The Worst Fighter of World War 2?

[parzifal]

I am still very new here but I have enjoyed reading the threads and saw the chance to contribute (I hope).

I am intersted in people's thoughts on single seater fighter aircraft used operationally in World war 2 that were complete failures as fighters.

My nomination is the Brewster Buffalo

The Brewster Buffalo was flown by the Royal Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force and Royal New Zealand Air Force during the doomed Malaya campagian from December 1941 - January 1942.

The Royal Australian Air Force Museum in Point Cook Victoria Australia, holds some fascinating books and one covers the campagian, including this description of the Buffalo in combat.

All three Squadrons from the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF determined "Wright Cyclone G-105A motors were not built for front line active service combat conditions. Another serious handicap to the pilots was the inability to climb beyond 18,000 ft without having to resort to the manual fuel pump. Fuel pressure delivered by the engine pump dropped off to such an extent that the engine would fail to sufficent power. Being distracted by the need to manually pump fuel was a great disadvantage in the heat of battle"

"With combat experience it was decided that drastic measures were necessary to improve the performance of the Buffalo. The radio mast was removed, and all excess weight such as Verey tubes, parcahute flare bins and cockpit heaters were taken out. Drag was reduced by removing gun blisters, pilot's relief venturi tubes and rear vision mirrors. The two 0.5 inch machine guns were replaced by two 0.303 inch guns and the mountings, port openings and ammunition bins were modifed to suit. Fuel load was reduced by 45 gallons, and the ammmunition load reduced. Apart from much cleaner lines resulting, the weight of the aircraft was reduced by 1000 pounds. This produced a remarkable difference in performance. The Brewster Buffalo could now even loop."

The Australians and New Zealanders tend to be laconic in descibing things, the US Navy during the Battle of Midway did not beat about the bush.

"It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots put for combat in an F2A-3 should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground"

The quotes in italics is from an excellent RAAF book " Defeat into Victory - the History of 453 Squadron RAAF" published 1993

The tradgey that must never be forgotten in what ever plane is selected, is that young men had to go to do battle in such machines and usually died. The epitaph for the Buffalos in Malaya was simply "They could only match the enemy in courage"

[simon]

Does it have to be a single seater? Well I think the Breda Ba65, which flew in both single and two seater versions has to be a contender. In all fairness a brave attempt at building the kind of all round strike/light bomber/fighter type of aircraft that populates most modern air forces, just at a time when it wasn't really possible to do so without building a plane that was poor in every catagory.

If it can be any fighter, definitely another Breda product, the Ba88 Lince or Lynx. A fighter-bomber aircraft that was so poor at everything most of the production run was used as runway decoys to attract the bombs away from the real planes!

Other contenders for worst overall fighter, as a dayfighter definitely the Boulton Paul Defiant although it redeemed itself later as an effective nightfighter, so that may be enough to save it. Possibly the Me210, although the Me410 which was developed from it was a successful bomber destroyer.

In defence of the Buffalo, at the time it flew in the far east the pilots were facing possibly the best enemy airmen of the war, almost any aircraft would have fared badly, also you fail to mention that the Finns used the type effectively against the Soviets, so it did have at least one success story... ;)

[GregP]

Bredas figure into the worst of the worst.

Maybe the Bloch 151 for ineffectiveness? How about the Caudron CR.714? Or any other French product?

How about the PZL P.48? Can't even find a good picture of it!

Or the Lockheed Ligntining supplied to the British with engines that turned in the same direction? BAD decision ...

What about the P-39? Can't be the worst since the Soviet Union LOVED them.

Maybe the Blackburn Skua? Ugly beast in any case, and slow ...

[GregP]

I have it.

The absolute worst has to the the Bachem Natter ... 1 flight, 1 fatality, and everyone else was too scared to try it. Also, the pilot, if he DID live, had to jettison the airplane to land!

Some idiot actually thought this thing up and THEY BUILT IT!

Too much cpatured French wine, if you ask me ... but you didn't ... so, let's hear all the horror stories about planes WORSE than the Natter ... like maybe 1 flight and 10 casualties?

Remember, a fighter aircraft.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

I have it.

The absolute worst has to the the Bachem Natter ... 1 flight, 1 fatality, and everyone else was too scared to try it. Also, the pilot, if he DID live, had to jettison the airplane to land!

Some idiot actually thought this thing up and THEY BUILT IT!

Too much cpatured French wine, if you ask me ... but you didn't ... so, let's hear all the horror stories about planes WORSE than the Natter ... like maybe 1 flight and 10 casualties?

Remember, a fighter aircraft.




You have a real problem with point-defence and rapid-climbing interceptors, don't you? First the Me-163, now this.

Just ribbing you. For all the wonderful claims of 'world's first VTOL fighter', I think this one might be it. On the other hand, let's go with something that made squadron service as the 'worst fighter' as the poor old Natter is a bit too easy.

[Ricky]

Well, you could point to the Polikarpov Il-16, which was seriously outclassed by 1941, but picking on obsolete aircraft is a bit unfair...

The Skua was an indifferent fighter, but the ROC was worse - a Skua with a 4-gun turret.

But my contenders (just to be controversial) are:

Me163 Komet - anything that can explode when landing is surely a contender

Me262 - engine troubles meant that this potentially great interceptor only achieved any success with an elite unit - Jg 44

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Me163 Komet - anything that can explode when landing is surely a contender

Grrrrr... You leave my Komets alone.

I don't actually recall any incident in my files where.... oh wait a minute, yes I do. Major Bummer, that, but it didn't happen as often as people are led to believe.

[simon]

Poor Corsarius, just can't accept anyone picking on his beloved Komet! Mind with his love for aircraft that explode without warning on the ground on a sunny day, when landing or just flying around, I really wouldn't fly with any airline he recommends! ;)

To back up Ricky though, the Komets did lose more aircraft in operations (Excluding non-combat accidents and random explosions!), than kills claimed, a poor record for any interceptor fighter...

In defence of the Me262, it wasn't just engine troubles, considering the lack of just about everything an aircraft like that would have needed to be successful (Skilled pilots, mechanics, adequate fuel, ammunition, spares and concrete runways which were all in short supply), I don't think it did too badly. One minor point, it was JV (Jagd Verbande) 44, not JG (Jagd Geschwader), the distinction is in the fact that JV-44 was separate from the Luftwaffe chain of command, necessary after Galland had a professional difference of opinion Goering. :D

Oh yeah, and it was the Polikarpov I-16, not Il-16, the pre-war Soviet aircraft were designated by type, "I" was a fighter, "SB" was a Bomber and "U" was an army co-operation or observation type. Roughly around the outbreak of war in the west the system was changed, although not back dated, so that aircraft were designated according to the design bureau responsible for it, for example an "Il" prefix would have been designed by Ilyushin, "Yak" would have been designed by the Yakovlev, and so on.

[Corsarius]

I stood for Istrebel, which meant 'fighter'. I don't speak Russian so I couldn't say what the others stand for.

[simon]

I never knew what it stood for, well you learn something new every day!

In an attempt to spur things along a bit and to detract from critiscism of the Me163, I honestly think some of the truly worst fighters of the war, and without any real merit at all were the Japanese Floatplane-Fighters, like the Nakajima A6M2-N "Rufe".

The principle here is deeply flawed from the outset. You take a reasonably capable, manouevrable fighter aircraft, strap a great big float below it and expect it still to perform as a fighter. OK you get a little bit more range out of them, but as a fighter it's really hopeless. The things were out-fought, out-run and out-manouevred by Douglas Dauntless dive-bombers!!!

The Komet did have some redeeming features, the Rufe really had none.

I'd like to pick up on something Ricky mentioned, regarding the I-16 Rata, he commented that it seemed unfair to pick on an aircraft that's obsolete, and I think that's very true. The Rata for its time was a truly excellent fighter, considering it flew at a time the RAF had Bristol Bulldogs and Hawker Furies and the Luftwaffe mainly Arado Ar68s, the I-16 could outfly and outgun virtually everything else everywhere in the world.

So this brings me to an thought. When does the fact that an aircraft is obsolete make it a bad aircraft? My own opinion is that if an aircraft is obsolete before, immediately or shortly after its service entry then that is a poor aircraft (Example, the Buffalo!), if however it has (as in the case of the Rata) a good service life but is just a past its best when it reaches actual combat (Excluding the Spanish Civil War, where the Rata did quite well), that doesn't make it a bad plane, just an old one. I think the distinction is important, but then I am something of a pedant. :)

[GregP]

Hhhmmmmmm ... fighter, squadron service, in substantial numbers.

That eliminates the Payen Pa.112C1 and the Roussel R.30 since they never made it into squadron service.

Gotta' go with the Breda Ba.88 Lince. 1st flight 1936. Broke several records in 1937! Then they fitted it out for combat, avery BAD move to make since it was a disaster of a combat aircraft. The weight of combat equipment crippled the performance and they were withdrawn after their first combat. Weak engines and too heavy. Survivors were scrapped or USED AS DECOYS. 155 examples built.

Think about that. Built 155 of them (probably qualifies as squadron service) and used 'em as DECOYS after trying them in combat just once! Is that a record? Fly 'em once and then set them out as DECOYS to be attacked to divert the enemy from the real targets!

That's almost as bad as the statisticians who declared Dewey as the runaway winner in his U.S. Presidential election against Harry Truman.

The Ba.88 ranks right up there with the joy buzzer and the dribble glass as wonderful, meaningful inventions. Potentially harmless, but they SUCK, like the Ba.88 Lince.

Can you say "ineffective?" Can you say "pointless?"

In a sky full of Leopards, Tigers, and Lions, the Ba.88 Lince was a 3-toed Sloth. Maybe a wildebeast. Or a Lemming.

Just a broken cookie in the breadbox of combat aircraft.

[simon]

I'd say mouldy crumb in the corner of the biscuit tin myself!

Seriously though: Breda Ba88 "Lince", good concept, badly executed.

[GregP]

Good concept, badly executed? That's quite politically worded considering the Ba.88's combat record ... sort of like saying "up the unsanitary tributary without proper means of propulsion" instead of "up shit creek without a paddle."

Wonderfully worded, Simon. Truly you have painted the Ba.88 in a better light than in which it otherwise might be seen. I salute your vocabulistic skills.

[simon]

Ooooh, I feel another Corsarius style "Schnelbomber" argument coming here. No the Ba88 was a good idea, in that the Regia Aeronautica wanted a good allrounder, it was just a good 10 or 20 years ahead of their capabilties to produce such a craft (Help, please Taglia!). Given Jet engines it may have been the Ba262 "Sturmvogel" (Alright, I'm clutching at straws here!).

[Corsarius]

I think Simon is equally hung up on the old 'Sturmvogel'

[GregP]

Actually, I don't have anything against Italian WWII aircraft. I nominate the Reggiane Re.2005, the Fiat G.55, and the Macchi C.202/205 as three of the best of the war, even though they had little effect and were not made in any decent numbers.

The Ta-152 (how many were made? 10 or 12?) had little effect, too, and everyone thinks it is wonderful. Maybe so, but so were the three mentioned above together with a few other notably outstanding aircraft like the Martin-Baker MB-5 and the Commonwealth Ca-15.

Think of a P-38 with Merlins and a decent cockpit heater.

How about a Hellcat with no dihedral?

The Ba.88? Naaawwwwwwww ...

As designed it was a record setter.

But, as designed, it had no military potential whatsoever. After they added the armament, it was a dog of the first magnitude ... and was turned into a DECOY or SCRAPPED.

The designer must have cut off his little finger in frustration, much as the designer of the Fairey Battle must have done once he discovered his mount's combat potential.

The Fairey Battle LOOKED OK but was a real loser. The Gloster Galdiator LOOKED like a real loser, but contributed to the war effort in a very positive manner. Heck, you might say it sank the Bismark if you were generous about it. Without the Gladiator, the Bismark would have made port.

All the neat airplanes of WWII CAN'T possibly be great, and the Ba.88 wasn't in any way, shape, or form. In that respect at least, the Ba.88 has a LOT of company.

The question is, "Is the Ba.88 at the bottom of the heap?" I say, "Yes!" Your own answer is for you to concoct but, if you elect to elevate the Ba.88 to a position higher than last, why?

Show me a plane (other than prototype-only planes like the Natter)with a worse combat record. They might be out there, but I can't find 'em. Truly a lowlife aircraft if there ever was one.

[Corsarius]

Sorry my replies have lacked their usual details lately: I've been at work and it's busy.

But, GregP, do you mean the Swordfish or the Gladiator?

The Swordfish pretty much sank the bismarck.

The Gladiator (all three of them) defended Malta: Faith, Hope, and Charity.

[GregP]

Corsarius, Thanks for pointing out my memory "gap" there. Yes, I meant the Swordfish ... I just spelled it wrong :-)

I feel a bit sheepish just now ... and will forego the witty replies for awhile since I am bound to be the subject of same.

OK, you can say it. I don't know a Swordfish from a Gladiator. Actually I do, but a few too many beers might have had something to do with it ...

[simon]

Well, GregP, you asked for a plane with an equally bad record to the Ba88, and I think it has already been mentioned, but for what it's worth I think an equally bad aircraft was the Blackburn Roc.

Essentially a Blackburn Skua with a Boulton Paul Defiant 4 gun turret which degraded the type's already dismal performance, it was a carrier fighter that was too poor to ever actually serve on an aircraft carrier. The highlight of the type's career was three that were used to defend a British port during the Battle of Britain (It was either Southampton or Portsmouth, I can't remember which). They were parked with the cockpit empty, the turret manned and used as emergency static anti-aircraft positions. A true low for the Fleet Air Arm! I've not read of a single successful combat operation performed by the type, nor of any kills creditted to it, although I have to admit my knowledge of the Fleet Air Arm's history is patchy to say the least.

[Calhoun]

Rocs did fly in combat on a number of occasions, but had no successes to speak of. In one notable incident, a Roc attacked a German He-59 air/sea rescue aircraft over the channel, but apparently did not shoot the old biplane down. Another Roc was shot down by German AAA as it straffed enemy postions along the coast of France. There was even a rumored attack of a German bomber over the UK during the Battle of Britain. Allegedly, the Roc landed with minor damage from the bomber's gunners.

I always felt the poor old Buffalo got a raw deal with regards to its reputation. In Malaya and the NEI, far more Buffalos were lost to accidents than to the Japanese. The combination of poorly trained pilots and maintainers, lack of spares, and primitive conditions gave the Buffalos a high attrition rate. When they did get into the air, they were outnumbered greatly, and flying against combat veteran Japanese fighter pilots who'd cut their teeth against the Russians and Chinese.

Under those conditions, there wasn't an operational fighter plane in the world in early/mid 1942 that could have fared any better than the Buffalos. The Hurricanes that made it to Singapore were shot down as quickly as were the Buffalos, and many of the Hurricanes were flown by BoB veterans. Even the Spitfires that initially went to fight the Japanese did poorly due to being so outnumbered and their pilots trying to dogfight with Zeros and Oscars.

My vote for the worst fighter of WWII goes to the Hawker Typhoon, especially the early models. The engines frequently caught fire, and the aircraft had the annoying tendency of failing structually in flight. Its performance at altitude was far below what was projected, and it's rate of climb could have been measured with a pocket calender! Of course, it did go on to become one of the most effective ground attack aircraft of the war, but in the air-to-air role, it was a disaster.

[tenmmike]

how can this p.o.s. be overlooked? http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/BARC/defiant.html ya had to be in front of your target to shoot it down!....

[Grendel]

quote:Originally posted by parzifal

My nomination is the Brewster Buffalo



I kind of disagree.

Brewster B-239 model also holds some interesting records.

One Brewster holds the world record of most shot down enemy aircraft with one airframe: 44.

The highest scoring Brewster ace Hans Wind scored 33 victories with Brewster B-239.

The Dutch pilots achieved 1:1 ratio in aerial kills versus the Japasene.

The 44 Brewster B-239s bought by Finland in 1939-1940 shot down almost 500 Soviet and German aircraft in total. Their final victory ratio 1941-1944 was 32:1. 32 shot down Soviet/German planes vs lost planes.

Quote from the 97 kill aces Ilmari Juutilainen:

"Our Brewsters, contemporary fighters, were fat hustlers, just like bees. They had speed, agility and good weaponry too. In addition to that they also had protective amor behind the pilot's back and under his seat [installed by Finnish mechanics]. We were happy to take them anywhere to take on any opponent."

Most of the bad reputation of the Brewster stems from Battle of Midway, when a Brewster squadron staffed with green, inexperienced pilots was butchered in hands of veteran Japanese Zeros. Same would have happened with whatever other type.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Grendel
The Dutch pilots achieved 1:1 ratio in aerial kills versus the Dutch.


I think we have JUST found the major problem....

no, seriously, most of these kills were done by the Finns. Get anyone else to fly the P.O.S and see what happens. The RAAF got rid of the thing nearly as soon as it got it, and we were DESPERATE for fighters.

[GregP]

My information says the Buffalo was wonderfully aerobatic and quite a "pilot's airplane," but was too slow and was also underarmed.

The Romanians scored well with another aircraft that had the same characteristics, the IAR -80 / 81's scored well against the Germans.

I can well believe that with good pilots and added armor, they scored well. After all, look what the Flying Tigers adid with the P-40 .. .and IT was outclassed by the oponents, too.

Still, the Buffalo has a reputation for being a loser of a fighter ... and it well might be due to inexperienced pilots at Midway as claimed.

All we can really say is that the Finns flew what is perceived to be an outclassed fighter and did very well with it, speaking volumes for their pilots and ground crews.

As for the Defiant, I am STILL wondering why they didn't install at least another 4 guns in the wings ... you don't suppose the designers were working for the Germans, do you?

I think of the Defiant as "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ...", a flawed concept, badly executed, that was NEVER corrected with forward-firing armament for some inexplicable reason.

It's like sending a Knight into battle without a helmet ... just plain stupid.

[tenmmike]

the fins removed most of the armor from their Brewster Buffalo's for manuverability ..i also read the plane was a nice to fly aircraft the finns loved it....how come that fair little plane is getting picked on ..look at that thing i posted a link to just a few posts above.....

[tenmmike]

oops sorry greg i didnt see your thing on the defiant untill after posting.......im awaiting stormbirds answere on our visit

[Corsarius]

I was reading an article someone posted on another thread regarding the Buffalo. It was described by a pilot as being a 'perfect fighter pilot's plane' until extras were added onto it, increasing weight etc. That was when it began to kind-of suck. Extra armour, radios, additional weapons, self-sealing fuel tanks... The same sort of things that the Zero lacked and that made it such a good aircraft. It was when weight was added that the zero began to suck.

In a funny way, the Buffalo did do badly against the Zero. In competetive trials flown secretly in Brisbane during the war with a captured Zero, it was found that the Zero outclassed the buffalo in all areas. The P-40 was able to defeat it by diving on it and then using zoom to climb away, and the Capstain (spitfire) fighter was superior in all ways to it (except range)

So yes, the Buffalo (even lightened with only 1/2 fuel and ammunition) blew Large Meaty Chunks against the likes of the Spit, the P-40 (allison), the Zero, and even the Boomerang.

[Calhoun]

Corsarius:

The first Spitfires to fight against Zeros and Oscars were Mk 5s. Most had tropical filters still fitted, and were inferior across the board to the Japanese fighters. The first Spits able to go against the Japanese with anything approaching parity were Mk 9s. By the time they arrived, however, the overall quality of Japanese fighter pilots was starting to ebb due to attrition. Also, by that time the "never dogfight a Jap" lesson had been learned. The Spitfire pilots fought the Japanese much the same way other did, even a Spitfire could not out maneuver a Zero.

Have you read Cull's "Buffaloes Over Singapore?" Most enlightening, explains all the problems (poorly trained pilots, lack of spares, defective ammo etc.) that made the Buffalos ineffective when flown by the RAF/RAAF. The NEI Buffaloes did much better, since they had a better infrastructure for the a/c and had pilots who were experienced on type. Same thing for the Finns, by the way.

As for the Defiant, like the Buffalo it is a victim of nay-sayers who have little understanding of the a/c's history. First, few realize the Defiant was never meant to fly against fighters. In concept, it was supposed to be a bomber-destroyer, and as such should be considered a comtemporary of the Bf-110, not the Bf-109. When employed in that role, it did well.

Even when fighting Bf-109s, the initial Defiant squadrons did well because they developed tactics assuring mutual support. (By the way, the oft repeated story that the Germans mistook Defiants as Hurricanes is not true.) The Defiant got its black eye only after the CO of a newly formed sqaudron refused the offer of learning proven combat tactics from experienced squadrons. This officer insisted on flying the Defiant like one would a single seat fighter, and the results were disasterous.

For those who'd like to learn the whole story of the Defiant, I recommend Alex Brew's book, "The Defiant File" published by Air Britain.

[GregP]

I believe the defiant would have acquitted itself nicely if it were equipped with forward firing armament. At least the enemy would have had to honor the threat if it pointed itself at him!

As it was, they only had to worry about the Defiant it it was in FRONT of them!

Unbelievable ...

[Corsarius]

I kind-of liked Defiants. They were the ultimate version of 1920-30s thinking that I guess started with the Bristol Fighter back in WWI.

A two-man fighter, able to project firepower to the otherwise 'vulnerable' areas of the aircraft. IE: above and behind.

Australia even used what was effectively the Defiant's predecessor, which was the Hawker Demon. We even used them in WWII, but they did not see action.

So the Defiant comes from a fair sort of lineage, but did not hold well against cannon-armed fighters. It certainly did better than expected when sent against night raiders and as a bomber-destroyer.

One could almost suggest that it predated the Japanese invention of what the Germans called 'schraege Musik'

[tenmmike]

i did more research on the defiant ..i am still convinced its a good looking aircraft but still a pos ..it is in my opinion not at all comparable to the 110 .... may be a night fighter it might pass but only barley.. and it is still very slow... and extremly poor logic was used in its general design philosophy..in my opinion....... buffs whould eat them up therfore the buff must be better ..my humble opinion

[tenmmike]

although i dont like the aircraft here is a somewhat favorabe accout of it ......
Aircraft of the World
Main Variants History Operators Specifications Production More Info.
Back to Aircraft Types Index Page
Boulton Paul Defiant


Boulton Paul Defiant F. Mk I
(photo, Boulton Paul Association)
Main Role: Two-seat day fighter or night fighter
Country of Origin: United Kingdom Current Status: Out of Service, Out of Production


Often maligned as a failure, the Boulton Paul Defiant found a successful niche as a night-fighter during the German 'Blitz' on London, scoring a significant number of combat kills before being relegated to training and support roles.
The Boulton Paul company first became interested in powered gun turrets when it pioneered the use of a pneumatic-powered enclosed nose turret in the Boulton Paul Overstand biplane bomber. The company subsequently brought the rights to a French-designed electro-hydraulic powered turret and soon became the UK leaders in turret design.
On 26 June 1935, the Air Ministry issued Specification F.9/35 calling for a two-seat fighter with all its armament concentrated in a turret. Peformance was to be similar to that of the single-seat monoplane fighters then being developed. It was envisioned that the new fighter would be employed as destroyer of unescorted enemy bomber formations. Protected from the slipstream, the turret gunner would be able to bring much greater firepower to bear on rapidly moving targets than was previously possible.
Boulton Paul tendered the P.82 design, featuring an 4-gun turret developed from the French design, and was rewarded with an order for two prototypes. On 28 April 1937, the name Defiant was allocated to the project and an initial production order for 87 aircraft was placed before the prototype had even flown.
The first prototype (K8310) made its maiden flight on 11 August 1937, with the turret position faired over as the first turret wasn't ready for installation. Without the drag of the turret, the aircraft was found to handle extremely well in the air. With these promising results, a further production contract was awarded in Febrary 1938. Performance with the turret fitted was somewhat disappointing, but still considered worthwhile. In May 1938, the second prototype (K8620)was ready for testing. This aircraft was much closer to the final production standard. Development and testing of the aircraft and turret combination proved somewhat protracted, and delivery to the Royal Air Force was delayed until December 1939, when No.264 Squadron received its first aircraft. Numerous engine and hydraulic problems were not finally resolved until early in 1940.
The A. Mk IID turret used on the Defiant was a self-contained 'drop-in' unit with its own hydraulic pump. To reduce drag two aerodynamic fairings, one fore and one aft of the turret, were included in the design. Rectraction of these fairings by means of pneumatic jacks allowed the turret to traverse. Too allow the turret a clear field of fire, two rather large radio masts were located on the underside of the fuselage. These masts retracted when the undercarriage was extended. The overall aircraft was of modern stressed skin construction, designed in easy-to-build sub-assemblies which greatly facilitated the rapid build-up in production rates.
Previously, a single-seat fighter unit, 264 Sqn spent some time working out the new tactics required by the type. Good co-ordination was required between the pilot and gunner in order to get into the best position to open fire on a target. A second day fighter unit, 141 Sqn, began converting to the Defiant in April 1940. The Defiant undertook it first operational sortie on 12 May 1940, when 264 Sqn flew a patrol over the beaches of Dunkirk. A Junkers Ju 88 was claimed by the squadron. However, the unit suffered its first losses the following day, when five out of six aircraft were shot down by Bf 109s in large dogfight. The Defiant was never designed to dogfight with single-seat fighters and losses soon mounted. By the end of May 1940, it had become very clear that the Defiant was no match for the Bf 109 and the two squadrons were moved to airfields away from the south coast of England. At the same time, interception of unescorted German bombers often proved successful, with several kills being made.
In the summer of 1940, flight testing commenced of an improved version of the Defiant fitted with a Merlin XX engine featuring a two-speed supercharger (prototype N1550). The resultant changes included a longer engine cowling, deeper radiator and increased fuel capacity. Performance increases were small. Nevertheless, the new version was ordered into production as the Defiant Mk II.
The limitations on the Defiant's manoeuvrability forced its eventual withdrawal from daylight operations in late August 1940. 264 and 141 squadrons became dedicated night-fighter units. The Defiant night fighters were painted all-black and fitted with flame damper exhausts. Success came quickly, with the first night kill being claimed on 15 September 1940. From November 1940, an increasing number of new night fighter squadrons were formed on the Defiant. Units operating the Defiant shot down more enemy aircraft than any other night-fighter during the German 'Blitz' on London in the winter of 1940-41. Initial operations were conducted without the benefit of radar. From the Autumn of 1941, AI Mk 4 radar units began to be fitted to the Defiant. An arrow type aerial was fitted on each wing, and a small H-shaped aerial added on the starboard fuselage side, just in front of the cockpit. The transmitter unit was located behind the turret, with the receiver and display screen in the pilot's cockpit. The addition of radar brought a change in designation for the Mk I to N.F. Mk IA, but the designation of the Mk II version did not change. By February 1942, the Defiant was obviously too slow to catch the latest German night intruders and the night fighter units completely re-equipped in the period April-September 1942.
From March 1942 many of the remaining aircraft were transferred to Air-Sea Rescue (ASR) units. The aircraft was modified to carry a M-type dinghy in a cylindrical container under each wing. Both Mk I and Mk II versions were used for this task, but the Defiant proved less useful than originally anticipated, and all examples were replaced in this role during the first half of 1943.
A specialised Target-tug version of the Defiant was first ordered in July 1941, designated the T.T. Mk I. The new version was based on the Mk II airframe, with the Merlin XX engine, but with space formerly occupied by the turret now taken up with an observers station with a small canopy. A fairing under the rear fuselage housed the target banner, and a large windmill was fitted on the starboard fuselage side to power the winch. The first prototype Target-tug aircraft (DR863) was delivered on 31 January 1942. 150 Mk II aircraft were also converted to Target-tugs, under the designation T.T. Mk I. A similar conversion of the Mk I was carried out by Reid & Sigrist from early 1942 under the designated T.T. Mk III. Nearly all the Target-tugs were withdrawn from service during 1945, although one example lasted until 27 February 1947.
Another, less publicised, task of the Defiant was in the radar jamming role. 515 Squadron operated at least nine Defiants fitted with 'Moonshine' or 'Mandrel' radar jamming equipment in support of USAAF 8th Air Force daylight bombing raids on Germany between May 1942 and July 1943, before replacing them with larger aircraft types.
One Defiant T.T. Mk I (DR944) was seconded to Martin Baker on 11 December 1944. It was fitted with the first ever Martin Baker ejection seat in the observers station, and commenced dummy ejection trials on 11 May 1945. Another Defiant (AA292) was later used for similar trials by the Air Ministry until March 1947. Martin Baker retained their Defiant until 31 May 1948.
The lack of forward firing armament presented a great handicap to a fighter which lacked the manoeuvrability to match single-seat fighters in combat, but as an interim night-fighter the Defiant met with a great deal of success.

[Calhoun]

Tenmmike:

The Bf-110 to Defiant analogy I made was not meant to compare the performance capabilities of the respective aircraft. I was speaking of role both were designed to undetake, that of bomber-destroyer, as well as how both aircraft struggled when facing modern single-seat fighters.

If anything, it was the concept of the bomber-destroyer type of a/c that was at fault, not the aircraft that were designed to meet that requirement. Between the wars, men like Mitchell and de Seversky espoused the idea of long-range strategic bombers that would be able to fight their way through enemy air defenses without the need for escort fighters. (See de Seversky's book "Victory Through Airpower.")
It was this type of bomber that air defense planners put forth requirements that evoked the likes of the Defiant and Bf-110. Even the USAAC had its FM-1 "Airacuda," a huge, heavily armed (two 37mm cannon, plus MGs) twin-engined a/c that would have been far less effective against single seat fighters than either the Bf-110 or the Defiant.

[Romantic Technofreak]

I also like the imagination of a Defiant with forward firing guns and the turret providing strong backside cover. From a naive point of view, it looks logical if you can return fire having an enemy on your tail, although the reality sadly showed the contrary.
Although, there are still designs that show at least the illusion of a solution. First, the already mentioned Arsenal Delanne. And second, do you know this one here?

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/sbolkhov.html

Fast, straight and able to fire on both sides. Only the wing load seems to be too heavy (come on, create a bigger wing!).

Calhoun, sorry to correct you but as much as I know the Bf 110 was designed as escort fighter, a duty it could not fulfill against single-engined opposing fighters.

In my eyes, the Airacuda would have been much more useful as tank destroyer than as fighter, thus becoming a rival of the Henschel Hs 129. And as you all know, I like the thought of hypothetic airplanes, I have a nice variation of the Airacuda. Germany called her bombers "Kampfflugzeuge", which means "fighting aircraft", when they in fact were the contrary. So, how can you imagine a "Kampfflugzeug"?
1. Take the Airacuda
2. Drop the cockpit, reduce the fuselage diameter
3. Put a third engine with puller prop in the place of the cockpit
4. Provide heavy armor
5. Provide some backshooting device
6. Done!
(Don´t worry about the cockpit, even the real Airacuda had additional steering gear in the side nacelles!)

[Grendel]

quote:Originally posted by tenmmike

the fins removed most of the armor from their Brewster Buffalo's for manuverability ..i also read the plane was a nice to fly aircraft the finns loved it....how come that fair little plane is getting picked on ..look at that thing i posted a link to just a few posts above.....


Incorrect. If anything the Brewster was up-armored, as better pilot armour and protection for the fuel tanks were added.

Also the single small caliber machine gun was exchanged for a fourth 12.4 Colt machine gun, which gave the Brewsters a pretty good firepower for its usual targets. IL-2s were tough and required very good aiming.

[Grendel]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

quote:Originally posted by Grendel
The Dutch pilots achieved 1:1 ratio in aerial kills versus the Dutch.


I think we have JUST found the major problem....



Doh! Sorry! Against the Japanese of course, with their B-339 models.

[tenmmike]

Grendel you are right about the armour here is from another friend.....All U.S. Navy equipment was taken out: Carrier equipment, guns, sights and instruments. Also engines were changed to R-1820 G-5.

Finns improved the plane by modifying hydraulic system, sealing the exhausts and strenghtening aileron operating rod. Tail wheel was changed to a bigger one which was steerable and lockable. Pilot seat armor was added, carburetor filter was added and Revi 3c sights (or their copies) were installed. Armament was 4 Finnish or US. .50cal MG's for most of the planes for most of the war.............Fuel tanks were not self sealing. Wood-winged Brewster had self-sealing fuselage tank but wing tanks were not sealed as it was not possible because of the structure of the wing.

De-navalizing was indeed done in the US, improvements were done in the course of time in Finland.


Empty(lbs) Basic(lbs)
F2A-1 3785 5055.2
F2A-2 4149.8 5418.5
F2A-3 4765.3 6518.6

B-339B 4019.7 5436.9
B-339E 4268.2 6112.2
B-339D 4282.0 6094.5

B-239 3744.1 -

B-339B was intended eport variant for Belgium. B-339E was one for the Brits (the Buffalo) and 339D was dutch 2nd order.

B-239 did not have self-sealing tanks, the wings were too closely integrated into wing structure. The latter version F2A-3 was equipped with fuselage tank and wing tanks were not always used. F2A-3 was, however catastrophic performance trade-off. B-239 had a reputation of being very robust in service, .....................FINNISH BREWSTERS
As explained above, the US Navy decision to switch production from the F2A-1 to the F2A-2 in order to take advantage of the performance improvement associated with the more powerful engine, released 43 F2A-1s already under construction for immediate sale to the Finnish government. Also included was a 44th airframe, believed to have been the XF2A-2 prototype, and the equivalent of four airframes in spares. Known to the Finnish Air Force (Ilmavoimet) as Brewster and to the manufacturer as B-239s, they were re-engined for export with the 950 hp R-1820-G5 version of the Cyclone driving a Hamilton Standard propeller and the gross weight was 5,820 lb (2,640 kg).”

From the Appendices of Osprey’s Aircraft of the Aces #23, “Finnish Aces of World War 2,” there is a chart on page 89 headed “Speed and Climbing Performance of Finnish Fighters.” The model B-239 used for the test was BW-366 on 20/5/40, flown in loaded condition, with full fuel tanks, gun magazines and no external stores.

Top Speed in kmh: 0m, 428; 1000m, 439; 2000m, 448; 3000m, 443; 4000m, 461; 5000m, 480; 6000m, 469.

Climb To: 1000m, 1 m 27 s; 2000m, 2 m 30 s; 3000m, 4 m 12 s; 4000m , 5 m 35 s; 5000m, 7 m 10 s; 6000m, 9 m 15 s.

Engine: 950 hp R-1820

Armament: Fuselage, 1 x 12.7mm, 1 x 7.7mm. Wing, 2 x 12.7mm.

[simon]

I'm far from the greatest fan of the Defiant, but as already stated it was a highly successful night-fighter, especially when equipped with radar. As for forward firepower, that the Defiant lacked this was a myth, the Defiant's turret could fire forward when elevated sufficiently to clear the propellor disc, in any case more guns and ammunition would only have slowed it down and degraded it's already dismal manouevrability even more. Let's be honest it wasn't the guns that killed the Defiant, it was it's abysmal performance, created as a bomber interceptor it could barely keep up with the likes of the Ju88, let alone catch and destroy them!

As for the Defiant being intended to take on the same role as the Bf110, that's simply not true. The Bf110 was designed as a Zerstorer, which does not mean it was intended to be a bomber destroyer. The intended role of the Bf110 was to escort friendly bombers using it's superior range, firepower, speed and climbing abilities to sweep enemy single engine, single seat fighters from before it allowing the Luftwaffe's bombers to bomb at will, whilst at the same time being able to carry a respectable enough bomb load to harry enemy ground forces when called upon to do so. And in this respect facing the obsolenscent aircraft and armies of the Dutch, Belgians, and French, it was successful, against the Spitfires and Hurricanes of the RAF C. summer 1940, it was disastrous.

The Bf110 was not designed for the likes of Douhet, Trenchard or Mitchell's nightmare strategic bomber scenarios either, but for the sort of Blitzkreig war the Luftwaffe fought through Poland and Western Europe.

Later it became a bomber destroyer, but it was not designed as one.

The truth is though no nation really went to war with any worthwhile long range fighters, the Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf109, Yaks, I-16s, P-40s, MS.406, Maachi MC.200, Fiat G.50, all lacked enough range to escort bombers on long raids. The thinking was simple, if the bomber was always going to get through why bother protecting them with escort fighters? All you could do was hope your own interceptors could shoot down enemy bombers at a faster rate than the enemy interceptors could shoot down friendly bombers. It wasn't untill the Battle of Britain that this thinking really got challenged. Even the Airacuda was I understood designed more as a ground attack and multi-role plane than a any real pretence of being a bomber destroyer.

[GregP]

I have a problem with naming the Buffalo or the Defiant the worst fighter of the war since they both got INTO BATTLE and fought the enemy, if unspectacularly.

There are numerous French (and other ...) fighters that never saw combat. Some never flew, but were built.

The Bloch series of fighters was abysmal. They MIGHT have corrected this in the Bloch MB 157, but the prototype was taken to Germany for comparative tests of the supercharged Gnome-Rhone radial and it otherwise never flew. Scrapped for the engine! That is a useless fighter.

The Arsenal VG series of lightweight fighters was also stillborn when it comes to combat, as were the Caudrons that the French were so enamored of in the 1930s.

The Arsenal-Delanne 10 tail shooter was built and flew, but never saw combat.

In this respect, the French weren't alone. Many nations had fighters on the drawing boards or almost in production when the Nazis came knocking at the door. Romania, Bulgaria, Chechoslovakia, Finland, Sewden, Spain, Belgium ... to name some ... wre ALL involved in fighters right about the time the Germans invaded. Were THEY better than the Buffalo or Defiant?

Does a fighter that was built, but never fought or never even flew come off better than one that was built in numbers and DID fight?

Maybe in your book, but not in mine. I'd choose one of the "built but never flew in combat" variety as the worst. At minimum, it consumd resources while giving no benefit back to the building country.

[Corsarius]

Okay. "built but never fought". I'll pay that.

Ladies and Gentlemen. I give you the Silvansky IS. Worst. Fighter. Ever.

Quoted from "The complete book of fighters" by William Green and Gordon Swanborough.

"In 1938, A V Sylvansky, assisted by Yu B Sturtsel and V D Yarovitsky, established and OKB with the express purpose ov designing and building a single seat frontal fighter to a requirement formulated by the UV-VS. Referred to as the IS (Istrebitel Silvansky), the fighter was a low wing cantilever monoplane of mixed construction powered by a turmansky M-88 14-cylinder two row radial engine with a two speed supercharger and rated at 1100hp. Owing to a "miscalculation", the inward retracting mainwheel legs were of longer stroke than could be accommodated by the bays into which they were intended to retract. Once shortened, the legs provided insufficient ground clearance for the propeller, and as a temporary expedient and in order not to delay flight testing, this was allegedly cropped by four inches (10cm). The prototype SI was transferred to the LII at moscow in the summer of 1939. There it was found that, with it's cropped propeller, the aircraft required and inordinately long take-off run. Nonetheless, one attempt was apparently made to fly the aircraft, the test pilot succeeding in attaining an altitude of some 1000 feet (300m) at which the aircraft proved virtually unmanageable. He managed to effect a landing, pronounced the IS was unflyable, and the prototype was scrapped, Silvansky's team being dispersed. No data relating to the IS seem to have survived"

For which all russian pilots can breathe a little easier.

[GregP]

Corsarius, you have a unique gift for picking out the best and the worst of WWII!

You are the King of the "Worst Of ..." threads, and you are probably right. It was a truly bad airplane, even by pre-WWII Russian standards (recall they also built the Kalinin Ka-7).

Perhaps the designer was drinking Vodka when he measured the landing gear, or maybe the measuring rod was bent when the gear bays were fitted (probably also a Vodka-Induced Error, or VIE).

It seems to me all they really had to do was to fire up the IS and attempt takeoff. When the pilot raised the tail, the propeller would naturally be shortened to the correct length by the runway without all that tiresome cutting and filing they probably did.

What a useless endeavor of an aircraft!

[simon]

I have to admit that does seem truly awful...

"Does a fighter that was built, but never fought or never even flew come off better than one that was built in numbers and DID fight?

Maybe in your book, but not in mine. I'd choose one of the "built but never flew in combat" variety as the worst. At minimum, it consumd resources while giving no benefit back to the building country."

In most respects I agree with you. I would say though at the same time I would say that a bad fighter is any that in roughly equal combat was more dangerous to the pilots flying it than the enemy.

As an example take the Defiant as a Day fighter. The operational Defiant squadrons suffered more losses than confirmed kills, therefore it not only consumed resources, strategic light alloys, Merlin engines and development time, but it also killed valuable pilots and gunners that could have contributed more to the war effort in a more capable aircraft.

So taking this into consideration, the Defiant (As a day fighter) was probably a worse fighter even than the Silvansky IS, since the latter was merely an embarrassing waste of resources, the Defiant for example not only wasted resources, but cost lives as well.

As Corsarius said elsewhere, a Nimrod can carry a Sidewinder but that doesn't make it a fighter, just because the IS was designed as a fighter doesn't compensate for the fact that it never served in the role and was blatantly incapable or performing the task. I think in all fairness that to truly qualify as the "Worst Fighter" our candidates should have actually at least been accepted for service in that role, even if it never reached operational status.

[Corsarius]

well, that narrows the field a bit.

Just off memory I'll go for the Defiant day-fighter, or maybe the French Cyclone series. An aircraft that even the Finns rejected (but the czechs in France seemed to do okay-ish with)

[Ricky]

Well, the Defiant didn't always do too badly - sometimes the Germans mistook them for Hurricanes and attacked from the rear...

My choice (and really just to wind up Corsarius) is the Me163 Komet.
Yes, it is a lovely little plane, but frankly, I really can't see why any pilot would be willing to fly one at all, even under perfect conditions, let alone on a combat mission.

Any plane that dissolves its pilots cannot be good.

Over to you Corsarius...
[:p]

[simon]

Still leaves the field pretty wide, I think anyway...

Corsarius is actually quite difficult to bait, but it's fun if you can manage it, good luck Ricky!

As for the Defiant being mistaken for Hurricanes, I read fairly recently (Think it might have been in Flypast), that this is one of those Battle of Britain myths, attacking high and from behind (And where possible from the sun) was a standard tactic, with the Defiant this was the worst possible position and in the initial engagements the Defiants did quite well. Of course the Luftwaffe pilots quite quickly figured out the Defiants weaknesses and exploited them.

Anyway the Blackburn Roc is clearly a far worse fighter than even the Defiant!

[Ricky]

Ah, but the poor old ROC was never used operationally - except, as I'm fairly sure someone has pointed out before, for static Anti-Aircraft fire!

Maybe the Skua? It was, after all, a fighter/dive-bomber. It did ok as a dive bomber, and against the occasional Flying Boat I'm sure it was perfectly acceptable, but I shudder to think how well it would fare against the Bf 109...

Or the Wirraway? I know it was not concieved as a fighter, but I believe it was planned to be used as a stop-gap in case of dire need.

[Corsarius]

I swear you're misquoting deliberately to get my goat, Ricky [}:)]

The Wirraway was most certainly used as an interceptor fighter, of course, it's moment of glory when on 26 December, 1942, A20-103 flown by Archer and Coulston shot down a Zero fighter. So it really did OK for something that had it's official designation as 'general purpose aircraft'. It certainly out-did the Skua in the fighter/dive bomber capacity, thank you very much!

Wirraways were also present at the suicidal defence of Rabul: (am quoting from official RAAF history, here) "20 Jan: Japanese carriers launch 100 bombers and fighters to attack Rabaul. Seven RAAF Wirraways shot down by faster, more manoeuvrable and more numerous Japanese Zero fighters. Wing Cmdr J. Lerew ordered by Air Force HQ in Melbourne to attack Japanese invaders. With only one Hudson and one damaged Wirraway at his disposal, Lerew replies with signal "nos morituri te salutamus", the Roman gladiators' cry to spectators at the Colosseum, "we who are about to die salute you". "

Sometimes, Heros don't come home.


As for the poor old Komet that gets so much stick? I understand it was pretty much an 'urban myth' about the pilots dissolving. It would be more the exploding and vaporising the pilot bit that bothered me. By the development of the -163C most of these problems had been ironed out (including walther finally getting it right with the rocket motor). The early aircraft were dangerous, but the low 'kill' ratio is attributed more to the difficulty of deflection shooting at such high speed. To fly like hartmann until 'the windshield was black with the enemy' would have resulted about a half-second later in a sudden, wet, splat. I still don't care, though. For me, it's still "Vie ein floh, aber oho!"

[GregP]

Another thing Corsarius, no one after WWII got the flying wing "right" like Lippisch and the Hortens. Whatever they did ... they did it better than anyone else before or since. I understand the B-2 flies quite well, but it needs computers to do it. The Me-163 apparently flew quite well, glided just fine, and had a very high maximum speed-to-stall speed ratio. The Horten prototypes also flew well.

Makes me wonder why the concept wasn't investigated more thoroughly later ... if the Me-163 could fly near Mach 0.8 and do it while remaining in control, why didn't SOMEONE look into it after WWII?

Puzzling. Perhaps they drank the booze and then coudn't figurte out what to do with the bleach ... the other way around would have been fatal.

[Ricky]

Sorry Corsarius, nothing personal - honest!

:)

[simon]

An interesting one, is a fighter on the ground still a fighter...?

As far as I know, the Roc was used operationally, or at the very least was accepted for use as a fighter by the Fleet Air Arm (Who let's face it were treated with little more than thinly disguised contempt by the Air Ministry and broadly had to take what they were offered), so I'd say it still qualifies, and given it's performance was distinctly inferior to the Defiant. I'll have to do some digging, but it doesn't have any catastrophic engagements that spring immediately to mind.

[Ricky]

Oh, I thought that the ROC was more of a development idea, that was tested but never used operationally.

Or maybe that's just my wishful thinking - surely they wouldn't be that cruel to aircrew?

[GregP]

I was hoping to avoid any more mention of Rocs and Skuas ... but then I read the TOPIC again. Since we ARE talking about the Worst fighter of WWII, I suppose Rocs and Skuas ARE legitimate topics of conversation. So, c'mon, let's hear more about the Rocs and Skuas!

Terrible as they were, they might yet prevail in this forum.

As the saying goes, "Despite retreats and major defeats, we might as well win in the press!"

[GregP]

OK, I have another candidate. I give you the Gudkov GU-1.

It was a single-seat fighter designed by Mikhail Gudkov (of LaGG fame) and was very P-39-like. It employed a similar layout with an inline engine (Mikulin AM-41 12 cylinder liquid cooled) mounted behind the pilot. Radiators were burind in the wings.

The initial flight test was performed by A. I. Nikashin on 12 Jul 1943. At 200 meters height, the fighter dived into the ground kiling the pilot. Further development was abandoned. No illustrations or photos have survived.

When asked to flight test the aircraft, the pilot would have much better off taking punishment in a Siberian labor camp than flying the thing. At least he would have lived.

Might not be the absolute worst, but MUST be considered a front runner when not even a picture or drawing has survived the first flight attempt. Then again, at least it wasn't produced and used as a decoy, so maybe it's NOT the worst fighter after all ...

[Corsarius]

Something in favour of the Skua..

"Fleet Air Arm Skua dive-bomber’s of 800 and 803 Squadrons flying from the Orkney Islands sink German cruiser "KOENIGSBERG" at her moorings in Bergen. She was damaged earlier by shore batteries in the landings. This is the first major warship sunk by air attack."

[simon]

Ah but this was a success as a dive bomber, not a fighter. The Stuka was used as a fighter, and was a successfull divebomber, so is this enough to rescue the Skua (And it's brother the Roc) from the Hall of Shame? If not then surely the Stuka deserves at least a passing mention in the "Worst Fighter" category! ;)

[andyo2000]

OK, I'm probably the only one in the dark here. What is a Blackburn Skua and a Roc? Is a 'Skua' just another way of saying the Stuka? And what is a roc, an abbreviation? I've looked all over the threads, but there are no answers to be found.

[Ricky]

The Blackburn Skua was a rather clean-looking aircraft spoilt by a slab-sided 'greenhouse' cockpit.
Basically a 2-seat Fleet Air Arm dive-bomber / fighter.
The Blackburn Roc was a Skua with a 4-gun turret in place of the rear observer, as in a Defiant.

the name Roc comes from a fictional giant bird (ref: Sinbad the sailor).

Try this link for a visual:
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/blackburn_skua.htm

Or just type Blackburn Skua into Google - there are a surprising amount of sites out there...

[andyo2000]

Ohhhh....ok. Thanks Ricky, it helped a lot. Actually, it seems like it looks a bit like a Dauntless, although the engine's a bit slimmer.
Finally, I can understand this talk of Blackburns!

[Notta Brit]

Nice poetry. The Heinkel He-280 was pretty awful.

[Ricky]

Well, according to Taglia, it beat a 190 in a mock dogfight.
(check out the HE280 in the 'planes' section)

[simon]

Yeah, I'd heard that from another source too. BTW what's all this about the Heinkel Jets exploding, I know the He162 had severe structural issues but I thought these were mostly resolved by the time series production had begun, but from what I'd heard the He280 was otherwise a fine plane, it just didn't generate enough interest because no-one saw the need for a Jet fighter at the time.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is not something I've heard of before.