Worst ww2 fighter

[Marcel]

You may be able to add/delete poll choices if you go to the original post and click "edit".

Not real sure, it's been years since I did a poll - Marcel , is it possible to edit/change poll options after posting?

I don't think deleting works, apart from deleting all, i mean, but I can change certain options. Maybe the creator of the poll can do that as well?

 

[GrauGeist]

Thanks for the reply, Marcel!

I think I did a poll back in 2009, can't remember, but if the OP goes to edit the original post, they may be able to alter the poll options I think?

In otherword, add or delete poll options and then click save to update the changes?

 

[Marcel]

Thanks for the reply, Marcel!

I think I did a poll back in 2009, can't remember, but if the OP goes to edit the original post, they may be able to alter the poll options I think?

In otherword, add or delete poll options and then click save to update the changes?

Yeah, altering works, but I doubt if deleting works. I will try to see what is possible.

 

[Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV]

Yeah, altering works, but I doubt if deleting works. I will try to see what is poosible.

Thank you.

 

[CatTheCool]

Blackburn roc!

 

[swampyankee]

Blackburn roc!

The Roc is the poster child for the confluence of a bad specification and a bad design: an aircraft of the required performance may not have been possible with contemporary engines, but it certainly wasn't with the engine used. Maybe with a Centaurus (not available when the aircraft was being designed) or an R-2800. The aircraft needed at least 50% more power.

 

[nuuumannn]

Why is the Defiant there, then? Its handling has been described as being virtually viceless and pilots enjoyed flying it. For two thirds of its front line career it was the most successful RAF night fighter, bringing down more German bombers over Britain between August 1940 and August 1942 than any other type, with the highest intercept ratio, compared to the Hurricane, Blenheim, Havoc and Beaufighter.

During the Battles of France and Britain, even taking over claiming and subsequent research into account, modern authors, such as Alec Brew, who has extensively researched the aircraft and written two very good books on it agree that by August 1940 the balance sheet was still in favour of the Defiant against enemy aircraft. There were only two squadrons operating Defiants at this time. By the time it was retired in late 1942 there were 16 squadrons that partially or wholly operated it as a night fighter. That doesn't appear to be a bad run of things at all and hardly qualifies it for inclusion in the 'worst fighter' list.

 

[GrauGeist]

This "worst" list seems to reflect popular social media nonsense that keeps circulating.

I already called out one type on the list and I let the Me210 pass, since it was actually successful in the hands of the Hungarian Air Force in the mission role it was designed for.

 

[Shortround6]

Why is the Defiant there, then? Its handling has been described as being virtually viceless and pilots enjoyed flying it. For two thirds of its front line career it was the most successful RAF night fighter, bringing down more German bombers over Britain between August 1940 and August 1942 than any other type, with the highest intercept ratio, compared to the Hurricane, Blenheim, Havoc and Beaufighter.

During the Battles of France and Britain, even taking over claiming and subsequent research into account, modern authors, such as Alec Brew, who has extensively researched the aircraft and written two very good books on it agree that by August 1940 the balance sheet was still in favour of the Defiant against enemy aircraft. There were only two squadrons operating Defiants at this time. By the time it was retired in late 1942 there were 16 squadrons that partially or wholly operated it as a night fighter. That doesn't appear to be a bad run of things at all and hardly qualifies it for inclusion in the 'worst fighter' list.

I think a little clarification may be order.
Now I am guilty of leaving out words on occasion (many occasions) myself that change the meaning of sentences, but By the time it was retired in late 1942 there were 16 squadrons that partially or wholly operated it as a night fighter. paints a rather false impression. A word or two left out?? It happens.

16 squadrons had been equipped, either wholly or partially during that time period, with the Defiant but there were very few by the summer/fall of 1942. One Squadron was declared operational on Defiants in the beginning of Aug 1941 and was receiving it's first Beaufighters by the end of the month.

The claim it was The most successful RAF nightfighter for 2/3ds of it's career may need looking at too. Some of the forum members has much more access to records or books than I do but some things just don't seem to line up well. Perhaps somebody was very selective in picking the dates for that 2/3rds of it's career or something?
No 604 squadron was equipped with Blenheims at the start of the BoB, how many had radar I don't know, first Beaufighters started to trickle in Sept of 1940.
John Cunningham (and is gunner/radar operator Jimmy Rawnsley) were to claim 13 (?) German aircraft by June of 1941, another 604 pilot Roderick Chisholm was to claim 7 from March of 1941 to July of 1941. Both were flying Beaufighters. The squadron claimed 50 (or 36?) victories by mid May of 1941.

Maybe the claims didn't hold up?
But 50/36 claims by one squadron in 7-8 months makes one wonder what the rest of the Beaufighters were doing during the "career" of the Defiant that Defiant can claim to be Britain's most successful night fighter for any period of time.

 

[nuuumannn]

OK SR, I know you refuse to accept any positive comment on the Defiant, but I'll clarify for you. Slip of the keyboard, actually 14, not 16 fighter squadrons wholly or partially operated the Defiant night fighter - I did not specify when or at what time, I merely stated that compared to only two as a day fighter (actually three, but 307 Sqn became a night fighter unit shortly after receiving its Defiants in September 1940).

To go into specifics, those listed in five different books I have (Boulton Paul Defiant by Alan Hall, Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918 by Owen Thetford, The Defiant File by Alec Brew, Profile Publications Number 117 The Boulton Paul Defiant, Camouflage and Markings RAF Northern Europe 1936 - 45 Number 8 Bolton Paul Defiant): 2, 85, 96, 125, 141, 151, 153, 255, 256, 264, 307, 409, 410, 456. (2 Sqn is listed as an Army Co-operation unit, but flew night fighter operations, and 2 and 85 were the partial squadrons; 85 also operating Hurricanes).

Perhaps somebody was very selective in picking the dates for that 2/3rds of it's career or something?

No, actually. The Defiant entered service in December 1939 and was relegated to night duties at the end of August 1940, that's around 8 months, so between August 1940 (264 Sqn scored its first night fighter kill on 15 August) and July 1942, when 264 Sqn relinquished the last of its Defiants was 23 months, just under two years. That means that yes, roughly two thirds of its career as a front line fighter it served with success.

Apart from the books I've already listed, it would pay to read Allied Wings No.8 Boulton Paul Defiant by Phil Listemann and Andrew Thomas, and The Turret Fighters by Alec Brew. The former specifically deals with the Defiant's record as a day fighter with 141 and 264 Squadrons and is a statistical analysis of the first 8 months of the type's 'career'.

Thought I'd throw in this from Wiki:

"In the opening months of 1941, as the German night bombing campaign reached its peak, increasing numbers of Defiant night fighter-equipped squadrons became operational and commenced night patrols although, according to Bowyers, there were relatively few claims across many Defiant sorties. As a counterpoint, aviation author John Taylor noted that during the Blitz on London of 1940–41, the four Defiant-equipped squadrons were responsible for shooting down more enemy aircraft than any other type in the theatre"

From here, sources listed at the bottom, including those that I've listed already: Boulton Paul Defiant - Wikipedia

Now it really is bed time.

 

[nuuumannn]

John Cunningham (and is gunner/radar operator Jimmy Rawnsley) were to claim 13 (?) German aircraft by June of 1941, another 604 pilot Roderick Chisholm was to claim 7 from March of 1941 to July of 1941. Both were flying Beaufighters. The squadron claimed 50 (or 36?) victories by mid May of 1941.

Maybe the claims didn't hold up? But 50/36 claims by one squadron in 7-8 months makes one wonder what the rest of the Beaufighters were doing during the "career" of the Defiant that Defiant can claim to be Britain's most successful night fighter for any period of time.

To answer this, I've turned to a few other books within my collection, notably the following; Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces and Beaufighter Aces of World War Two, both written by the same author, Andrew Thomas and published by Osprey. Before anyone gets any scepticism over the publisher - and remember that Osprey is a publishing house, not a writer - that employs a large number of different authors to scribe its books, Andrew Thomas is very authoritative and thorough in his research, interviewing surviving pilots, checking their log books, accessing squadron ORBs and Combat Reports from the RAF Museum and The National Archive, so he's done his homework. He has also authored books on the Brewster Buffalo and P-40 in RAF service, both of which have the same attention to detail and which I also have on my shelf.

I also referred to Blenheim Squadrons By Jon Lake and The Defiant File by Alec Brew for cross checking Blenheim and Defiant information. Reading through Thomas' assessment of the Beaufighter as a night fighter, it was undoubtedly successful, Beaufighters just weren't in the majority between August 1940 and mid 1941, in which time the majority of the Defiant kills were made. There were only a handful of Beaufighter night fighter units in this time, of which 219, 600 and 604 were the most successful (50 claims by end of May 1941! Found on 604 Sqn's wiki page - putting this into perspective however, 264 (Defiant) Sqn claimed 32 kills in one day!); 219 Sqn scoring its first kill in February 1941 and scoring 20 victories by the end of May. In the same time period, as I claimed in my previous post, there were 13 Defiant night fighter squadrons and one AC unit.

From Autumn 1940 through winter 1941, Beaufighters arrived with their squadrons in ones and twos, delivery and operational readiness taking a lot longer than what was envisaged. From when the first Beau fighter units received their aircraft in the summer of 1940 until February 1941, there were only two Beaufighter night victories, both by Cunningham as pilot. Defiant night kills were three times that in the same time period. The first Beaufighter night kill was on 19 November 1940, it was the first Beaufighter AI kill and was the origin of the 'Catseyes' nickname Cunningham received. (As well as the propaganda ministry's claim that Cunningham ate lots of carrots, which gave him extraordinary eyesight at night!) Cunningham became the first Beaufighter ace, with a kill on 7 April 1941.

This meant that in this time the Defiant squadrons were doing the bulk of the night fighter work, with Blenheim, Havoc and Hurricane units also active. That winter was quite severe weather wise and intercepts, let alone kills were few and far between, with the LW taking a hiatus in night ops during the worst weather, naturally. This was a period of frustration for night fighter crews as lessons needed to be learned and their inexperience showed from failed intercepts and general lack of success, as well as a high accident rate, both at squadron level and OTU level.

By April and May however, things heated up for all the night fighter units with the Blitz in full swing. All the night fighter units did well in this period. By June 1941 Defiants were giving way to Beaufighters as numbers increased from the factories and then on, the Beaufighter became the predominant British night fighter, with a handful of Defiant units lasting until July 1942 (96, 151, 264). Havocs also remained active, and oddly, despite its lack of any success whatsoever, the Turbinlite flights remained until mid 1942, but Beaufighters dominated and the first Mosquitoes were arriving; 264 (Defiant) Sqn receiving its first Mosquito in April 1942.

I haven't finished collating information on kills, based on the reports in these books, which will take time, but from the appendicies in Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces, there were 57 fighter aces that scored kills on these three types, of these 26 were flying Defiants, 19 Blenheims and 12 Havocs. These are not indicitive of the actual number of kills, but highlight the higher proportion of Defiant aces compared to the other types in that period - the list only records aces with five or more kills, too. Unfortunately the number of Beaufighter aces in the same period cannot be collated since there is no means of comparing within the same time frame from the lists.

Suffice to say, in conclusion, there were not that many Beaufighters around until May and June 1941, when they were able to step down Defiant units for transitioning to the Beaufighter - 141 Sqn relinquished its Defiants for Beaus in April '41. The high rate of Beaufighter kills by fewer individuals in fewer units compared to the Defiant showed the inadequacies of that type in that it had no radar and was too slow. These were known issues with the type, but the slowness of the Beaufighter to enter service meant the Defiant was around for longer than anticipated and was able to rack up an impressive tally. This illustrates that the Defiant's rate of interceptions was remarkable - it did better than what was expected, given its limitations. An issue that initially plagued the Beaufighter however, was the awful handling of the NF.II Merlin engined fighter, which resulted in numerous accidents on take off and landing and ground loop incidents.

 

[Shortround6]

First, I would like to thank you for your detailed reply and the effort it took to look into this. I have "Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces" and while an interesting read , it is not the easiest book to get the results we are looking for from. I am not saying anything about the accuracy, just that the Author will bring a pilot in and out of the narrative and not refresh our memories as to what type of plane he was flying (or sometimes what squadron he was flying with at the time). When dealing with a book on one type of aircraft that may be perfectly fine. When dealing with 3 aircraft not so much. So thanks again for going through this.

The problem with the Defiant (for me anyway) is that it served for a long time. From Dec 1939 to July of 1942 in combat squadrons although for many of those months it was just one or two squadrons. That in itself it not an issue as many other aircraft had slow introductions and/or slow fade-outs from service.
The problem/s start to come with statements like "For two thirds of its front line career it was the most successful RAF night fighter, bringing down more German bombers over Britain between August 1940 and August 1942 than any other type"

Now even if we shorten it's career to Aug 1940 to Aug 1942 that is 24 months and 2/3rds of that is 16 months.
The Peak activity of the German night bombing was from Sept 1940 to May of 1941, about 8 months. During those 8 months the Defiants were not equipped with radar. They may have, in some months made up a fair number of the night fighter forces, I haven't crossed checked many references, but one says eight squadrons by May of 1941, By way of Wiki " aviation author John Taylor noted that during the Blitz on London of 1940–41, the four Defiant-equipped squadrons were responsible for shooting down more enemy aircraft than any other type in the theatre." Which rather leaves four squadrons of Defiants out of it? Or they were only formed up at the very end of the Blitz? And whether there were 14 squadons or 16 total that flew the Defiant at night in it's career is rather imaterial to the fact that many of those squadrons (at least 6?) didn't fly them until the major German effort was over and German activity was so low that many of the night fighters (even with better radar) weren't getting much in the way of intercepts.
According to one book (Night Fighters) by Bill Gunston the British night fighters claimed 96 German aircraft destroyed (?) in the first two week of May which is asmany (or more) than for the entire period of Sept to the end of April (and April was 48 claimed destroyed). He does not break it down by type and he could obviously be in error. Or Defiants could have shot down a large percentage of that 96 and held on to the claim of shooting down more in theater than any other type.
We also run into the problem of what a particular author considers the "Blitz" in regards to time period to be counted. I am sure to some people on the ground the Blitz ended when the last bomb fell. To some people it ended when the Bulk of the Luftwaffe headed for Russia in the last 1/2 of May 1941. To others it was somewhere in between.

Wike does not help with statements like " In September 1941, 264 Squadron became the first to receive the Defiant Mk II, bringing them into operational use by mid-September. The principal uses of the Mk II night fighter were 96, 151, and 262 Squadrons.[34] As the radar-equipped Defiants began filtering through to operational squadrons, the Luftwaffe's bombing campaign petered out as German forces had become heavily engaged on the Eastern Front as they embarked upon the invasion of the Soviet Union.[34]"
The Luftwaffe's bombing campaign over Britain was petering out in the last 2 weeks of May and June let alone Sept/Oct/Nov of 1941. If anything the German forces left in the west might have become more active in the fall of 1941 than in the summer due to the increasing length of the nights compared to the summer?

As far as the Beaufighter IIF goes, the first production aircraft didn't fly until March 22nd 1941 and it equipped only four squadrons by the end of 1941. So whatever it's handling problems may have been, they didn't affect it's operational performance during the "Blitz" which ended (?) in May of 1941. First Squadron to use the Beuafighter IIF was Nos 406 squadron in June 1941.
For the winter of 1940 and the Spring of 1941 it was the Beaufighter I.

Trying to filter though all the claims (not aircraft victory claims, they are a subject all their own) ) made about some of the aircraft involved is difficult because some of the timelines don't seem to line up.

And some of the pilots reports/accounts are a bit discouraging. Flg Off Stuart of No 264 squadron is supposed to have scored the only victory by No 264 squadron while using a radar equipped Defiant which was done on April 18th 1942. This was supposed to be No 264's 97th victory and the 15th at night.
Defiant aces can also be confusing as Flg Off Michael Young shows, 7 kills and 6 shared he scored a kill on an intruder mission on May 9th 1941 but it was his only night victory.

And we comments like "In September 1941 (125)the squadron moved to RAF Fairwood Common and became fully operational, with the Defiant proving to be a more than effective night fighter. By March 1942, 125 Squadron started converting to the twin-engined Beaufighter."
Now when going through "Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces" you can find several references to No 125 squadron but no mention of either a kill or claim by the squadron during the time it had Defiants. With no kills (or indeed no mention of even an unsuccessful intercept) how does that turn into the Defiant being a more than effective night fighter?

Not kills/claims recorded in that "Aces" book or the author of the Wiki article embellishing things or?????

The Length of service is a problem in that one can take selective slices out of the length of service and make a claim that might be statistically true for for that slice of time but if you extend that "slice" a few month it is no longer true. The Defiant did give good service in getting large numbers of aircrew and ground crew up to speed in a difficult time and did so with a minimum of accidents and needless problems.

 

[nuuumannn]

SR, I'm hoping to go into this in more depth later; busy right now, but a few things to begin with. Firstly, good to see you are reading about the Defiant rather than just dismissing it out of hand without doing so. Secondly, the statement I made was generic for the purposes of this thread, which, of course does warrant further explanation, but thus far you haven't really provided anything other than questioning time periods of service to really discredit it. At least I have provided supporting evidence from quantifiable sources.

Thirdly, yes, the time period I specify refers to the fact that it was in service for that entire time, regardless of what or how many squadrons used it at any given time within that period; it makes no difference whether x squadron used it for only a month and then changed to Beaufighters, or y squadron used it for the majority of that period. The Defiant was still a front line night fighter from August 1940 through until July 1942. It was in service in that role with as many as 13 night fighter squadrons at differing times throughout that period. That is indisputable. Fourthly, questioning the premise based on the activities of only one squadron's use of the type is never going to provide you with any real measureable result. Fifthly, the Beaufighter II was mentioned not to prove its inferiority within the time frame specified, but to emphasise that it was a handful for young pilots at OTU level, which did not endear it to its operators. There was a high rate of incidents and accidents resulting from its handling.

The Defiant did give good service in getting large numbers of aircrew and ground crew up to speed in a difficult time and did so with a minimum of accidents and needless problems.

This is quite possibly the nicest thing you've ever written about the Defiant! I will take umbrage with the fact that there were minimum accidents, though. The accident rate was high. The unit that operated more Defiants than any other was 60 OTU, which was formed at Leconfield for a few months only, but was at East Fortune for over a year and there was a high accident rate there, although not caused by any defect within the type, but because of pilots' inexperience in operating at night. Nevertheless, the Defiant had docile handling, described by test pilot Eric 'Winkle' Brown as being almost viceless, which would have been much help for struggling tyro pilots.

 

[GrauGeist]

Grant, I recall reading ages ago that the performance of the Defiant without it's turret was compared to the Hurricane, but a "delight to fly".

I don't recall if this was in regards to the P.82 or the P.94 airframe.

Like I mentioned, this was a long time ago (longer than I'm willing to admit), are you aware of this comment and who may have made it?

 

[CORSNING]

The prototype Defiant K8310 was delivered to A&AEE early December 1937.
The turret was not installed. A metal fairing took its place. Its maximum speed
was 320 mph. It was fitted with the 4-gun turret in February 1938 and its speed
fell to 303 mph. With this 17 mph. different taken into consideration the Mk.II
would have had a maximum speed of 330 mph. or possibly more.

I can not remember where I read that one historian felt that the Defiant
would have been a much more valuable fighter if the turret had been
removed and the standard 8 x 0.303 in armament in the wings was
fitted. Another note is that the Mk.II Defiant was capable of reaching
a maximum climb rate of 2,780 fpm at 10,700 ft. I believe without the
turret, extra crew and ammunition the Mk.II would have been over
3,000 fpm.

No folks, in no way shape or form can this aircraft be considered the
worst fighter of WW2.
, Jeff

 

[Shortround6]

I have done a quick and dirty tally of the kills (and damaged/probables) as listed in "Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces" and will fully agree that it is only one book, and some other source/s may be more complete and authoritative.

With that said it appears that as a nightfighter The Defiant scored 1 kill in Aug 1940, 1 kill in Sep, 1 in Oct, 0 (?) in Nov and 1 in Dec 1940. Jan saw 1 kill, 2 in Feb,
7 (?) in March followed by 16 (?) in April and 18-19 (?) in May of 1941.

Bill Gunstons book claims night fighters shot down 48 German aircraft in April ( Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces says 58 aircraft but includes aircraft shot down by British intruders over European airfields). I included aircraft claimed as damaged or probably in the above numbers as sometimes confirmation came days later than the claims (or were sometimes confirmed for the book by German records). I may have miscounted by I am trying to give the Defiant the benefit of the doubt.
Blenheims appear to have shot down about 20-21 Aircraft at night from July of 1940 through Dec and then either none or 1-2 in the spring of 1941?

Havocs appear to have shot down 7-8 aircraft from Sept through Dec of 1940 and 8-9 from Jan through May of 1941. Often on intruder sorties.

I have no numbers for Hurricanes or Beaufighters or anything else the British may have put up at some point over that Fall/Winter/Spring.

Over the winter the number of kills of the whole Nightfighter force was so low as to make nonsense of trying to pick a "best" fighter type. Oct may have seen 2-4 kills as did Dec. November saw no kills by the 3 types in the book, Beaufighters and Hurricanes might also have zero kills for Nov? March sees the start of significant numbers of kills/claims.
The Defiant scored about 1/3 of the kills in March and April and perhaps 25% (or less) in May. Once the Bulk of the Luftwaffe heads for Russia the number of kills per month drops back to single digits (or close to it) per month over the summer.

The Defiant may not have been the worst fighter of WW II but the claims that it was Britain's best nightfighter for any period of time over a few months seems to be an exaggeration. The British also shot themselves in the foot by modifying about 20 Bostons to tow the long arial mine (LAM) and also started converting Havocs to the turbinelite scheme rather than use them as conventional intruders (no radar) or nightfighters and thus deprived themselves of several squadrons worth of useful nightfighters during the spring of 1941.

It would appear that the bulk of the victories claimed by night fighter forces in March, April and May of 1941 were done by Beaufighters and Hurricanes.

 

[nuuumannn]

Oh gawd. Since you can't present figures for the Beaufighter or Hurricane, your claim they were more successful rings a bit hollow, because, what exactly are you basing that on? I do agree the Beaufighters was definitely more successful than the Defiant overall, but I was specifying a particular time period. Nevertheless, the Defiant was a success in the role, and I guess we can agree on that. It might be an exaggeration, but it might not, too, since you can't provide definitive figures and that a couple of noted authors have made the statement. it's also good to see you examining the evidence, rather than making not entirely accurate and ill-considered sweeping statements about the Defiant, though, SR.

So, moving on, I would place the Me 163 Komet as one of the worst fighters of WW2. From Wikipedia: "Combat operations continued from May 1944 to spring 1945. During this time, there were nine confirmed kills with 14 Me 163s lost."
Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - Wikipedia

Let's not forget its volatile habit of spontaneously exploding under certain conditions, which surely makes it the most unpredictably dangerous combat aircraft of WW2.

 

[GrauGeist]

A good candidate for the "worst" might be the Bachem Ba349.

36 were built out of the 200 ordered (Luftwaffe: 50, SS: 150).
None were ever used in combat but still managed to kill one person - a test pilot (Lothar Seiber).

 

[taly01]

Staying on your list I voted Messerschmitt 210. Not ready for series production and cost Herr Messerschmitt control of his company. Although it quickly evolved into the much better Me410 that however ended up been a plane without anything role it was really useful for. The practicality of the daylight "Zerstroyer" twin was over by 1941.

 

[GrauGeist]

Staying on your list I voted Messerschmitt 210. Not ready for series production and cost Herr Messerschmitt control of his company. Although it quickly evolved into the much better Me410 that however ended up been a plane without anything role it was really useful for. The practicality of the daylight "Zerstroyer" twin was over by 1941.

However, the Hungarian Air Force did use the Me210 with great success.