PDA

View Full Version : Did us Brits have some of the worst planes ??...



MB_Avro_UK
09-30-2005, 12:32 PM
I ask this because we Brits had some of the worst flying coffins in WW2.

My nominations are as follows:

Boulton Paul Defiant.

Fairy Battle.

Bristol Blenheim.

There may be others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Did any other participant persevere with outmoded death-traps at the expense of aircrew lives?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

Kuna15
09-30-2005, 12:37 PM
Avro I think that UK didn't have some of the worse ww2 aircrafts. I don't recall names of the aircraft but some Italian aircraft and also some of the lesser known AF's in the world had far far worse aircraft. And many other of which I probably never heard of. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In the beggining of the ww2 in USSR, their pilots had nothing to write home about except MiG-3, which was a modern fighter, and few months later LaGG-3s arrived in masses to VVS units.
Still they were stuck with I-153 and older types which were almost totally outclassed by opposition.

Zyzbot
09-30-2005, 12:44 PM
I think you could make the case that a great many forces continued to operate "obsolete" aircraft at different times in the war. You have to fight with what you have until something better is built and delivered.

You might even argue that once successful planes like the Zero or the Ju-87 Stuka quickly became "outmoded death traps" as thing changed in the war... yet they continued to be built and used.

LeLv44_Mangrove
09-30-2005, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Bristol Blenheim.


I wouldn't say that Blenheim was a flying coffin, Finns used it as late as 1945 with success!


Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Did any other participant persevere with outmoded death-traps at the expense of aircrew lives?


Yes, the Finns. Imagine a Blackburn Ripon from 1927 in recon flight to Kronstadt naval base in 1940! (Ripon was used operationally from 1939 to 1943)

Or captured Tupolev SB-2s in the Karelian Istmus in summer 1944...

allmenroder
09-30-2005, 12:53 PM
Ever heard of Torpedo Squadron 8 flying the Devastator?

In fact, IRC, all Devastators launched during the Midway Battle were shot down ATA or AAA>

msalama
09-30-2005, 12:57 PM
Did any other participant persevere with outmoded death-traps at the expense of aircrew lives?

Yeah, the Polish with the P.11c - expect that they didn't exactly persevere http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

(though it _was_ admittedly a very modern fighter when introduced in 1934)

MB_Avro_UK
09-30-2005, 01:06 PM
Good point allmenroder. Yes I read about that attack and maybe I should consider that any plane in the wrong situation would be a death-trap.

It just seems to me that the R.A.F. continued over a long period of time to send crews to almost certain death with outmoded aircraft such as the Blenheim in 1940 when the the casualty figures should have said STOP.The tactics proved wrong such as sending Blenheims on bombing raids without escorts in daylight against bf 109s to face repeated slaughter. IIRC the losses amongst Blenheim crews were greater in 1940 (BoB period) than Fighter Command during the BoB.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

faelas
09-30-2005, 01:07 PM
America had it's share of losers too.

The Bell P-39, while loved by the russians as an attack aircraft because of it's guns, was universally hated by American fighter pilots.

The Brewster F2A was a flying coffin in every sense of the word while it was in service. Cockpit fire anyone?

While the Douglas TBD Devastator was THE most advanced carrier-borne aircraft in the world when it was introduced, it was a complete disaster by the time it entered combat.

I think I have to admit however, that the Brits did in fact field the MOST number of totally obsolete combat aircraft of any air force in WW2. In fact some of the planes used to defend Dunkirk (sp?) were rediculously obsolete. The primary fighter escort consisted of WW1 era 2-seater biplanes with 1 forward firing mg and 1 in a rear facing flex mount. Can't recall it's designation but the fact is vividly described in Hillary's "The Last Enemy".

LeLv44_Mangrove
09-30-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by faelas:
The Brewster F2A was a flying coffin in every sense of the word while it was in service. Cockpit fire anyone?


Not true, Finns managed with it quite well. OK their had the B-239 which was much lighter but it's still Brewster

Waldo.Pepper
09-30-2005, 02:42 PM
Did any other participant persevere with outmoded death-traps at the expense of aircrew lives?


The Japanese flying the ___________

**** near anyting they had.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2005, 02:50 PM
It just seems to me that the R.A.F. continued over a long period of time to send crews to almost certain death with outmoded aircraft such as the Blenheim in 1940 when the the casualty figures should have said STOP.

The Blenheim was still a good plane in 1940 but when used against strong fighter opposition it did badly. It simply shouldn't have been used in that way, like the use of Ju87s against the UK.
It wasn't at the top of its game as fast as the fighters as it was in 1937, but it was still fine if employed on well chosen missions such as an emergency night fighter, a night intruder, or against lighter fighter opposition (North Africa, Far East).

Banger2004
09-30-2005, 02:53 PM
Handley Page Hampden bomber springs to mind, so narrow it was apparently very difficult to get out of if in trouble. Fairey Swordfish, great aircraft, but sooooooo slow, many got shot down.

But really, any aircraft, if used incorrectly or out of 'spec', without adequate support, was an accident waiting to happen. I suppose that in war you make do with what you have.

CRSutton
09-30-2005, 03:13 PM
There is a diffrence between good airplanes that became obsolete as time passed and planes that were just plain stupid. A lot of the planes mentioned here were good designes for their day.

The Defiant, however, just never was a good idea from the get go. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Ankanor
09-30-2005, 03:30 PM
35 of the 41 DEvastators launched against the Japanese carriers on the 4th of June wwere shot down or ditched on the flight back. But in the situation they found themselves - low and slow, unescorted(only the Yorktown squadron had fighter cover of 6 Wildcats and they were forced away from the TBDs by 12 Zeros) you could send in Il-2s, the result would have been the same.

ImpStarDuece
09-30-2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by faelas:
America had it's share of losers too.

The Bell P-39, while loved by the russians as an attack aircraft because of it's guns, was universally hated by American fighter pilots.




The Russians loved the P-39 as a low-level FIGHTER, not as an attack aircraft. Some of the leading Allied aces scored the majority of their kills in P-39s:


Pilot
Aleksandr I. Pokryshkin 59 Kills 48 In P-39s
Nikolay Gulaev 57 Kills 41 In P-39s
Grigori A. Rechkalov 56 Kills 50 In P-39s
Dimitriy B. Glinka 50 Kills 41 In P-39s
Vladimir I. Bobrov 43 Kills Majority In P-39s
Aleksey Smirnov 34 Kills 30 In P-39s
Ivan I. Babak 33 Kills 32 In P-39s
Mikhail S. Komelkov 32 Kills 32 In P-39s
A. Klubov 31 Kills 27 In P-39s
Boris B. Glinka 31 Kills 31 In P-39s

The Germans flew the Hs-123 until there were none more left. The Italians and Russians continued to use biplanes well into 1942. The USAAF didn't really have anything useful above 20,000 feet until the P-38 and the P-40K arrived.

Daiichidoku
09-30-2005, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Banger2004:
Handley Page Hampden bomber springs to mind, so narrow it was apparently very difficult to get out of if in trouble. Fairey Swordfish, great aircraft, but sooooooo slow, many got shot down.

But really, any aircraft, if used incorrectly or out of 'spec', without adequate support, was an accident waiting to happen. I suppose that in war you make do with what you have.


heheeh when first in service, hampden pilots would often pull alongside gauntlets, gladiators and furys..then "first string" fighters...flip em the bird, then hit the throttles and leave em in the dust


but seriously...banger has it..well, bang on, if not used properly, ANY a.c. is a deathtrap

redfeathers1948
09-30-2005, 06:25 PM
Both Great Britain and ourselves the USA were somewhat handicaped by the prevailing political climate of appeasement and isolationism... thus funds for forward looking aircraft design and manufacturing were restrained but once the marauding beast took a chunk out of our asses that was the end of that bulls##t and the rest is history.

MB_Avro_UK
09-30-2005, 06:32 PM
Good comment redfeathers1948 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Maybe I should have looked at the wider picture before posting this thread.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

luftluuver
09-30-2005, 11:21 PM
No one has mentioned any French a/c?

Even the mighty B-17, B-24, Lanc and Hallie were fodder for fighters when unescorted.

gkll
09-30-2005, 11:39 PM
Swordfish were used to the end of the war and were very well suited to operating off escort carriers under Atlantic conditions. Was talk of continuing to use them post-war,,, or did they? Anyways it was a very useful aircraft, quite successful.

Hampdens were fairly successful as well. Sort of an odd bomber with some fighter characteristics (well a few anyway), good bombload. Halifax production and the superior mosquito I think led to Hampden demise.

About the defiant what can you say? Some oddball got their way in procurement and supply who knows... there must have been plenty of people in the RAF were pretty sure it wasn't going to be on... little turret swivelling around like a bomber.... lot of luck lads you'll need it....

Terrier112th
10-01-2005, 06:39 AM
In its first few engagements the defiants had some notable success as they were often mistaken for hurricanes and attacked from their high six. LW pilots had a nast shock when they saw rounds flying at them but soon learnt to attack from the front or low six with devastating results.

The defiant proved a very good nightfighter in the early part of the war and a small number were still serving with the fleet air arm in 1946!

The original design concept was during a period when bombers were faster than fighters ("the bomber will always get through") and defiants were to be positioned ahead of the bomer formation and engage them as they overtook.

The swordfish was designed to meet the RN doctrine that carrier aircraft were there to slow down the enemy fleet so that the big guns could close and finish them off (as with the bismark) and to ensure the admiral had plenty of fresh food and his daily copy of the times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
10-01-2005, 06:41 AM
Swordfish were used to the end of the war

Mostly they were withdraw by 1943. Few were flying combat missions beyond this.


Both Great Britain and ourselves the USA were somewhat handicaped by the prevailing political climate of appeasement and isolationism...

In the UK it was as much that the UK economy remained in the Depression longer and there wasn't so much money about for rearmament. Even so the specifications for the required weapons for the early part of WW2 were issued mostly in 1934-6, along with modernaisation of the army so the implies the feeling was that there was going to be another war. There was appeasement, there was also buying for time - the UK was only just about ready for war in 1939, just barely.

Aaron_GT
10-01-2005, 06:45 AM
The original design concept was during a period when bombers were faster than fighters ("the bomber will always get through") and defiants were to be positioned ahead of the bomer formation and engage them as they overtook.

Indeed. It was presumed that bombers would also be unescorted and so vulnerability to single engined fighters wasn't really an issue during design. What should have happened is that the project should have been cancelled when it became apparent that the design was flawed, or else it should have been reworked into something else. A single-engined two seat fighter with AI in the rear cockpit with forward firing armament could have been useful. This is hindsight of course.

ViktorViktor
10-01-2005, 10:51 AM
Let's not forget that Great Britain, the land whose national security depended on having a dominant navy, had no viable carrier fighters! They had a regulation that a carrier-based fighter had to have a navigator as well as a pilot, because it was imperative that the aircraft find it's way back to the carrier, and navigation was deemed too demanding for a single pilot to handle. So they developed to 2-seaters with poor performances as carrier fighters, and once it became apparent that they were duds, the Royal Navy gladly replaced its 2-seaters with Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs. I think the 2-seaters were made by Avro or Blackburn, does anyone have the names ?

Aaron_GT
10-01-2005, 12:03 PM
had no viable carrier fighters!

Apart from the single seat carrier fighters - Roc, Sea Gladiator, Hurricane, and Seafire (and just missing WW2, the Sea Fury). The policy on dual seat aircraft was changed after the Fulmar. It was too late to stop the Firefly, but this was then developed as a creditable strike fighter. Not as powerful as the F4U, but competent.


I think the 2-seaters were made by Avro or Blackburn, does anyone have the names ?

There was the Blackburn Skua and Roc (the former a dive bomber, the latter a turret fighter) but the primary fighters were the Fairey Fulmar and Firefly. Blackburn did develop the Firebrand, but that was to be a torpedo fighter, ditto the Westland Wyvern.

cawimmer430
10-02-2005, 11:54 AM
I think it also depends very much on the situation. The Stuka should not have been used in the Battle of Britain, but it got a new lease of life on the Russian front as a TANK KILLER. Hans Ulrich Rudel anyone?

jamesdietz
10-02-2005, 11:56 AM
Hey - the greatest Torpedo bomber of the WAR(& one we don't get to fly either...) The Swordfish - a thing of beauty!

p1ngu666
10-02-2005, 05:48 PM
swordfish proved highly useful for convoy escort, all the things that made it **** where useful in this role http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

2 seat fighters make sense considering the nav aids around the time, ie, pretty much none http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hotspace
10-02-2005, 05:52 PM
The Avro Manchester was a dog because of it's engines http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/upload/thumb/5/56/300px-Avro_Manchester.jpg

Hot Space

Xiolablu3
10-02-2005, 06:05 PM
What you have to remember is that had the US entered the war in 1939 then it would also have fielded as many 'dogs'as the other coutries.

It only really started fighting in 1942 and then it was p40's, which isnt exactly an amazing performer, this is 3 years later than the others started too.

All coutries used olbselete aircraft, fisler Stork anyone?

Eraser_tr
10-02-2005, 07:39 PM
The idea of not having forward firing guns on the defiant is what ruined it it was actually pretty maneuverable. Had they built it with a rear gunner AND forward firing guns, it would have been a **** of an opponent (especially with more powerful engines like the spitfire got progressively)

The USAAF well into ww2 barely had anything decent. Nothing with good high altitude performance. The P-39 could have done much better had they left the turbocharger instead of removing it to reduce drag. I also think they should have used the P-43 lancer until the P-47 was ready. It was practically the same plane as the early P-47's, but with 4 .50 cal guns instead of 8. Not the greatest of performers, but it had better high altitude performance than the P-40 or P-39.

gkll
10-03-2005, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Swordfish were used to the end of the war

Mostly they were withdraw by 1943. Few were flying combat missions beyond this.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make it sound rather like they had little role post 43... not so. Last 100 were delivered summer 44. There were only 2 or 3 thousand delivered total, and they operated in front line use until the end. Us Canucks used them into the late 40's. For operating off of converted merchant escort carriers they had no equal.

They were replaced in their role as torpedo bombers operating off of fleet carriers, that is true.

FF_leadspitter
10-24-2005, 04:14 PM
The primary fighter escort consisted of WW1 era 2-seater biplanes with 1 forward firing mg and 1 in a rear facing flex mount
hey, dn't diss the string bag, the swordfish was awesome!!!!!!

jarink
10-24-2005, 05:29 PM
The MXY-7-11 Ohka "Baka Bomb" I think has claim to the title "Supreme Deathtrap"! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Of course, it was designed that way, so I guess it was successful in a way...

uglyohyeah
10-24-2005, 05:30 PM
Xiolablu3

the storch was pretty much state of the art for a liason plane. It may have looked rather odd but it's performance was unbelivable. I've read that they were almost impossible to shoot down due to their incredible manouverability.

The design was also snapped up as war booty and produced after the war, by France, I belive, with a radial engine, possibly into the 1950's.

As a brit I find the swordfish thing a bit strange. The ones used for training in Canada had canopies but the operational ones still had open cockpits. It was designed well after 1935 too.

Xiolablu3
10-24-2005, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by uglyohyeah:
Xiolablu3

the storch was pretty much state of the art for a liason plane. It may have looked rather odd but it's performance was unbelivable. I've read that they were almost impossible to shoot down due to their incredible manouverability.

The design was also snapped up as war booty and produced after the war, by France, I belive, with a radial engine, possibly into the 1950's.

.

Interesting, thanks m8!

I know Rommel had his own personal Storch and loved it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

uglyohyeah
10-24-2005, 07:23 PM
I heard the same. I'm suprised there aren't more storchs around these days, I reckon they'd be great little general aviation planes.

marc_hawkins
10-24-2005, 09:28 PM
'spose everybody wants the fancy brand new FW 190's and 262's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zyzbot
10-25-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by uglyohyeah:
Xiolablu3

the storch was pretty much state of the art for a liason plane. It may have looked rather odd but it's performance was unbelivable. I've read that they were almost impossible to shoot down due to their incredible manouverability.

The design was also snapped up as war booty and produced after the war, by France, I belive, with a radial engine, possibly into the 1950's.

As a brit I find the swordfish thing a bit strange. The ones used for training in Canada had canopies but the operational ones still had open cockpits. It was designed well after 1935 too.

The British like the Storch too. In one of my books I've read that Churchill used a captured Storch painted bright yellow on occasion and Mongomery is supposed to have used one too.

mynameisroland
10-25-2005, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
Swordfish were used to the end of the war and were very well suited to operating off escort carriers under Atlantic conditions. Was talk of continuing to use them post-war,,, or did they? Anyways it was a very useful aircraft, quite successful.

Hampdens were fairly successful as well. Sort of an odd bomber with some fighter characteristics (well a few anyway), good bombload. Halifax production and the superior mosquito I think led to Hampden demise.

About the defiant what can you say? Some oddball got their way in procurement and supply who knows... there must have been plenty of people in the RAF were pretty sure it wasn't going to be on... little turret swivelling around like a bomber.... lot of luck lads you'll need it....

Swordfishes sank more tonnes of Axis fishing than any other Allied Aircraft.

F19_Olli72
10-25-2005, 08:45 AM
I remember reading about U.S Navy airships of ww2. For example there was airship squadron SQD-14 who operated six airships from Port Lyautey, French Morocco for anti submarine patrols. Now...thats a deathtrap if anything! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
http://www.ssttdc.com/ssttdc_images/historic_05.jpg
"In the Summer of 1944, six blimps flew out of South Weymouth and completed the first crossing of the Atlantic. These airships became the first "Blimp Barrier" in the Mediterranean, flying anti-submarine patrols around the Straits of Gibralter."
http://www.ssttdc.com/li_photos.htm

mynameisroland
10-25-2005, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
Let's not forget that Great Britain, the land whose national security depended on having a dominant navy, had no viable carrier fighters! They had a regulation that a carrier-based fighter had to have a navigator as well as a pilot, because it was imperative that the aircraft find it's way back to the carrier, and navigation was deemed too demanding for a single pilot to handle. So they developed to 2-seaters with poor performances as carrier fighters, and once it became apparent that they were duds, the Royal Navy gladly replaced its 2-seaters with Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs. I think the 2-seaters were made by Avro or Blackburn, does anyone have the names ?

Sorry if someone has replied to this already.

Check out Blackburn Skua, Fairey Fulmar, Fairey Firefly (awesome strike fighter), Fairey Baracudda (torp bomber).

You are correct about the Fleet Air Arm having a requirement for 2 seaters. The Fulmar, useless as it was shot down or scared away enemy bombers at critical times for the RN and the British did develop the Seafire which was a decent fighter and also pioneered the Corsairs use on carriers.