Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Marcel]

Yes, I think the guy didn't read the line "of the losses"

[kool kitty89]

BTW those figures applied to the 14 lost make 11 Me 163's lost to accedents, 2 to dives/fires/mechanical failure, and 1 lost to enemy fire.

[Watanbe]

Originally Posted by parsifal

In the case of the RAF, I think it was their combat experience that in fact worked against them. The lessons learnt in Europe, when fighting the Luftwaffe , were precisely what NOT to do against the japanese.

Against the Luftwaffe, the best tactic was to dogfight, reduce the combat to a tight turning engagement. I know that there is a lot of material in other forums that attests to the equal ability of the 109 in a turning fight, but the facts are that the RAF found the best tactics to employ against the Luftwafffe fighters in the period up to 1942 was to turn as much as possible.
Against the Zero , or any Japanese SE fighter really, this was about the worst thing you could do.

I agree with that completely. One of the biggest keys to the early success of the Japanese fighters is the tactics that the Allies used!

[D.H firemoth]

I was watching the history channel when it listed the loss rete of them. The next time its on I will record and post it on.

[D.H firemoth]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yes 80 percent of the Me 163s that were lost, were lost in accidents.

It does not say that 80 percent of all Me 163s were lost.

See what I am saying?

JG 400 which lost 14 Me 163s had 91 Me 163s as far as I know.

Their was only 46 of the komet and their is 7 that survived

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by D.H firemoth

I was watching the history channel when it listed the loss rete of them. The next time its on I will record and post it on.

Evidently the sources used for the history channel were wrong, and it won't be the first time. I bet if one was to pull the Unit history of the squadrons operating the Me 163 I think it will be clear their total attrition rate was a lot lower than 80%.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by D.H firemoth

Their was only 46 of the komet and their is 7 that survived

Wow!

Were did you get those numbers? They are wrong.

Aprox. 400 Me 163s were built with a little less than 300 actually seeing combat.

Your number of 7 surviving is wrong as well. Aprox 30 were shipped out of Germany in 1945 to various countries for testing.

There are 10 examples in Musueums around the world today (which is more than your claim of 7 surviving):

Preserved Axis Aircraft

I think you might want to actually research the Me 163 a bit.

Facts:

Aprox. 400 were built.

About 300 saw combat.

95% did not get shot down or destroyed in the war.

10 examples, not 7 have survived in museums today.

Just because 10 survive today, does not mean that only 10 were not shot down in the war.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Evidently the sources used for the history channel were wrong, and it won't be the first time. I bet if one was to pull the Unit history of the squadrons operating the Me 163 I think it will be clear their total attrition rate was a lot lower than 80%.

As I already have shown. JG 400 had 91 aircraft and 14 were lost.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

As I already have shown. JG 400 had 91 aircraft and 14 were lost.

So I figure just over 15%? That's not that bad considering.....

[Marcel]

How many sorties did they make?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Marcel

How many sorties did they make?

That I do not know.

I know that they were not very succesful for varying reasons. JG 400 lost 9 aircraft (out of 91) and claimed 14 bomber kills.

And an edit to my post above: 279 Me 163s saw combat out of aprox 400 that were built.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I haven't read about this specifically mentioned on the P-39, but the US 20 mm was genuinely unreliable, the M1 version would have been the one used on the P-400/P-39D-1 (and optionally on the D-2 irc). Some sourses say the M2 version was worse, others that it was better but still much less reliable than the British Hispano Mk.II. So, with the ejection chute fixed, the M4 37 mm cannon would be more reliable.

On the issue of the power of the 37 mm shell, it should be noted that the German 30 mm mine shell carried ~60-85% more HE filler than the 37 mm did. (73 or 84 g opposed to the 37 mm's ~45 g)

KK,

Would you happen to know how the M4 37mm cannon featured on the P-39's & the P-63's compared to the 30mm cannon that was featured on the Sturmovik?


Elvis

[kool kitty89]

I don't know of any 30 mm used on the Il-2, I believe the standard cannon was the 23 mm VYa cannon (early versions using the lighter 20 mm ShVak).

And in tank buster versions, a pair of 37 mm NS-37's replaced the 23 mm weapons.

If you meant the NS-37, it was considerably heavier than the M4 (170 kg to 96 kg) but fired moderately heavier projectile at a high velocity (890 m/s opposed to ~600 m/s) at 250 rpm to the M4's 140.

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables ( a decent quick refrence, but not completely accurate you could also check Tony William's site: WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS )

[D.H firemoth]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Wow!

Were did you get those numbers? They are wrong.

Aprox. 400 Me 163s were built with a little less than 300 actually seeing combat.

Your number of 7 surviving is wrong as well. Aprox 30 were shipped out of Germany in 1945 to various countries for testing.

There are 10 examples in Musueums around the world today (which is more than your claim of 7 surviving):

Preserved Axis Aircraft

I think you might want to actually research the Me 163 a bit.

Facts:

Aprox. 400 were built.

About 300 saw combat.

95% did not get shot down or destroyed in the war.

10 examples, not 7 have survived in museums today.

Just because 10 survive today, does not mean that only 10 were not shot down in the war.

Soz I ment of the one's that have shot down bombers so dont get me wrong its not a bad aircraft

[r2800doublewasp]

The TBD was very advanced when it came out back in 1937.