Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[ratdog]

and maybe not threefold but generally outweighed

[wingnuts]

I think experience had as much to do with it as the quality of the aircraft, The German and Japanese pilots had either more experience or were trained by those with recent experience... gained in Spain in in Germany's case or in China or against the Soviets in the Japanese case.

Some UK, US and European pilots may have flown in Spain and China but their national airforces were slow to adopt the lessons and tactics learned.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by ratdog

and maybe not threefold but generally outweighed

Define outweighed.

[ratdog]

more likely lose a fight than win it

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by wingnuts

I think experience had as much to do with it as the quality of the aircraft, The German and Japanese pilots had either more experience or were trained by those with recent experience... gained in Spain in in Germany's case or in China or against the Soviets in the Japanese case.

Some UK, US and European pilots may have flown in Spain and China but their national airforces were slow to adopt the lessons and tactics learned.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think this is the exact reason why the F2A didn't fare so well in the PTO.



Elvis

[kool kitty89]

In the specific US pilot combat experience, I think it would also have to do with the fact that only the overweight F2A-3 ever saw combat. (in addition to the situation they were used in)

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by wingnuts

I think experience had as much to do with it as the quality of the aircraft, The German and Japanese pilots had either more experience or were trained by those with recent experience... gained in Spain in in Germany's case or in China or against the Soviets in the Japanese case.

Some UK, US and European pilots may have flown in Spain and China but their national airforces were slow to adopt the lessons and tactics learned.

True in some match ups, but in case of Buffalo and Hurricane's similar poor performance v Japanese Army and Navy fighters in 1941-42, the RAF had been at war already 2+years. Again see the references, "Bloody Shambles" and more detailed books from Allied side like "Buffaloes over Singapore". The British units were a mixture of men with combat experience in Europe, including some who were already aces, and those less experienced. They may have had less combat experience on average than their Japanese opponents but it wasn't 100% v 0%. Whereas USN and USMC F4F units did have zero combat experience starting against Japanese units with some previously combat experienced pilots, but they did a lot better v Japanese fighters in 1942, on average. Or the AVG which also did better: only 1 of the 100 original AVG pilots had prior combat experience ('Ajax' Baumler, who flew for the Republians in Spain). But the AVG members were mostly pretty experienced peacetime military pilots, not the same as the mass-produced wartime pilots in 1942 RAF units. So there are surely many factors even just about pilots skill. Then there's for example leadership and morale within units, it wasn't just about skill or experience.

Joe

[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.

In addition, for the hurricane reinforcements for Singapore, it is important to note that only 24 trained pilots were accompanying the 50+ planes being sent out as reinforcements. It was expected that the survivors of the buffalo squadrons would provide the balance for the wing (three squadrons). This never occurred, and no pilot conversion training was ever undertaken. More than half the hurricanes were in fact destroyed on the ground, having never flown. They were destroyed in bombing raids against Palembang, wher the majority of them were initially deployed

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

In the specific US pilot combat experience, I think it would also have to do with the fact that only the overweight F2A-3 ever saw combat. (in addition to the situation they were used in)

...

Crap, that's right. I'd forgotten about that.
Thanks for the reminder.



Elvis

[Chriss1958]

Probably the ugliest aircraft of all time, ever!

F.F.G Berlin B.9

You know how car designs go rounded then angular?? Well this one falls into the angular design spec.

[wingnuts]

Originally Posted by Chriss1958

Probably the ugliest aircraft of all time, ever!

F.F.G Berlin B.9

You know how car designs go rounded then angular?? Well this one falls into the angular design spec.

I've seen worse!.... Form follows Function ... from what I just read (see URL) it was an experimental aircraft to test out the prone pilot position, it seems it was quite sucessful in doing what it was designed to do.

Berlin B9 Luft '46 Prototypes entry

[kool kitty89]

There are several threads dedicated to ugly aircraft, try the forum's google search feature. (I believe you'll fine ones far worse than that)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Chriss1958

Probably the ugliest aircraft of all time, ever!

F.F.G Berlin B.9

You know how car designs go rounded then angular?? Well this one falls into the angular design spec.

Since when does ugly mean worst? Wrong thread...

[Captain Dunsel]

I do get a chuckle out of the Berlin's registration code, though.

CD

[Airframes]

Agree Captain! The aircraft itself is almost as ugly as one of my ex-girlfriends!