PDA

View Full Version : what was in you opinion the worst fighter of ww2?



fordfan25
01-27-2005, 10:03 AM
?

Chuck_Older
01-27-2005, 10:05 AM
Boulton-Paul Defiant

Jester_159th
01-27-2005, 10:22 AM
Fully agree with you on that one Chuck.

Mind you, we really need some qualifications on what you mean here.

For example the Bolton Paul Defiant was a pre-war design. And if you compare a 1939 Spitfire to a 1944 Bf 109 then the Spitfire would have been useless.

It's very difficult to compare different fighters from different periods of the war, since the technological advancements achieved during WW2 were (by force of circumstances) massive compared to the inter war years.

Potatodip
01-27-2005, 10:33 AM
hmmm in the game...the one im flying....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

real time....not sure there is a bunch that could be the worst, but actualy the 262 proberbly.....as Galland said they are simply to fast (closure rate)Its a great bomber killer, but tiny planes with one engine that can manouver are not easy to get in it....and i actualy like this plane lol....but the first line in my post could explain it all

Padser
01-27-2005, 10:36 AM
~S~

The Paul Defiant did sterling service over France and Dunkirk at the beginning of the war.

It also performed very well as a night-fighter when it was no longer suitable for daytime operations, achieving more kills per interception than any other (of the improvised nightfighters, anyway)

Cheers

Pads

Zyzbot
01-27-2005, 10:50 AM
BLACKBURN ROC

Saburo_0
01-27-2005, 11:28 AM
A good magazine article I have at home, suggests that the Me-163 was the worst.
The reasoning being the expenditure vs. return.

LBR_Barkhorn
01-27-2005, 11:32 AM
If you're saying nay aircraft that saw combat in WWII, i say: the Boeing P-26 Peashooter. They where used in Phillipines Air Force, when they have shoot down one Japanese Zero.

In the list of 1938-1945 aircrafts, i have so many candidates... Curtiss CW-21 (i never read about one victory pf this aircraft), Fairey Battle (i don't know if he's a fighter-bomber or a ground attack only), those soviet Lagg's (some soviet aces prefered to fly their old Ratas...), the Italian Breda Ba.88 Lince (usefull only as target decoys in Italian airbases).

WOLFMondo
01-27-2005, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Padser:
~S~

The Paul Defiant did sterling service over France and Dunkirk at the beginning of the war.

It also performed very well as a night-fighter when it was no longer suitable for daytime operations, achieving more kills per interception than any other (of the improvised nightfighters, anyway)

Cheers

Pads <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beaufighter was an improvised night fighter and much more successful the the Defiant. The Defiant was even probably to slow to be a good target tug which it ended up as. I belive its one true success was the turret design.

I think it wins worst fighter.

stathem
01-27-2005, 11:49 AM
The Fairy Battle was like a British Il-2 - without the armour. or the horsepower. or the huge stock of 'expendable' pilots to fly them. If the British had persevered with it it could have made a reasonable ground pounder, but after Dunkirk there was no real need for it.

dcunning30
01-27-2005, 12:56 PM
well, in the pacific war, along with the p-26, i'd say the brewster buffalo. during the battle of midway, the amounted to nothing more than flying coffins.

EPP-Gibbs
01-27-2005, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
well, in the pacific war, along with the p-26, i'd say the brewster buffalo. during the battle of midway, the amounted to nothing more than flying coffins. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and yet the Finns used the Buffalo to great effect against the Russians racking up scores in it that the Americans and British thought were unbelievable. In the European theatre at least, outside the Luftwaffe, the next two highest scoring fighter pilots were both Finns. Jutalainnen was the highest, I don't know the name of the other.

The Battle was a light bomber, not a fighter, and mediocre at best. The crews who flew them were brave men.

As a pure Fighter, I'd say the Defiant was pretty **** once the opposition worked out it had no forward firing armament. Dowding opposed their use during the Battle of Britain.

SeminoleX
01-27-2005, 02:04 PM
No question about it...and it's in PF naturally....
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-12/542019/BI-1,1942.jpg

20thFG-PirAnha
01-27-2005, 02:31 PM
Some of the French Aircraft... they were really lousy

Yimmy
01-27-2005, 02:34 PM
The Italians had some lousy aircraft early in the war, their only saving grace being the CR42.

zoomar
01-27-2005, 02:56 PM
To be fair, this should not include planes which were excellent or good when introduced in the 1930's but were obsolescent or obsolete by the time they saw service in WW2 (ie: I-153, I-16, P-26, P-36, Gladiator, Nate, etc)

I agree with others that the Defiant was probably the worst fighter, given that it was a modern design and much was expected of it and the concept it represented. Other "bad" planes given that definition include:

Me-163 - too fast, cannon to slow, explosive
Ki-46 KAI - incapable of intercepting B-29s
Me-110 - bad concept for escort fighter
LaGG 3 series - only made good with radial La5
P-39 - considered a complete bust in US service

horseback
01-27-2005, 03:46 PM
Roc and Skua of the British Fleet Air Arm were notable turkeys, and the French twin engined heavy fighters in the Me 110 mold were not much better in practice (unfortunately, I can't remember their designations, and I'm at work).

The LaGG 3 suggestion is unfair; it was poorly executed in manufacture, and badly suited to the only engine available. Once it got that radial, the basic airframe design was justified.

cheers

horseback

_54th_Target
01-27-2005, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted Thu January 27 2005 13:04
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dcunning30:
well, in the pacific war, along with the p-26, i'd say the brewster buffalo. during the battle of midway, the amounted to nothing more than flying coffins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



...and yet the Finns used the Buffalo to great effect against the Russians racking up scores in it that the Americans and British thought were unbelievable. In the European theatre at least, outside the Luftwaffe, the next two highest scoring fighter pilots were both Finns. Jutalainnen was the highest, I don't know the name of the other.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Finns were sold the B239 which was the export version of the F2A1. Since it (the F2A3) was supposed to be a carrier borne fighter the Navy requested that the landing gear be strengthened and the (attachment points for the arrester hook) tail area be beefed up.
Substantial weight was added to the F2A2 and the subsequent F2A3. More powerful engines were in short supply and the F2A3 had a worse power to weight ratio than the B239. The Finnish B-239 "export"-models were equipped with refurbished R-1820 G-5 engines taken from DC-3 airliners.

The Marines flew the F2A3 off Midway and the gentleman who suggested that it was a flying coffin against the zero was correct for the most part. Remember that at this time, the tactics that were later used (like the Thach weave), were not familiar to all Navy pilots. The Finns also never went up against the Zero which in the early part of the war was a thoroughly modern fighter compared to the F2A3.

I would say that the F2A3, the way it was employed off Midway was a pretty miserable aircraft to fly, especially when you consider the opposition. Keep in mind that the IJN pilots at that time were the cream of the crop and were very well trained and experienced compared to the Marine pilots who were flying the F2A3.

The F2A3 was a totally different beast to fly into combat compared to the Finnish "Sky Pearls" (as they called them).

_54th_Target

Chuck_Older
01-27-2005, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Roc and Skua of the British Fleet Air Arm were notable turkeys, and the French twin engined heavy fighters in the Me 110 mold were not much better in practice (unfortunately, I can't remember their designations, and I'm at work).


cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Potez? I beleive so...

Chuck_Older
01-27-2005, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yimmy:
The Italians had some lousy aircraft early in the war, their only saving grace being the CR42. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm....Folgore? Veltro?

Yimmy
01-27-2005, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yimmy:
The Italians had some lousy aircraft early in the war, their only saving grace being the CR42. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm....Folgore? Veltro? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I was including those. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DuxCorvan
01-27-2005, 04:15 PM
Italian fighters were actually rather competent.

The worst:

Blackburn Roc/Skua: Turkeys (although in FB those heavy turrets would make mincemeat of you when manned by AI extraterrestrials...)

Me 163 Komet: Technologically a marvel, in terms of efficiency a bluff, and as funny to ride as making love in a fakir bed...

ElAurens
01-27-2005, 04:20 PM
The only reason the Finns did so well was because they were up agianst the Russian second string. (same for Hartmann BTW). **dons flame ******ant suit**

Once the Red Army had their way with the Germans the Finns were finished. (God, did I just say that?)

My vote would be a tie between the Defiant and the Renault-Caudron Cyclone, but it did look cool...

DuxCorvan
01-27-2005, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Roc and Skua of the British Fleet Air Arm were notable turkeys, and the French twin engined heavy fighters in the Me 110 mold were not much better in practice (unfortunately, I can't remember their designations, and I'm at work).


cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Potez? I beleive so... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Potez 63 series. Potez 633 was actually a light bomber and performed poorly. Potez 63.11 fighter was not bad at all -for a multiseat two engine.

Mundy
01-27-2005, 06:12 PM
Well, boys, among the absolute worst fighters of World War II would be the Commonwealth Whirraway.

Beaufort-RAF
01-27-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
The Fairy Battle was like a British Il-2 - without the armour. or the horsepower. or the huge stock of 'expendable' pilots to fly them. If the British had persevered with it it could have made a reasonable ground pounder, but after Dunkirk there was no real need for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a misconception brought about by some of those aircraft reference books bizarrely claiming the Battle was like an IL2 without the armour.

It's absolute nonsense, the Battle was purely a bomber (with a 3 man crew) and a huge aircraft for a single engine, much bigger than an IL2.

FlakMagnent
01-27-2005, 07:40 PM
I say the ME 163. It had a speed of up to 600 MPH but only had enough fuel to fly for 90 whole seconds and then it became a battle glider. Just think of over/under estimating how much time it takes to get to base. That would just suck

p1ngu666
01-27-2005, 09:23 PM
a single battle shot down 3 109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

gunner ducked down to repair gun, last 109 thought he was dead, he closes in, then gunner pops up and removes the googles from the guys face with bullets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

but yes, it was ****

yeah maybe skua or something... someone is gonna say p51,spit,109,190 and get flamed to death http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oilburner_TAW
01-27-2005, 09:36 PM
Lots of Defiant info here..

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/boulton_paul/defiant/Defiant.htm

DIRTY-MAC
01-28-2005, 01:24 AM
In the list of 1938-1945 aircrafts, i have so many candidates... Curtiss CW-21 (i never read about one victory pf this aircraft), airbases).[/QUOTE]

I dont agree with this,
search the forum on CW-21B threads and you will find one posted by me about combat reports of CW-21B in intence fighting with Zeros and shooting some down, and when we will get this plane flyable, I can only tell you that people will be very surprised about what this little fighter will be capable of, I for fact think it will rule on early war servers

Marc-David
01-28-2005, 02:20 AM
I woudn't agree with the Me 163 being a lousy fighter. But as with every new wepon system around 43/44, it sufferd from trained pilots, and first of all fuel. Most 163's were grounded, when the same fuel-type (C-stoff IIRC) was used in the V-1s, wich got the priority... And achieved... well... not so much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (exept binding the fastest fighters and the latetst AAA+Radartechnolgy somewhere in South england).

My vote for the worst fighter: I don'T know. Really. But I know the worst fighter motor: definitely Jumo004. Why? Incredible long developement time. Extremly unreliable. Average lifespan ca 20hrs... And, man, it was so really needed!

Yours, MD

CD_kp84yb
01-28-2005, 03:43 AM
Ahum

The Me163 and the V1 didnt use the same fuel type.
The Me 163 was to fast for the pilots to aim at the bombers, and the guns rof was to slow.

Ow and the fuel was a real pilotkiller, prown to blow up if the plane shaked to much,it wasnt stable , or if in contact whith organic material not good for your health eiter.

Czunik
01-28-2005, 03:57 AM
Me163 was made to take-off quickly, get altitude, ampty guns into bomber which was almost above its target and glide away .. 1 pass weapon. It was not long distance seek and destroy fighter like most of those we flight in the game.

You know those 'scramble scramble' missions on start of WW2 ? Or on pacific islands ? Try fly those with Me163 .. you will see how GOOD this plane is.

whiteladder
01-28-2005, 05:36 AM
Blackburn Roc/Skua closely followed by the Fulmar. some of the worst aircraft ever unleashed on an air arm.

XyZspineZyX
01-28-2005, 05:58 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Hello,

The worst fighters of WWII where two germans aircrafts:
Blohm und Voss BV40 a glider with two 30mm MK 108 guns
and/or
Bachen BA 349a Natter that flew four times and first time it did kill it test pilot.

Have a nice day all.

Sensei

Koenig_343KKT
01-28-2005, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But I know the worst fighter motor: definitely Jumo004. Why? Incredible long developement time. Extremly unreliable. Average lifespan ca 20hrs... And, man, it was so really needed! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yeah, but you're not being entirely fair. The reason they only lasted 20 hours was because at that time Germany was unable to get its hands on the rare metals needed for making those ultra-hard heat resistant alloys needed for jet engines. Those blades revolve at something like 10'000 revs a minute, it's in fact pretty amazing that the Germans were able to build them at all. When built with proper materials they lasted much much longer.
However I agree that despite that, development and weeding out the "bugs" of those engines took far too long (and just as well for all of us).

hernanyork
01-28-2005, 06:25 AM
To me the ki43 I was the quilty to japan suffer so big losses in the early pacific war, becouse of week firepower.
To german was the me110 and later the me210 both didnot make the works that they must do.
The english has a lot of poor planes like skua,roc,paul defiant,wellesley,etc
To russian was the i153 .
The american p66, cw21b, p43,p26
i love of this poor planes and i want to fly all of this in il2/aep/pf.....becouse they make us better pilots.

falco_cz
01-28-2005, 07:22 AM
Early LaGGs, for sure

HorribleSailor
01-28-2005, 07:59 AM
Interestingly enough, when the Boulton-Paul Defiant was first flight tested it performed pretty well. It was the turret that ruined it's performance, if it had only been given some forward firing guns and lost the turret the story would have been very different.

Of course, I'm sure everyone would be laughing at the Spitfire if it had a wacking great turret stuck behind the pilot!

F19_Olli72
01-28-2005, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
The _only_ reason the Finns did so well was because they were up agianst the Russian second string. (same for Hartmann BTW). **dons flame ******ant suit**

Once the Red Army had their way with the Germans the Finns were finished. (God, did I just say that?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No flamesuit needed since you so obviously contradict yourself. Hartmann flew to the end of the war, likewise finnish Brewsters got soviet kills as late as autumn 1944. So id like to know just when did the Russian "first string" arrive? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Beaufort-RAF
01-28-2005, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hernanyork:

The english has a lot of poor planes like skua,roc,paul defiant,wellesley,etc
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Wellesley was a bomber though, not a fighter and it actually gave good service in East Africa against the Italians.

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/pictures/gallery/vickers%20wellesley%20I.jpg

tora-2
01-28-2005, 10:04 AM
Unless I am somewhat mistaken there's some pretty odd answers here ? The Fulmar was a reasonably successful carrier fighter. The Skua was primarily a dive bomber while the Defiant while certainly odd was an unusual albeit ultimately unsuccessful experiment. It did have some success during daylight and did OK as a night fighter after all.

I also think its all too easy to compare very early war planes with later models then rubbish them. Many assumptions about how air combat would go proved in the long run to be invalid. The same experimental attitude that resulted in the Defiant produced the Mosquito , as a concept the wooden plane idea would also seem odd yet worked. The Defiant might have been better made of wood mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif