Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

You wanna try and explain that?

Lets see, while you are at it, explain in detail how each of these foreign aircraft was outdated:

Bf 109
Fw 190
Me 262
Ar 234
Ju 88
He 162
Hs 129
Do 215
Fw 200
Do 217
He 177
Ju 188
Ju 288
Ju 290
Ju 390
Me 264
Do 335
Ta 152
Ta 183
He 219
Ho 229
Ju 388
P.1101
Fi 282
Ar 232
Bv 222
Go 244
Me 163
G.55
C.202
C.205
Re.2005
Re.2001
SM.79
Aichi B7A
Mitsubishi J2M
Kawasaki Ki-61
Kawasaki Ki-100
Nakajima Ki-84
Kawanishi N1K
Il-2
LaGG-3
La-5
La-7
Mig-3
Yak-1
Yak-3
Yak-9
Lancaster
Mosquito
Meteor
Vampire
Sea Fury
Tempest
Spitfire

You might want to actually do some research....

Wait a minute, what about the Fokker G.1 (I couldn't resist, you know)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by ratdog

i meant as in they were outdated before the war you are putting planes like f-190 and meteor they were designed and built while it was going on im talking about planes that were outclassed out gunned or worse when the war started.

So do you think that most of the foriegn countries were sending up fighters built in the 1930s?

Come on now, do some research. Even aircraft like the Bf 109 and Spitfire were constantly evolved and made better so they were not "outdated" as you call it.

I mean did Germany only put up 5 Fw 190s and use a 5,000 Bf 109Bs throughout the whole war? Think about it...

How did the US put up more "Non Outdated" aircraft than Germany, England, Russia, etc.?

Come on, please explain...

Originally Posted by ratdog

by prior to the war you mean what, before we entered after pearl or before Germany's Reich started to invade Poland and other European countries and Britain got involved?

WW2 did not start when the US entered the war...

Again please explain how these aircraft (first flown before the war) were outdated.

Bf 109
Spitfire
Fw 190

[Waynos]

Give him a break guys, his line about 'foreign' aircraft being outdated got my goat too, as if the Bf 109 and Spitfire were left trailing in the technological wake of the Brewster Buffalo and Curtiss Hawk, but c'mon, he was spot on with the Zubr.

Also show him the Blackburn Roc (worst naval fighter in history?) and Botha (test pilot quote: "that thing is bloody lethal, but not to the Germans, I never want to see it again") to make him feel better about foreign planes.

btw, its a long thread, did anyone mention the Blackburn Botha? if you like bad aeroplanes, and haven't already read it, give Bill Gunston's 'Back to the Drawing Board' a go. Very entertaining, but a surprisingly high proportion of Blackburns in there. At least they made the Buccaneer as well.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

He will be alright. He started a discussion and it will be discussed.

[ratdog]

no ww2 did not start when we entered the war but it just feels that way seeing that im american and what i mean, yes i should be more descriptive in posts Adler, is that they were not in production and equipping squadrons when the war started and notice i said

"some if not most," not all, of them were bad. i have to admit though even if they were outclassed threefold it is mainly the pilot that is the one who flies it

[kool kitty89]

I'd say, comparatively speaking, US frontline fighter a/c at the outbreak of the war were about average compared to those of the European powers.

However, a couple points of merit worth mentioning: as the US aircraft were expected to be operational in a variety of environments they were already equipped with the necessary components for tropical/dessert conditions and would not suffer performance degridation due to bulky tropicalized filters etc. Additionally the range of the US fighters was considerably greater than their European counterparts. (in particular, the Brewster F2A had ther greatest range of any single engine fighter in the world at its time of introduction)


And if you want to get into aircraft in service at the time of the US's enterance into the war, by that time the Fw 190A-2 was in service.



Admittedly the Zubr was a good addition to note. (and one that I don't think has been brought up before)

So I think the list is pretty much:

-Ba.88
-Blackburn Roc
-Blackburn Botha
-LWS-6 Zubr

According to
LWS-6 Żubr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LWS-4 is incorect if you're refferring to the bomber. (the LWS-4 was a light fighter project)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by ratdog

no ww2 did not start when we entered the war but it just feels that way seeing that im american and what i mean, yes i should be more descriptive in posts Adler, is that they were not in production and equipping squadrons when the war started and notice i said

I am American too. The difference is I do not let personal bias judge my quest for knowledge.

Originally Posted by ratdog

"some if not most," not all, of them were bad. i have to admit though even if they were outclassed threefold it is mainly the pilot that is the one who flies it

There you are are wrong again. The word "most" is very wrong. And this phrase is very very wrong as well:

"even if they were outclassed threefold it is mainly the pilot that is the one who flies it"

Please explain how the Fw 190, Bf 109 and Spitfire were outclassed threefold, and against what aircraft they were outclassed threefold by.

Where do you obtain your information from? You got yourself into this, now back it up.

[ratdog]

again i never said all, the main countries in the war had some very nice aircraft at the beginning and throughout example: Britain, Germany, Japan, and the US. but what about the other small output eurasian countries? not all of their ideas were up to par at the beginning.

[parsifal]

well, you should be careful even about that. If you look at just two that i can think of, the Rumanian IAR 80, and the Yugoslavian IK-3 and IK-5, you are going to find very competitive aircraft. These countries were labouring under severe productive penalties....the biggest problem was engine development, but they nevertheless wrung the very best out of the resources they had available.

I f you look at the other minor Axis partners, you will find the Finns very successfully re-engined their MS 406's to the so-call3ed Morane-Lagg configuration.

The hungarians undertook a major overhaul of the Italian fighter they had purchased a licence for, and in the process turned it from a leaky flying coffin, to a competitive little early war fighter. They also produced a satisfactory level bomber, and modified the me 210 that they were producing to make it airworthy as well. Similar stpories exist for the Bulgarians, the Swiss, the Swedes, all of whom were able to produce competitive types.

In the case of the Rumanians and the hungarians, they provided somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the air resources for the southern fron in Russia throughout 1943. Not bad for a couple of back woodsy little twirpy nations IMO.

Your position is clearly untenable. You should retract what you have said, and move on to learn something in this place

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by parsifal

QUOTE=JoeB;403267]1.


1. Are we on the same wavelength here?

2. I approach the problem a bit differently (and admittedly a bit less accurately) than eityher you or slaterat. I look at the history of the units involved, and the strengths of those units at those times. The case in point are the strengths of the units sent to Burma, in late 1941. Basically 48% of the 3rd Air divs forces were detached for use over burma, This 48% had dropped from a starting strength of 172 at the beginning of the war in December, to a strength of 153 aircraft (+/- 2 or 3 aircraft) by the start of 1942. In other words, half the force had suffered only 20 losses in the time frame we are talking about.....does that accord to what you are thinking???


3. I am the first to challenge the size of the losses being touted here. i thik its a total crock. However, the Allies were not outnumbered 4:1 by Japanese fighters at the beginning of the camapign.

1. Basically are, I believe
2. If all we had were total loss reports or unit strengths then your analysis method would be necessary. But, we instead we have a good numbers of cases, most combats in the period, where the authors of "Bloody Shambles" clearly report the air combat losses, only, of each side. In fact they usually go beyond that to report eg. this a/c crashlanded wheels up, etc. so we're not relying on somebody else's filtering (maybe an official total didn't count wheels up wreck as a 'loss', but I would). Given all that rich case by case data, that's the way to analyze it IMO. And the results are highly consistent, the Japanese fighter units in SEA Dec '41-Apr '42 end of campaign, were hardly every bested by RAF or Dutch units, seldom by USAAF either, although the AVG v Japanese Army fighters was a different story.
3. I wasn't clear. The *fighter v fighter kill ratio* of Japanese Army and Navy fighters v RAF/Dutch Buffalo's in those campaigns was >4:1. As you said, the initial Japanese numerical advantage was modest. In retractable undercarriage monoplane fighters (Zero and Type 1) the Japanese were outnumbered by the Allies (RAF, USAAF, KNIL throughout SEA) Dec 8 1941, though including the fixed gear Type 97 they had a moderate numerical advantage. After the war started their advantage increased in large part because of losses they inflicted on the Allies. For an extreme example, the USAAF P-40 force in the Philippines outnumbered the Zero force able to reach the PI from Formosa Dec 8, but within a few days it was heavily outnumbered itself, due to losses (on the ground mainly though was also bested in the air by the Zeroes 2~3:1) and establishment of Type 97's at based in northern Luzon. But again back to the 21 combat sample, most of those particular combats didn't feature a lot more Japanese than Allied fighters. Even if you outnumber somebody overall, formations of similar size will still often meet.

Joe

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by ratdog

again i never said all, the main countries in the war had some very nice aircraft at the beginning and throughout example: Britain, Germany, Japan, and the US. but what about the other small output eurasian countries? not all of their ideas were up to par at the beginning.

You said "if not most", and that is not really correct either. The majority of them fielded airforces that were made up of aircraft from other countries. Romania built great aircraft and also used German built aircraft such as the 109 and 190. Hungary, Slovakia, Switzerland, Bulgaria all used German built aircraft. The French had decent aircraft, but were knocked out of the war too early. Spain used German built aircraft for the most part. The Netherlands and Belgium can not be compared, they were knocked out two early, but when they were in the war, the aircraft they used were not necessarily outdated and certainly not "threefold". Finland used German built aircraft. Yeah Polish aircraft were outdated, but they were knocked out in 1939...

So again I ask you this:

What Foreign Airforces were outclassed "threefold" by the USAAF during WW2?

The sooner this question is answered the sooner we can all move on.

Originally Posted by parsifal

well, you should be careful even about that. If you look at just two that i can think of, the Rumanian IAR 80, and the Yugoslavian IK-3 and IK-5, you are going to find very competitive aircraft. These countries were labouring under severe productive penalties....the biggest problem was engine development, but they nevertheless wrung the very best out of the resources they had available.

I f you look at the other minor Axis partners, you will find the Finns very successfully re-engined their MS 406's to the so-call3ed Morane-Lagg configuration.

The hungarians undertook a major overhaul of the Italian fighter they had purchased a licence for, and in the process turned it from a leaky flying coffin, to a competitive little early war fighter. They also produced a satisfactory level bomber, and modified the me 210 that they were producing to make it airworthy as well. Similar stpories exist for the Bulgarians, the Swiss, the Swedes, all of whom were able to produce competitive types.

In the case of the Rumanians and the hungarians, they provided somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the air resources for the southern fron in Russia throughout 1943. Not bad for a couple of back woodsy little twirpy nations IMO.

Your position is clearly untenable. You should retract what you have said, and move on to learn something in this place

Very well said and thought out post.

[ratdog]

not necesarily by the us many of the countries germany invaded had no chance of surviving the onslaught that was going to occur same thing about manchuria and other small south pacific countries, they stood no chance against japan. some countries did their very best as parcifal said they wrung out all they could with limited production capabilities. and some of the aircraft i think of are just in a case of going up against better pilots or they could be just outdated, as in flying planes from early 30s.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by ratdog

not necesarily by the us many of the countries germany invaded had no chance of surviving the onslaught that was going to occur same thing about manchuria and other small south pacific countries, they stood no chance against japan. some countries did their very best as parcifal said they wrung out all they could with limited production capabilities. and some of the aircraft i think of are just in a case of going up against better pilots or they could be just outdated, as in flying planes from early 30s.

That still does not answer the question of how "Most foreign aircraft were outdated and outclassed threefold".

What aircraft were outclassed threefold?

What were they outclassed threefold by?

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by ratdog

not necesarily by the us many of the countries germany invaded had no chance of surviving the onslaught that was going to occur same thing about manchuria and other small south pacific countries, they stood no chance against japan. some countries did their very best as parcifal said they wrung out all they could with limited production capabilities. and some of the aircraft i think of are just in a case of going up against better pilots or they could be just outdated, as in flying planes from early 30s.

Most of the small countries in Europe (The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Poland etc.) were overpowered by sheer numbers. As for my own country, I think you're right that the D.XXI was somehow outdated (not threefold), but still proved to be quite able against the Bf109 and Bf110. I believe the G.1 belongs amongst the best twin engined fighterplanes of 1940. Problem was that there were only 23 of them and 28 D.XXI's. The Luftwaffe came with about than 240 fighters.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I f you look at the other minor Axis partners, you will find the Finns very successfully re-engined their MS 406's to the so-call3ed Morane-Lagg configuration.

It was called the "Mörkö Morane" Mörkö meaning Goblin I belive. (but uther translations give "Ogre" and "Ghost")