NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/military/12178

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 5.0 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
From: Emmanuel Gustin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Sci.Military Login)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:17:18 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 85


From Emmanuel Gustin <[e-mail]>

I read 10 postings and would like to add some comments:

It is not so easy to point out whether a fighter was 'bad' or 'good'
fighter, because this is very dependent on circumstances and tactics. One
reason USSR-pilots loved the P-39 was that they were used to fight at
lower levels than their American counterparts. Most Russian fighters were
optimized for low-to-medium levels. The same goes for Japanese fighters;
many of them were unable to climb to the operating height of the B-29, and
the Japanese relied more on maneuvrability than other nations, with a
degree of succes; the Ki-43 'Oscar' cannot be thought to be good fighter
by then-European standards, but it served well. Japan and Russia never
(series) produced an aircraft like the Ta-152H. The P-39 and P-40
performed well in some theaters and some roles, and bad in others; they
were mediocre, but not really bad.

Also, in WWII the difference between day- and night fighters,
interceptors, escort fighters, fighter-bombers, and so on was still VERY
important. The Bf110 (or Me110, as you like it) was as disaster as an
escort fighter, but it did well as a night fighter and fighter-bomber.
Thus the Me110 was not a bad fighter. What would you think of the
Mosquito, had the British ever tried to use it as an escort fighter?

I think the best candidate for 'worst allied fighter' is the Blackburn
Roc, although it didn't see much action. Too slow, underpowered, and a
bad concept, being a 'gun turret' fighter. It lacked usefulness. The
Defiant was slightly better because the basic aircraft had good performance.
Of course it was the same bad concept. I know they were used as night
fighters; as far as I remember they were not that succesful, no more than
the Blenheim or the P-70.

As 'worst axis fighter' I would select the Me-163 because it was very,
very dangerous for its pilots and completely useless in combat.

The story about 3 Gladiators defending Malta is widely spread, but not
correct; it was a larger number. I don't remember how many exactly. It was
a remarkable achievement for them; but I suppose their opponents were
mostly Italian. It should be noted that the Gladiator was not at all the
only biplane fighter still in service in WWII; e.g. the Fiat CR-42 and
Polikarpov I-15ter (designed AFTER the I-16). The Gladiator was a
the product of the assumption that biplane fighters could be used forever,
but the two others were.

Concerning the I-16 and the P-26, don't forget that the Ki-27 was still in
service in 1941 too, and the main fighter of the Japanese Army when Japan
entered the war. And of course the Dutch Fokker D-XXI. All these were
outdated and outclassed, but I think that an I-16 would easily have shot
down a Roc. Remember that in Spain the I-16 showed itself superior to the
first Me-109's. (BTW, there is a claim that the Me-109D was really
Jumo-powered. Does anyone know more of this?)

The Westland Whirlwind was a good fighter low-down. Westland and W.E.W.
Petter should not be blamed for Rolls-Royce stopping the development of the
Peregrine engine. Many later famous fighters had engine troubles in the
beginning; the Whirlwind had just bad luck.

The Morane MS-406 was slightly outdated in 1940, but so was the Hurricane.
The poor record of the first aircraft and the good record of the latter
reflect superior British battle control and tactics more than a better design.
I would not call it not bad, but mediocre, just like the P-39.

The P-47 was generally called 'Jug'. But it was (at least at first)
shorthand for 'Juggernaut', an apropiate description of size, weight and
power of this fighter. It was designed as an high-flying bomber
interceptor; it is not surprising that the P-47 was inferior to the FW-190
in dogfighting at medium levels. The P-47 was a good aircraft, a good
concept, and was developed in a very successfull fighter; this is far
better than can be said of some other aircraft mentioned here.

In the 'never thought of' category, I would like to mention the XP-79
flying wing, designed for ramming attack (in the USA, yes) and lost on its
first flight; the Blohm & Voss Bv-44 glider-fighter; the gunship conversions
of the B-17 and B-24; the Japanese Ki-109 (I'm not entirely certain of the
number) adaptation of a bomber as a fighter with a big gun; the Vought SB2U
Vindicator (The British Navy intended to use it as a fighter, having
nothing better) and the Me-209 'fighter' version of the record-setting
aircraft. None of these were series production fighters, so they are
outside competition, but they were BAD ideas.

Emmanuel gustin
[e-mail]