Worst Piston Monoplane Fighter of WWII

141 Sqn, which didn't use Hunter's tactics, was massacred by Bf109s which led to the Defiant being removed from the day fighter role.

Click to expand...

The incident was referred to as "The slaughter of the innocents", which is largely why the Daffy has the reputation it does, but it is worth picking holes in the legend if only to gain some perspective. Firstly, the action on 19 July 1940 was 141's combat debut against Bf 109s, most of its aircrew were inexperienced in combat, i.e. no combat experience.

Secondly, there was at least, according to the official count, some thirty Bf 109s that attacked the nine Defiants - even nine Spits would have had a hard time of it.

Thirdly, the number of aircraft lost by 141 Sqn in one action (seven, although one got back to base damaged and was repaired), although sad and tragic, was not unique during the Battle of Britain. Shortly after the action, Chinese Whispers spread through Fighter Command Squadrons, with the number of Daffys lost and the time taken getting higher and shorter with every telling. It's no wonder that Dowding was cautious toward the type.

Fourthly, had 141's CO not disregarded the type and taken Sqn Ldr Hunter's advice, perhaps the sqn would have been better prepared for combat - as is the general understanding of the action. It's interesting to note that the Lufbery Circle tactics adopted by 264 Sqn were also used by Bf 110s when numbers of them encountered British fighters.

Fifthly, regarding the Defiants selection for night fighting duties only, that didn't happen for another six weeks after the 141 Sqn losses, despite the gloomy reports of the action. 141 was sent north to Prestwick for rest, but 264 continued in action subesquently, although it was sent north the day after the 141 debacle as a result of the shock of the action, but was sent to Kirton-in-Lindsey three days later. The squadron then went to Manston on 24th August, two days after claiming three Ju 88s shot down and a fourth damaged, which, right on the front line, sealed the type's career as a day fighter. It was on that day that Sqn Ld Hunter went MIA. Thay day however, nine enemy aircraft were shot down by 264 Sqn for the loss of four Defiants.

By the end of August, 264 Sqn claimed 19 E/A for the loss of 11 of their own - not an unfavourable kill-to-loss ratio by any squadron during the Battle. 264 Sqn airmen had nothing to be ashamed of and they had complete confidence in their mount as a fighting machine. As I recounted earlier, the losses of Defiants between May and end of August 1940 was only 32.

Not brilliant, but not bad in the scheme of things.

It should be remembered also that in its initial deployment in france, it did very well. It claimed over 64 victories in the BOF, 37 in one day alone

It suffered pretty badly as a day fighter after that, but enjoyed considerable success as a night fighter until 1942. It was graduaklly replaced by the beafighter, but in 1940-41 Beafighters were a pretty rare beast, and it was the Definat that shouldered most of the burden of the edefence until May 1941. And in the last three months of the LW Blitz, their losses became very heavy.....144 aircraft shot down in may 1941 over Britiain alone.

"After suffering heavy defeats against the enemy the Boulton Paul Defiant was relegated to nightfighter duties, this was where it was to find its greatest success. Still with 264 squadron Frederick Hughes flying the Defiant and later the Bristol Beaufughter was to become the fourth top RAF night fighting ace with 18.5 victories.
Initially Frederick Hughes was with 26 Squadron, but soon joined 264 Squadron flying Defiants in the Battle of Britain aged twenty one. He partnered Sergeant Fred Gash who was his rear gunner and together they made a deadly team.
On August the 26th 1940 they claimed two Dornier Do 17s but the Defiants proved to be too vulnerable to face Messerschmitt Bf 109s, 264 Squadron was converted to night operations. In December 1940 Hughes and Gash claimed their first nightfighting victory. The next two kills came in the spring of 1941. After that Hughes became one of few Defiant aces, but contrary to his colleagues he did not stop scoring after the withdrawal of the Defiant.
In June 1942 Hughes was posted to 125 Squadron as a flight commander. There he scored one day victory while flying the Merlin engined Beaufighter Mk. II and later another one day victory while flying a Beaufighter Mk. VI F. Both kills were accompanied by radar operator Pilot Officer Lawrence Dixon.
In late 1942 Hughes and Dixon were posted to Africa to 600 Squadron. There they scored nine more victories before they returned home. In July 1944, after six months of staff duties, Hughes joined 604 Squadron as its new CO. Now flying Mosquitoes he managed to score two more kills over North Western Europe".

Interesting info Parsifal. The Daffy's first confirmed NF victory was a Ju 88 by Sgts G.Laurence and W.Chard of 141 Sqn on the night of 17/18 September 1940, although 264 Sqn's PO Whitley and Sgt Turner shot at a He 111 in July 1940 whilst on a NF sortie out of Kirton-in-Lindsey, but the '111 escaped.

37 in one day alone

Click to expand...

264 Sqn's "Day of Glory" - 29 May 1940, unfortunately subject to myth as well. Post war research show that the RAF shot down only 16 E/A on that day, with 264 Sqn scoring "...less than ten..." of those, according to an article I once read.
Still worth celebrating by the squadron. This was also the action in which the official RAF historian wrote that the Germans mistook the Defiants for Hurricanes and got a nasty surprise when the Daffy's gunners opened up. What the RAF scribe didn't mention is that on that day it was the Defiants attacking the Bf 109s, not the other way round.

I second Nuuumannn
Mason and others say that in reality 264 shot down 12-16 LW planes in May-June 40.

Juha

nuuumannn said:

The first combat kills of the Supermarine Spitfire! Brilliant start!

Almost a good as the Germans, who with one He 111 managed to do something the British couldn't in the first few months of the war, sink two German destroyers in one sortie!

Click to expand...

The Spitfire's first kills were Hurricanes; the Spitfire's last kills were...Spitfires. The last Spitfire victory came on January 7, 1949, when two Israeli Spitfire 9s of 101 Squadron shot down three RAF Spitfire 18s of 208 Squadron in an incident that still has not been satisfactorily explained.

If Gerg is still looking for us to give our own lists, five I'd nominate would be:

Blackburn Roc
Lavochkin LaGG-3
PZL P.7 (which pains me to say, because it was such an advanced aircraft when it was introduced, but long past its sell-by date in 1939)
Bloch 152
Curtiss-Wright CW-21

I don't count the Breda Ba.88 as a fighter, more a ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft.

Why the Lagg-3 and the Bloch 152?

To quote from Yefim Gordon's Soviet Air Power in World War Two, "It can be confidently stated that no other aircraft type has ever been so greatly affected by problems with the initiation of production as the creation of Lavochkin, Gorbunov, and Gudkov...In the early war period no other combat aircraft had problems as serious as those of the LaGG-3."

Gordon lists a litany of problems, some of which were solved, and some of which never were - a tendency to stall unexpectedly, hydraulic locks on the undercarriages that would malfunction and retract the undercarriage while it was sitting in a hanger overnight, cockpit hoods that would come off in flight, severe vibration at diving speeds of more than 600 km/h, and weight gain that severely impacted its speed and climb rate. The workmanship, including the glue used to bond the airframe, was poor. The designers did their best to fix the problems; over 2,200 changes were made in the production drawings in February 1941 alone, but much of the time the production lines couldn't stop to make changes, and things remained as they were. The LaGG-3 had some good points - it was manueverable, and the wood airframe withstood enemy damage well - but it was slow and lacked climbing and diving performance compared with the German fighters it opposed. It was massively unpopular with its pilots, due in part to the shoddy workmanship often seen.

As for the Bloch 152, well, what can you say about a fighter that wouldn't even take off when they first tried to fly it (the Bloch 150)?

The Bloch 151 was rejected as unsuitable for operational use, and the Bloch 152 was accepted partly because it was clocked at 329 mph during acceptance trials, thus meeting its specification. Later it came out that faulty measuring equipment had been used, and it couldn't top 300 mph. It was a handful to fly - French pilots called it "avion a quatre mains", or "the four-handed aircraft", because they felt they needed that many hands to fly it. It had by far the worst record of the four major French single-seat fighters flown in the Battle of France. It probably should never have gone into production - other, better fighters were available to France - and the time and effort spent trying to fix its faults could have been best spent elsewhere.

Hello Baclightning
I tended to disagree, while early GPW era LaGG-3s were bad fighters those later lightened versions with automatic slats were significantly better.

MB 152 wasn't even worst French fighter CR. 714 was clearly worse. the MB.150 proto was a fiasco at first but MB. 152 was a passable fighter with good firepower. I'd say a fairly ugly and fairly bad fighter but not the worst around in 1940.

Juha

I think I would agree that both these aircraft had their problems, but it still seems rather harsh to name them as the worst fighters of WWII. They flew as contemporaries to the CR32 the PZL-11, the Gloster Gladiator, the Dewoitine D-371 and other lacklustre designs. They at least flew close to spec in the finish.

baclightning said:

I don't count the Breda Ba.88 as a fighter, more a ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft.

Click to expand...

That's not what it was entirely designed for.

"The Breda Ba.88 was designed to fulfill a 1936 requirement by the Regia Aeronautica for a heavy fighter bomber capable of a maximum speed of 530 km/h (329 mph)"

It was designed to be a heavy figher capable of performing ground attack.

i've looked more for the classification of Ba 88. The Regia Aeronautica competition was for one "Caccia assaltatore" (this is translatable llike attack fighter) but afaik in all the war the Assaltatori units never were used as fighter ever as ground attack unit, i think is like today the Tornado (IDS) are Cacciabombardieri (fighter bombers) but they are not thinked for air to air combat (just can use sidewinder for selfdefence)-

At the start of the war the Ba 88 were the alone plane of Combattimento branch (the Assaltatori units stay with old planes single engined or light observation twin engined) it's true after failed as attack plane in NA the Ba 88 was give to CAP patrol mission but they totalized only 38 hours (w/o actions, and a 32 planes unit) before to grounded

Vincenzo said:

i've looked more for the classification of Ba 88. The Regia Aeronautica competition was for one "Caccia assaltatore" (this is translatable llike attack fighter) but afaik in all the war the Assaltatori units never were used as fighter ever as ground attack unit, i think is like today the Tornado (IDS) are Cacciabombardieri (fighter bombers) but they are not thinked for air to air combat (just can use sidewinder for selfdefence)

Click to expand...

Found the same thing. Most of the time it seemed to be used for dropping bombs (when it was able to get into the air) but I think it had the capability to perform air-to-air providing it could get out of its own way!

The problem with listing the LaGG 3 as a 'worst' fighter, is that it evolved into the La5, La5FN, La7 (basically with just an engine change) , which were arguably the Soviet Unions 'best' fighters. The potential inherant in Lavochkins design would preclude it from the 'worst' category despite it's teething problems.
Also, a quote from Guther Rall "Yak and LaGG, very good...."

FLYBOYJ said:

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

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, when you say "advertised" do you mean by the Italian Air Force? And did they seriously view the plane as being a fighter despite saying they did?

The F-111 for example despite being classified as a fighter, I can't think of a single case where it was intentionally used as a fighter.

Zipper730 said:

Just to be clear, when you say "advertised" do you mean by the Italian Air Force? And did they seriously view the plane as being a fighter despite saying they did?

Click to expand...

By the Italian AF. They really touted this aircraft as being something or a multi role aircraft, but at the end of the day it was a royal pig, one of the worse combat aircraft of WW2 and was barely able to get out of it's own way.

Zipper730 said:

The F-111 for example despite being classified as a fighter, I can't think of a single case where it was intentionally used as a fighter.

Click to expand...

The F-111 was basically a multi role fighter bomber that did have a limited air to air capability.

Anyone ever come across this Italian twin?
IMAM Ro.57 - Wikipedia
So far my pick is:-
Blackburn Roc - hopelessly slow
Blackburn Firebrand - a whale is a shark designed to Admiralty specifications
Caudron C 714 - no one wanted it
Vultee Vanguard - even the ROC left them in their packing cases
Definitely not the P-64 because of its small numbers, and the Aussie Boomerang its cousin found a niche use in an army co-operation role alongside the Kiwi Corsair.
No to the Defiant because of its usefulness as night fighter during the Blitz.
Maybe the CW 21 Demon. Did it actually shoot anything down? Like the Boomerang of course but that was kept in production.
Bloch Mb 150, yes, 151 possibly, 152 no.
Me 210's problems were sorted out.
Republic Lancer was used for recce, so no.
I-16, no. The later versions were quite effective.
LaGG-3. The most shot down fighter by the Luftwaffe.

Kevin J said:

Anyone ever come across this Italian twin?
IMAM Ro.57 - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Ro.57 was a dive-bomber.
Roc seems to fit the bill here.

tomo pauk said:

Ro.57 was a dive-bomber.
Roc seems to fit the bill here.

Click to expand...

Designed as a fighter dive-bomber, Ro 58 was improved version with Db 601's, two seats, longer fuselage and 15% bigger wings. It makes one wonder just how easily the Whirlwind could have been improved.
IMAM Ro.58 - Wikipedia

The Fisher P-75