Which Fighter was least successful?

[88l71]

[QUOTE=buffnut453;590782]Claidemore,


accident/loss rate?
Irrelevant - all aircraft have an accident and loss rate. A fighter's success is not measured in terms of its accident rate but in terms of it's primary job - shooting down the adversary.

True, but some had worse loss rates than others and an aircraft with severe design flaws that is more dangerous to its own pilots than the enemy is not a successful design. I'd throw in serviceability as well since a mediocre fighter in the air beats a superb fighter sitting in the hangar being repaired.

did it meet design specs?
If it didn't meet design specs, it wouldn't have been selected for service. Again, I see this as an irrelevance for this particular thread.

I think this was meant more as "did the aircraft do what the designers/air force intended/expected it to do?"

was it easy and inexpensive to produce?
That's a procurement decision not a measure of success.

What's the point of an aircraft with excellent capabilities if you can't produce it quickly enough to replace losses or in large enough numbers to meet operational needs?

[davebender]

What's the point of an aircraft with excellent capabilities if you can't produce it quickly enough to replace losses or in large enough numbers to meet operational needs?

I agree except for the USA.

The P-38 and P-47 were both very expensive. No other nation would have considered funding such expensive fighter aircraft. The U.S. Army Air Corps simply shoveled unlimited amounts of money at the problem.

[Juha]

Hello Mark
For the defence for FAF’s Hawk 75As. While Brewster B-239s had arrived to Finland during Spring 40, so pilots had had time to get use to it and to perfect tactics for it, the first 16 Hawks arrived 23 – 30 June 1941, the Continuation War began 25 june 41, 11arrived 28 July – 2 August 41, further 2 arrived on 5 Dec 41 but the last 15 arrived 13 June 43 – 5 Jan 44. So the last group arrived when they were already clearly obsolete.
FAF’s Hawk pilots claimed 190½ kills while losing 8 in air combat + 6 to AA, one on ground and 9 because of technical problems or in accidents. So IMHO not so bad. And one must remember that Hawks of HLeLv 32 were the only fighters in their sector in 1944 during the big Soviet summer offensive in 1944 while B-239s could operate quieter areas of their sector because of Bf 109Gs carried the main burden in Karelian Istmus during summer 44.

And as I have wrote earlier Hawks were the most successful fighters of French AF in 1939-40.

Juha

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by buffnut453

I have 4 things to say:

P-36

And before everyone jumps down my throat to say "How can you possibly think the P-36 was worse than the Buffalo?", examine the performance of the 2 types in Finnish service. They were employed in similar numbers, in the same operating theatre and flown by pilots from the same training and experience background, and yet the Buffalo kill-to-loss ratio was significantly higher than that of the P-36.

But it was the other way around in the Pacific War. The P-36/Hawk was used in three different episodes, two very brief but another a bit more substantial:
1) USAAF P-36's at Pearl Harbor: downed 2 Zeroes (confirmed in Japanese accounts) for 1 P-36
2) Dutch Hawks in the East Indies, only had one combat Feb 3 1942: 5 Hawks and 12 CW-21's were lost for 3 Zeroes (two of the Hawks had engine problems and were shot up by Zeroes on the way back to base; but one or more of the Zero losses might have been to AA).
3) British Mohawks in Burma: this was a little larger sample of a dozen or so combats in November 1942-May 1943. The Mohawks shot down (or caused crashlandings) of 8 Type 1 Fighters ('Oscar') for 7 Mohawks shot down or crashlanded. They shot down 5 non-fighters without further loss.

British and Dutch Buffalo's in 1942 shot down around 10-11 Japanese fighters for 53 Buffalo's lost in combats where both sides' losses are known, and around 9-10 other a/c without further loss. USMC Buffalo's and F4F's at Midway lost 13 and 2 respectively; the Japanese lost 2 Zeroes, 1 Type 99 Carrier Bomber and 6 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes, at least two of the latter to AA per their records; the F4F's were credited with 3 of the 4 claimed victories v Zeroes.

Also, despite that fact that Mowhawk v Buffalo comparison is 1942-3 v. early-mid 42, British Hurricanes in 1943 in Burma still only shot down 12 Type 1's for 55 Hurricane losses, almost no better than they did in 1942, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to compare '42 and '43 results in that theater: the Japanese opposition apparently didn't get any easier.

And as someone else alluded to, French H-75's apparently didn't do worse against Bf109E's, at least compared to other French types or Hurricanes (though I don't have hard stats to calculate a kill ratio), even did well according to their own claims.

So, I believe you're correct the Finns preferred the Buffalo to the Hawk (though didn't totally dislike the Hawk) but that's actually a pretty small portion of the Hawk's career, Pacific results don't show the same thing, and for the Hawk alone the 1939-40 record with the French would have to be considered before passing judgement on the plane, since such a big part of its career.

Sources for losses: David Aiken article on PH, Bloody Shambles, Air War for Burma, The First Team, original records, as I counted things.

Joe

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by davebender

I agree except for the USA.

The P-38 and P-47 were both very expensive. No other nation would have considered funding such expensive fighter aircraft. The U.S. Army Air Corps simply shoveled unlimited amounts of money at the problem.

And for their money they got much more capable aircraft.

Higher operational ceilings, longer range than most of the opposition. Heavier armament and the ability to carry larger external load.

you don't get 2000-3000hp fighters for the price of 1200-1500hp fighters. 1200-1500HP fighters can't do the things that 2000-3000hp fighters can do.

[claidemore]

Buffnut:

A fighter is there to shoot down enemy aircraft - that is the measure of success.

That would be the purpose of an interceptor, a fighter actually has a much broader defintion.

A fighters job can be to protect assets. ( Other planes, (bombers), factories, radar installations, ships, territory, etc.) It might shoot down enemy planes doing that job, or it might not. Better if they do, but not an absolute requirement.

A good example would be the close escort doctrine used by Yak fighters protecting bombers. Their job was to drive off German fighters, they were specifically forbidden from leaving their charges to pursue and shoot down enemy fighters.

I believe the Boomerangs, though they were not able to shoot down any Japanese bombers, did disrupt their bombing mission. That would be a successful sortie for the Boomerang IMO.
The Boomerang continued in a combat role throughout it's career, while the Defiant was relegated to a training role after a poor showing in combat.
Looking at it that way would make the Defiant a less successful fighter than the Boomerang, even though it did manage to shoot down several enemy a/c.

I don't think many would agree that length of service is irrelevant to the success of a design. People praise the Mustang, Spitfire and Me109 for their length of service all the time. I would say that longevity helps put those three planes amongst the most successful fighter designs of WWII, so the opposite would also be true.

I guess when I asked did it meet design specs, I should have said 'did it do what the designers wanted it to do?', ie home defense, bomber escort, etc. I believe one of the design requirements of the 109 was as a home defense fighter, as was the Spitfire. The Spit was successful in that role, the 109, ultimately, was not. (probably no WWII design could have been successful protecting Germany in 1944/45)

There are a lot of people who place emphasis on kill/loss ratios. A positive or negatvie kill ratio doesn't tell the whole story, but it is a pretty important bit of evidence when evaluating a fighter. Definately not meaningless.

[riacrato]

Originally Posted by claidemore

I guess when I asked did it meet design specs, I should have said 'did it do what the designers wanted it to do?', ie home defense, bomber escort, etc. I believe one of the design requirements of the 109 was as a home defense fighter, as was the Spitfire. The Spit was successful in that role, the 109, ultimately, was not. (probably no WWII design could have been successful protecting Germany in 1944/45)

Always with the implications lol so cheap.
Suppose Germany had the Spitfire and GB the Bf 109, would the war go ANY different? No. Period.

[The Basket]

Very difficult to say.

The Hurricane was out performed even in 1940 but that proved an excellent machine.

It ain't what you got but what you do with it that counts.

The Defiant is a good example....it was never developed beyond its original concept so ended up going no where.

American fighters had range as a design feature so they had to be bigger heavy machines. So they more airspace to defend.

[tomo pauk]

RAF could've send the Defiants to Malta & Egypt in late 1940; with 1000+ pieces produced, a couple of hundreds sent there would be away from hi-performance Axis fighters and their tally would be noticeable.

[Shortround6]

Or the Axis tally would have been even more noticable.

While they may have had a better chance of shooting down Italian bombers and while their speed matched the speed of the early Italian fighters pretty well I would think the Italian's climb and manueverablility would prevent much fighter vrs fighter success by the Defiants and yet leave the Defiants vulnerable to the Italians.

Many Defiants were flown as night fighters and while they didn't score many successes in that role niether did many other planes tried in the same role at the time. THe problem being in the radar equipment more than the planes actual performance. 13 home squadrons were equipped with Defiant night fighters and if you ship the planes off to the middle east you just have to find some other plane to equipe those squadrons with.

Night fighter Botha's anyone

[The Basket]

The Defiant was a good flying machine with a top speed over 300mph which is not bad for a big 1940 machine.

The aircraft was fine the concept was bad.

[davebender]

I don't think so.

The inexpensive P-51 was overall superior to high priced P-38s and P-47s.

The dirt cheap Me-109 was competative right up to 1945.

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by riacrato

Always with the implications lol so cheap.
Suppose Germany had the Spitfire and GB the Bf 109, would the war go ANY different? No. Period.

Which is why I said

(probably no WWII design could have been successful protecting Germany in 1944/45)

Geez. Read the entire post before you go accusing me of taking cheap shots.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by claidemore

That would be the purpose of an interceptor, a fighter actually has a much broader defintion.

There are a lot of people who place emphasis on kill/loss ratios. A positive or negatvie kill ratio doesn't tell the whole story, but it is a pretty important bit of evidence when evaluating a fighter. Definately not meaningless.

No single stat tells the whole story, I would just say kill ratio against enemy fighters tells the most of any single stat, when it comes to air combat itself. Air combat itself was not the only operational factor of course, the other very important one being radius of action. If a fighter couldn't get to the fight, it could serve no purpose at all. Range is the most underestimated factor by far IME when people compare fighters.

But once the fighter could enter combat, fighters didn't generally vastly distinguish themselves in ability to shoot down or disrupt the operations of non-fighters, although that was arguably actually the most important end result of fighter operations. In most WWII cases most fighters could inflict unacceptable losses on enemy non-fighters which weren't effectively protected by enemy fighters. Being able to do that was nothing special. There are well known exceptions, like American heavy bombers (where the armament and toughness of the attacking fighters was very important) and certain recon and bombing planes that were hard to catch (Mosquito, Japanese Type 100 'Dinah', etc) . But as a rule most reasonably up to date fighters could inflict heavy losses on ineffectively escorted non-fighters, bombers especially, in daylight. Ability to combat enemy fighters is what separated the sheep from the goats.

So a concrete example, Hurricanes at Malta shot down cumulatively a lot of Axis bombers, and generally had the better of it v Italian fighters prior to the introduction of Mc202 in fall 1941, but were almost completely ineffective v Bf109's. In the first period of German operations v. Malta, Feb-May '41 (the LW then went away before returning in greater strength in Dec.'41) the Hurricanes shot down no Bf109E's for around 30 losses to the 109's, and it was usually just one Staffel of 109's present. The Hurricanes still shot down other Axis a/c in that period, (2/12-5/21/1941, 2-3 Bf110, 9 Ju-87 [for one more Hurricane loss], 4 Ju-88, 1 He-111, 1 SM.79, 1 CR-42, day ops only, 109's not present in all those combats)*. But, what fighter could have dealt better with the 109's yet been incapable of shooting down those other types of a/c? There was no such fighter, basically. Almost any fighter that could have done better v the 109's would have been in a better position to shoot down *more* bombers, by not spending as much energy suriving v the 109's, and by being cumulatively more numerous because not suffering as heavy losses to the 109's. If we're asking whether in absolute terms the Hurricanes achieved anything in that period the answer is yes. But if we're comparing to other fighters we might substitute for the Hurricane, ability to deal with the 109 would be the key *distinguishing feature*. When comparing fighter or fighter units (to avoid the endless 'pilot or plane causes it' debate), the ability to reach the fight and deal with enemy fighter units are the two most important *distingushing features*. Though those two factors don't explain everything in all cases, of course.

*As I counted in "Hurricanes over Malta" by Cull.

Joe

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by davebender

I don't think so.

The inexpensive P-51 was overall superior to high priced P-38s and P-47s.

The dirt cheap Me-109 was competative right up to 1945.

The P-51 ( in the versions that were superior) was not available when the P-38 was ordered and the the P-51 ( in the versions that were superior) was not available when the P-47 was ordered.

The P-51, in any version, Might have had trouble fighting in the mid to upper 30,000ft range if the Germans had been able to feild a fighter that operated at that altitude. THe P-38 and P-47 may have been better adapted to those altitudes. but this is a what if.

The Mustang could not carry the war load of a P-38.

THe P-38 carried a marginly heavier gun armament instalation while the -47 carried 33% more gun armament.

It might be interesting to see the tatical radius of some of these planes when toting bombs. P-47 has three mounting points vrs the P-51s two and the P-38 mounting points were good for 2000lbs each.

As for your joke about the 109, good one, I am still laughing.

A fighter is not cheap, no matter what the cost per plane, if you need two or three of the them to do the job of one bigger, more expensive airplane.

The 109 could not carry and did not carry a heavy enough gun armament to do what was needed.

While it may have been a decent fighter bomber in 1941-43 by late 44 and 45 it's bomb load can only be described as embarrasing.