter to maintain of all FiAF fighters, constant difficulties with the central gun. But of course both 406 and G.50 were designed for warmer climate than that in Finland, but strangely both suffered for overheating engines during summers even in Finland.

Juha

I thought I was just asking a rethorical question

Was the 406 used by the Fins standard issue or were they somewhat improved? I remember vaguely about Moranes with Klimov engines but I can't remember them being one offs or quite common. I also remember the Swiss having an improved version with a better engine that managed 700 kph. Should have come up with a better suggestion I guess

 

[Glider]

Blackburn Roc would get my vote. Slow (even a Stuka could outrun it), underarmed, miserable climb, heavy and I don't know if they shot anything down.

 

[tyrodtom]

The Morane 406 was the 3rd most numerous fighter in FiAF, after the Me109 and Fokker XXI.
A book I have on the FiAF says in 44-45 all the remaining 406 were re-engined with the Klimov 105P, but doesn't give the number of aircraft involved.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets see...

Breda Ba.88 - For crying out loud it was used as a ground target decoy for crying out loud because it could not even do its intended mission successfully.

Trying to see if I can think of any that have not already been named off. Other than that I agree with Joe and Bills lists.

 

[Juha]

The Morane 406 was the 3rd most numerous fighter in FiAF, after the Me109 and Fokker XXI.
A book I have on the FiAF says in 44-45 all the remaining 406 were re-engined with the Klimov 105P, but doesn't give the number of aircraft involved.

Altogether 41 MS 406s/410s were converted to Mörkö-Morane (with Klimov 105P) but only 3 of these before the end of the Continuation War (4 Sept 44)

Juha

 

[rank amateur]

Blackburn Roc would get my vote. Slow (even a Stuka could outrun it), underarmed, miserable climb, heavy and I don't know if they shot anything down.

Wasn't it a Blackburn design that scored the first kill for England? BTW I've done some reading and I haven't come up with the reason why the BA 88 was such a lousy fighter. The engines were unreliable and never lived up to the specs. Makes me wonder how it would have fared with Bramo's or Jumo's. But was that it?