What do think is the most underrated Aircraft of Wrold War II

[Cowboy1968]

I have my personal opinion on this, so i was just wondering what yours are.

Personally I think the Brewster Buffalo, has a bad reputation it didn't deserve. IF you actually study the plane you discover several important facts.

1. It was a plane designed around 1935. by the time World War II rolled around it was approaching ihe end of its useful life. It was still competitive up to 1943.

2. With an experienced pilot flying the bird it could win in an even fight. The biggest mark against it, in the US eyes, was the lose of the Buffalos at Midway, but these were planes flown by enexperenced pilots taking on the cream of Japanese Naval Aviation. They were also outnumbered five to one. 21 Buffalos facing 108 bombers and fighters with the best naval pilots in the world flying them against USMC pilots who had never seen combat trying to down Japaneses pilots that had years of experience over China, the Philippines and Pearl Harbor. It is important to remember the Wildcats that were also with VMF-221 did not fair any better then the Buffaloes

3. In RAF service the small number of Buffaloes were still able to achieve a 2 to 1 kill ratio even with inexperienced Australian pilots flying them. Again it is important to remember they were facing odds of 4 to 1 to as high as 6 to 1 against Japanese Army pilots who had years of experience in China.

4. The Finish were able to achieve a 11 to 1 kill ratio in the Buffalo. This was in the hands of experienced pilots.

Lesson to learn was that the Buffalo was still a good plane. It was able to fight with the best of them even with inexperienced pilots in the cockpit, but you really needed hardened pilots. The aircraft was still very compeditive till 1943, but after that technology start to leave the stubby fighter behind.

[PomBee]

For me, unsurprisingly perhaps, the most under-rated aircraft of WW2 was..........

The Hawker Hurricane!!!

Overshadowed by the Spitfire cos it was better looking, the Hurricane was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time at the start of World War 2. It might not have been as fast as the Spit and the 109, but it could turn inside both of them, which is what most pilots required of their fighters. It was a more stable gun platform than the Spit and the fact that it's guns were grouped together meant that it delivered a heavier concentration of fire.
It drives me nuts when people say "Oh, yeah, the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain". Like hell it did. I love the Spitfire, it's heart-breakingly beautiful (at least in the Merlin engine form) and a superb fighter, but the Hurri was a proper bomber-killer. Hurricanes accounted for nearly 70% of ALL German losses during the Battle, not just air to air victories. If any aircraft can lay claim to the title of Battle winner, it's the Hurricane. One pilot at the time was quoted as saying "We were glad to have the Spitfire, but we HAD to have the Hurricane".
The Hurricane served on all fronts during the War and scored more victories, by far, than any other allied aircraft, including the Spitfire. It was the only fighter that could fly throughout Monsoon season in the SEAC. It's construction allowed for battle repairs to be carried out quickly, so it's serviceability was always high (this was vital during the BoB and the defence of Malta) and it's wide track undercarriage allowed it to operate from the roughest of airfields and desert landing grounds behind enemy lines during the desert war (special forces fighter plane?).
The Hurricane remained in frontline service with the RAF for ten years and the last RAF operators, 6 Sqn were, apparently, very reluctant to exchange them for Tempest VIs.
Anyway, rant over. I offer you the underdog, the diamond in the rough, one of the most adaptable aircraft (next to the mosquito) that the RAF have ever possessed.

:applause:THE HAWKER HURRICANE.:applause:

(Absolutely no bias at all here, no, not me, Guv. As objective as the next bloke, I am!!)

Cheers.

PomBee:ernae:

[Rami]

How about the Curtiss Hawk family? (P-36, P-40)

[Blue Devil]

Has to be the Curtiss SB2c Helldiver, ...hands down.

The "A" model (SB2C-1) got a bad rap early on...

...then she went on to become the most prolific, ...w/ the most tonnage sunk, ...of any VB in WWII service...

...and is STILL referred to as "The Beast", ...and "Son-of-a-Bitch 2nd Class."

[peperez]

I have two nominees:

1. The Bell P-39 and
2. Polikarpov I-16

Pepe

[Cowboy1968]

yes I have to agree with you Rami The Hawks are often over looked. The P-36 is very much ignored by historians, but it was one of the few aircraft that could actually turn with the Ki-43 Oscar.

The Oscar is considered one of the bench marks for dog fighters. it can climb fast, turn tight and so on, and the P-36 has these same qualities. Most of these Qualities were transitioned into the P-40 with its Allison engine. the extra weight did slow the climb down, but this still didn't stop the P-40 from becoming a very important asset in te Pacific and the MTO. In its element the P-40 could master the BF-109. It is fact that the Germans in a lot of cases would actually decide to go up above 15,000 feet because they didn't want to face the killer that the Warhawk was at low to medium altitude.

The P-40 proved to be a very adaptable aircraft.

Even in 1944 Curtiss was able to redesign the bird into the XP-40Q. This airplane had a new Allison engine, same one mounted in the Bell P-63, that overcame the higher altitude problem. The Q also had a new laminar flow wing. with clipped ends. In fly off tests with the P-63A, P-51D and the P-59A the P-40Q showed it was just as fast and agile as the rest of the competition. The reason it wasn't produced was because it would have required a major retool of the Curtis plant and that the P-51D Mustang was already in production, and that the Bell P-63A Kingcobra was already starting up in production for the USAAF and the Soviet Union. The Bell P-59 went on to become the USAAF's first jet. Even though the XP-40Q proved it was as good as the Mustang and the Kingcobra, it just didn't offer any advantage that would lead to full production.

But yes it is a shame the Hawks are often overlooked

[Cowboy1968]

Again in its element the P-39 was one hell of a dog fighter. but once the enemy ran above 15,000 that Allison engine chocked off. It was an excellent ground attack plane. The Russians would soup up the engines and produced a very fast fighter that could turn and fight with the best of them. Problem was the engines would have to be replaced after just about every flight.

The P-39 could pull combat maneuvers other planes would tear themselves apart pulling. One being the tail stand. Slam the throttle to full put yourself into a near vertical climb once the engine started to sputter pull back the throttle and the plane would slide back down the same vertical path it just climbed. nose her back to level and throttle up again and you are behind the enemy. This move was able to be done in the Airacobra because of the Center of Gravity the center mounted engine gave the bird.

Most of the problems with the P-39 was solved when Bell introduced the P-63

I only have a sight working knowledge of the I-16

For my opinions and assessments of the SB2C look at this thread:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=8952

As for the Hurricane, i can't add nothing to PomBee's assessment. His is right on.

[bearcat241]

....One being the tail stand. Slam the throttle to full put yourself into a near vertical climb once the engine started to sputter pull back the throttle and the plane would slide back down the same vertical path it just climbed. nose her back to level and throttle up again and you are behind the enemy...

....sounds appealing in typed words, but try that move in real combat against a worthy adversary in a Zeke or Oscar, he'll chew your ass to bits in the climb. If somehow you survive his first volley of fire, he'll climb past your stall and hammer-head or loop down on you as you "slide down that vertical path" and try to lower your nose...KAPOW! This kinda stuff looks great at airshows, but will kill you quicker than a bolt of lightning in real dogfights against people who know what they're doing.

In the HC Dogfights episodes i recall an early war Jap double-ace (Zeke pilot) who made his reputation doing just this. Except he baited following Wildcats into an energy-draining climb, out-climbed them and reverse-looped over the top to fall on them as they wallowed and slid down. He later met the Maker while trying this maneuver against Hellcats. They simply out-performed his poor little Mitsubishi A6M2 in the vertical fight.

[Devildog73]

I agree with two most firmly.
The Hawher Hurricane and the P-40.
For reasons already stated.

When flying in dogfights, I will almost always pick one or the other of these two. I have gotten used to them and their flight dynamics and actually prefer them against all German and Japanese aircraft. They both seem to absorb more enemy hits than any other fighters I have in my installs.

But then, I like to get in close and personal in my hairballs.

[hellcat44]

No glamor here.
Although plagued by engine problems of one degree or another throughout it's service, the B-29 was a very advance bomber for it's time.
Also...it was the fire bombing, atomic bomb, workhorse that played a large role in Japan's capitulation. :friday:

[TARPSBird]

My nominations have already been covered. :)
Brewster Buffalo - a bit dated for WWII but still a maneuverable fighter until it was loaded down with radios and armor plate. The Finns did pretty well with them against the Soviets.
And two planes that unfairly ended up in the "other" category...
Hurricane - the "other fighter" of the Battle of Britain.
SB2C Helldiver - the "other dive bomber" of the Pacific Theater.

[Devildog73]

Just for grins and giggles, I would like to know how a P-40 would have performed with 4X50s on the wings, 1 or 2X20mm cannon on the nose, and a Griffon or Merlin turbo charged engine?

[Maxstuka]

Devastator, it has similar than the japanese kate and I sink that it can be make in more number, is a basic and good torpeder!.The vultee V11G have more speed but this is other aircraft than Usa no use for torpeders missions in china or australia
And the prototipe of P-44 rocket, is have a good performance the cost is very inferior of P-47, and have more ceiling and speed than the P-40
I am agree about they sink of P-36! it is a good aircraft I campared this with Ki-43

I have a serius opinion but about of pre WWII Second Sino-Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War)
Breda Ba.27

this aircraft fly in 1933 and produced 14 in 1934, I can´nt beliave that the reggia no make more of this aircraft! this is a advanced model for the age

Maximum speed: 380 km/h (236 mph)
This aircraft has more little speed and service ceiling than the Boeing P-26
entered service before of P-26
-- and the speed is very cool to fight in the spanish civil war!, is more good than Fiat Cr-32 and I-15!

[Maxstuka]

http://www.hobbykit-import.com/images/AZMod7243-Web.jpg

[Cowboy1968]

The TBD Devastator wasn't really a bad airplane. It was designed around the same time as the Buffalo and found itself having some of the same problems. It was drawing near to the end of the aircraft's useful life. This Bird raised hell with the Japanese for the first six months of the war. It performed well as a horizontal bomber on the Pacific Island raids of 1942. In the Torpedo run yes it was slow into the target. This made it fighter bait at Midway, but these loses wouldn't have happened if the attack had been done as the pilots were trained. A Coordinated attack involving the TBDs coming in low on the torpedo runs, while at the same time the SBD dive bombers would be making their runs from around 10,000 ft. while the F4F Wildcats covered the whole action.

The plane was to have this battle tactic but all the squadrons got FUBAR on navigation and the planes struck at different times.

Now when he attack worked right like in the early raids the TBD did well.

But after the heavy losses at Midway and with the production line for the TBD already producing other types of aircraft the remainder were withdrawn from front line service.

This was also pretty much the same story for another great plane. Vought SB2U Vindicator.

[Blue Devil]

Just for grins and giggles, I would like to know how a P-40 would have performed with 4X50s on the wings, 1 or 2X20mm cannon on the nose, and a Griffon or Merlin turbo charged engine?

Great, ...

...all the way to the crash-site. (right after it tore itself apart.)

[Cowboy1968]

Are we forgetting the Packard powered Warhawks............the P-40F.......they were great birds.

[bearcat241]

1......the MiG-3 - Russia's best WWII fighter - the shock & awe scourge of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern front. Responsible for the attrition of a huge number of enemy aircraft. Plus the fact that it was they which kept the cream of the Luftwaffe's fighter corp divided beween two fronts. Had they not been so effective, the Western allied strategic bombing campaign would have suffered even greater losses to German fighters with a full concenteration on the Western front.

2....the IL2 Sturmovik - Russia's best tactical bomber and the ultimate dedicated WWII tank-buster.

[miamieagle]

I agree with everything been said with the exception of Cowboys comment:

In RAF service the small number of Buffaloes were still able to achieve a 2 to 1 kill ratio even with inexperienced Australian pilots flying them. Again it is important to remember they were facing odds of 4 to 1 to as high as 6 to 1 against Japanese Army pilots who had years of experience in China.

We have to remember that there was a lot of propaganda in those days by both sides. If that would have been true the Japanese would not have been able to conquer one quarter of World surfice area in 1942.:ernae:

[Blue Devil]

Are we forgetting the Packard powered Warhawks............the P-40F.......they were great birds.

Quite...

Though w/ a Rolls Royce Merlin 28, rated at 1,300 hp, ...

not a Merlin 61, rated at 1,565 hp, ...

or a Merlin 64, rated at 1,710 hp.

[Maxstuka]

The TBD Devastator wasn't really a bad airplane. It was designed around the same time as the Buffalo and found itself having some of the same problems. It was drawing near to the end of the aircraft's useful life. This Bird raised hell with the Japanese for the first six months of the war. It performed well as a horizontal bomber on the Pacific Island raids of 1942. In the Torpedo run yes it was slow into the target. This made it fighter bait at Midway, but these loses wouldn't have happened if the attack had been done as the pilots were trained. A Coordinated attack involving the TBDs coming in low on the torpedo runs, while at the same time the SBD dive bombers would be making their runs from around 10,000 ft. while the F4F Wildcats covered the whole action.

The plane was to have this battle tactic but all the squadrons got FUBAR on navigation and the planes struck at different times.

Now when he attack worked right like in the early raids the TBD did well.

But after the heavy losses at Midway and with the production line for the TBD already producing other types of aircraft the remainder were withdrawn from front line service.

This was also pretty much the same story for another great plane. Vought SB2U Vindicator.

This is ok, but the model can be update, add more power engines, etc
why japanese make B5N kate and they are good to atack ships and no for devastators?

[Shadow Wolf 07]

PBY Catalina - it's recon, rescue and ASW contributions were very significant.

[Captain Tenneal]

From what I understand The B-26 marauder has for the most been forgotten by history and, all of the movies show the B-17 not the B-24 carrying the warlord over fortress Europe.

[Cowboy1968]

Maxstuka the TBD production had already ceased, upgrading the aircraft was not an option.

[peperez]

Just for grins and giggles, I would like to know how a P-40 would have performed with 4X50s on the wings, 1 or 2X20mm cannon on the nose, and a Griffon or Merlin turbo charged engine?

They put a Merlin and got a very small improvement, less than 10 MPH. The Hawks has a handicap: they use an outdate wing profile, the same used at A-17 Nomad dive bomber. In my opinion, P-40 is an OVERATED plane. The Flying Tigers inflated their reputation by their INFLATED victory claims. The same must be said about Brewster victories at Finn hands.

Pepe

[Hern07]

Good question! My favorite is the F4F. It produced when the chips were down. It out performed French aircraft over Casablanca and mastered the excellent Zero. (The quality of the pre-war USN pilots might have had something to do with it.) Besides, I like it's looks. :woot:

[Rami]

Since I love my Italian birds...I would have to nominate the Macchi Mc-202 Folgore and the Fiat G-55 Centauro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_C.202

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55

The Fiat G-55 Centauro is my favorite Axis mount in the Mediterranean, with the Macchi Mc-202 Folgore, Messerschmitt Bf-109f, Reggiane Re-2005 Sagittario, and the IAR-80 rounding out the top five.

[Wulf190]

American?
P-39 Airacobra. I know a pilot who flew both it and the P-38. He didn't have much in the way of negatives to say about the P-39, but he flew the P-38 in combat.

(BTW if you wan tot know how a P-40 perfromed with 4 .50 cal guns, look up the P-40L)

(The Buffalo as underrated? Eh, it diserved it's reputation me thinks. Finns did good with it though!)

British?
Hurricane, but its still very well respected.

French?
That's a hard one. the D.520 was seen as the best. Maybe the MB152?

Soviet?
MiG-3, It's only problem which was it's down fall is that it was not designed for combat at low latitudes. (Humm seems to be the inverse of the P-39)

Australian?
Boomerang, It just doesn't seem to be that well known. I have read a few reports where in some cases it's manuverability was better then a Spitfire MkV.

Japanese?
Humm I'd say the Ki-44. It was not operated widely in the PTO, and had a bit of a negative stigma attached to it's by it's crews as being a Hot fighter. But it really paved the way for the Ki-84. I'd also say the Ki-61 was underrated, but it's engine really gave it the black eye.

German?
Tough one. Maybe the Ju-88? Nah, it was the German swiss army knife! performing more roles then even the Fw-190.

[hewman100]

Another under-served British bird: The Bristol Blenheim.

First aircraft to fly into enemy territory after Britains declaration of war. Served with all Commands of the RAF in every Theatre of WW2, in fact the only 'modern' bomber in the Far East theatre for quite a while.

All three major marks were flown by recipient of the Victoria Cross:
The MkI by Sqn Ldr Arthur Scarf of 62 Sqn on 9 Dec 1941 in Malaya (posthumous)
The MkIV by Wg Cmdr 'Hughie' Edwards of 105 Sqn on 4 July 1941 over Bremen
The MkV by Wg Cmdr Hugh Malcolm of 18 Sqn on 4 December 1942 over the Western Desert (posthumous)

[PHo17]

I have my personal opinion on this, so i was just wondering what yours are.

Personally I think the Brewster Buffalo, has a bad reputation it didn't deserve. IF you actually study the plane you discover several important facts.
...


If you ask Finns they agree.:d

Pekka

:finland:

[peperez]

If you ask Finns they agree.:d

Pekka

:finland:

The Finns Buffaloes were almost 500 pounds lighter than American one... This can make a difference.

Pepe

[Cowboy1968]

In an experenced hand the Buffalo was deadly, It could turn with the Zero. And when they weren't out numbered to the point of chasing one and having two on your tail the Buffalo did a good job. Yes it was at the end of its career, just as the F4F was drawing near obsolescence. The only thing that really saved the Wildcat was that the US needed a fighter that was small enough to be carried in numbers aboard the escort carriers and the Wildcat had the fortune of still being in production and was just the right size.

IN an honest evaluation of the Wildcat you discover it really wasn't that much faster or that much more nimble then the Buffalo, Both the Buffalo and Wildcat faced the same problem, the Zero could out climb them both, and the Oscar could out turn and out climb them both. But when both were used in an even fight, and using the team tactics figured out by the US Navy and USMC pilots they both could take their Japanese opponents. The Buffalo was a victim of its circumstances....out numbered and maned by inexperience of its pilots. And being a plane that was already going out of production in favor of more modern equipment the Buffalo was regulated to training duties in the USA. For an airplane that was so bad, many army and navy pilots hated having to face it in training exercises of mock combat. It was used this way tell spares started to run short and about four o fthem were still being used as squadron hacks even into 1947

Would you call the A6M5 Zero\Zeke a bad plane. In 1944, it was facing the same problems that Burralo faced. It was out numbered and facing more nimble planes then it was. If you aply the opinions applied to the Buffalo to the A6M, then i guess it was a bad plane.

[aeromed202]

If underrated also means forgotten I have a strong bias towards the B-26 Marauder. Able to out run most every fighter (top speed 340+) carry up to 4500 lbs of bombs (as much as most 4 engine bombers), dogfight with 4 forward 50cals, had the best combat survivability record of all allied aircraft I believe, out performed a p-38 once (Tales of the Marauders), feared and avoided by enemy pilots in every theater, not to mention a long list of aircraft construction firsts. Once you got the knack of handling her she was a true pilots aircraft. Yet despite all that the Marauder is seldom if ever mentioned or exploits recounted in any venue. Just my 2 cents.
Great thread!!! Love the other entries-now I want find them to fly!

[Irwin Forrester]

Since my other favorites for this catagory have been taken, I submitt to you the SBD dauntless. It performed long range scout duties, was at the end of its, service life when it turned the tide of the war at MIdway and was even successfully flown in a dog fight against 3to1 odds. P.S. the p40 with a merlin 65 might have been better off, but if any one has noticed, the p40 has enough lift to take off without flaps, or am I full of it?:woot:

[xavierb]

A good example of underrated aircraft is the series of Italian Reggiane fighters (2000, 2001 and 2002). 2005 was not underrated). The Re. 2000-2001-2002 were underrated by the own Regia Aeronautica despite performing better than their competitors (Macchi 200, Fiat G.50, Fiat CR.42,...). Many thinks helped but basically it was the strong bias of the Italian Air Ministry officials to favour bigger, more established companies and also the policy of dividing the production between different factories and models. The outcome was that only a handful of Re. 2000-2001-2002 were built (somekind of experimental or pre-series batches) so in the end there was very few ground personnel that know how to maintain and repair them. Also, spare parts were scarce as they were not produced after the end of the pre-series batch.
It is a pitty, as the designers of these aircraft (Longhi and Alessi) were of the very few in Italy at the time that had experience working on foreign aircraft industries (US, Seversky in their case) so they had a more open mind to innovations than their local competitors. In fact, looking a Re.2000 one finds some familiarity with the Seversky P.35!
It is interesting to see also that they cared of using a more powerful plant (Piaggio P.XI, 986 HP) than their competitors, that were unanimously mounting the underpowered Fiat A74 (840 HP). Just an example of common sense!

[Eoraptor1]

The Hawker Hurricane. An easily produced, easily maintained, all-around workhorse eclipsed by the Spitfire.

JAMES

[SPman]

The Hawker Hurricane is my choice - very versatile.
A friend of Dads was a Polish pilot, who escaped from Poland, through France to England. He flew the Hurricane in England and the Med., and swore by it - preferred it ti the Spit - said it was rugged and tough.....and crashed well! (he was shot down 3 times......:Banane15:)
...and the P36 - P40 Hawks..

[Hern07]

In an experenced hand the Buffalo was deadly, It could turn with the Zero. And when they weren't out numbered to the point of chasing one and having two on your tail the Buffalo did a good job. Yes it was at the end of its career, just as the F4F was drawing near obsolescence. The only thing that really saved the Wildcat was that the US needed a fighter that was small enough to be carried in numbers aboard the escort carriers and the Wildcat had the fortune of still being in production and was just the right size.

IN an honest evaluation of the Wildcat you discover it really wasn't that much faster or that much more nimble then the Buffalo, Both the Buffalo and Wildcat faced the same problem, the Zero could out climb them both, and the Oscar could out turn and out climb them both. But when both were used in an even fight, and using the team tactics figured out by the US Navy and USMC pilots they both could take their Japanese opponents. The Buffalo was a victim of its circumstances....out numbered and maned by inexperience of its pilots. And being a plane that was already going out of production in favor of more modern equipment the Buffalo was regulated to training duties in the USA. For an airplane that was so bad, many army and navy pilots hated having to face it in training exercises of mock combat. It was used this way tell spares started to run short and about four o fthem were still being used as squadron hacks even into 1947

Would you call the A6M5 Zero\Zeke a bad plane. In 1944, it was facing the same problems that Burralo faced. It was out numbered and facing more nimble planes then it was. If you aply the opinions applied to the Buffalo to the A6M, then i guess it was a bad plane.

By 1941, the Buffalo was totally unsuitable as a carrier fighter, the landing gear struts were too weak for carrier ops, probably because of the added weight. True, the Zero could easily out maneuver the Wildcat, but then what. A Zero on a Wildcat's tail did not automatical have a kill, the armor was proof agains the MG fire and would sometimes stop a canon shell. On the other hand, the six fifties of a F4f would shred a Zero. Often, particularly at Guadalcanal, the Widcats enjoyed a tactical advantage. The Zeros had flown all the way from Rabaul and would be tired from the long flight. Most of the times the Wildcats had advanced warning from coast watchers and radar and would be well placed for interception. By 1944 the Zero was still a good plane, but the quality of the pilots had really deterioted. Good tactics and good pilots made all the difference. The B-26 had relatively short wings for it's body, it was nicknamed "the flying prostitute" because it had no visible means of support.
.

[Rami]

What about some "props" (excuse the bad humor) for the Douglas A-20 Havoc? She may not have been as glamorous as the B-17 and even the B-25 Mitchell, but she was powerful, versatile, reasonably fast, (it could keep pace with a Mk. I Hurricane and a Dewoitine D-520) agile, and rugged. She was used by France, Russia, the US, UK, and several other air forces.

[Cowboy1968]

If you look at the A-20, then you have to look at its follow on the A-26 Invader. You ddn't see movies made about this Douglas gem of a plane, but it not only soldiered well in WW2, but it also was used to great effect in KOrea.

Then it was brought back again into inventory for the Vietnam War in the COIN (counter insurgency) role and supply interdiction missions. It was one hell of a light bomber that handled like a fighter.

[peperez]

In an experenced hand the Buffalo was deadly, It could turn with the Zero. And when they weren't out numbered to the point of chasing one and having two on your tail the Buffalo did a good job. Yes it was at the end of its career, just as the F4F was drawing near obsolescence. The only thing that really saved the Wildcat was that the US needed a fighter that was small enough to be carried in numbers aboard the escort carriers and the Wildcat had the fortune of still being in production and was just the right size.

IN an honest evaluation of the Wildcat you discover it really wasn't that much faster or that much more nimble then the Buffalo, Both the Buffalo and Wildcat faced the same problem, the Zero could out climb them both, and the Oscar could out turn and out climb them both. But when both were used in an even fight, and using the team tactics figured out by the US Navy and USMC pilots they both could take their Japanese opponents. The Buffalo was a victim of its circumstances....out numbered and maned by inexperience of its pilots. And being a plane that was already going out of production in favor of more modern equipment the Buffalo was regulated to training duties in the USA. For an airplane that was so bad, many army and navy pilots hated having to face it in training exercises of mock combat. It was used this way tell spares started to run short and about four o fthem were still being used as squadron hacks even into 1947

Would you call the A6M5 Zero\Zeke a bad plane. In 1944, it was facing the same problems that Burralo faced. It was out numbered and facing more nimble planes then it was. If you aply the opinions applied to the Buffalo to the A6M, then i guess it was a bad plane.

The Buffalo used over Asia was an overweighted plane and this conspire against it success. The British even tried to remove its armour to get some performance. The Zero can turn inside of ANY American 1940/41 plane.

Pepe

[bobhegf]

At Guadalcanal the F4F-4 held its own and did a real good job.Durring a period between Aug 20th 1942 and Oct 11th 1942 62 F4Fs took out over 127 enemy aircraft.This doesn`t include another 75 to 100 enemy planes that were so damaged that they didn`t make it home.The 127 enemy aircraft were counted kills.When the F4Fs attacked they preformed a high side pass and then headed toward a cloud.There was no such thing as a nice tight attack formation,they went in one ,twos,theres or what ever formation they could form durring the time alloted.The F4F pilots formed up the best they could while climbing to attack altitude.Durring the high side pass it was not uncommon for the leader to lose his wing man or the wingman to lose his leader.The rule then was to head for a cloud and/or if you were lucky enough to see another F4F the two of you join up and head for a cloud and then home.The F4Fs were outnumbered two to three to one and still were able to come out on top and take out some if the best of the IJN pilots that were left after the battle Of Midway and also top IJA pilots as well.You have got to consider the conditions thies pilots were flying under.Bad food,cramps because of the food,very bad runway and conditions,being bombed and shelled every night and shot at by snipers when you landed or tookoff or just walked around as wellas flying to to three combat missions almost every day,illness,note: most of the pilots usually flew with a temp. of 102* or a little less,not being able to hit the enemy in force but ones,twos or threes, most of the time. Thies UNMC and USN pilots just did, if they were lucky, have enough time to climb to attack altitude.Now, lets consider the flight training which was hit or miss at the time.Most of the pilots only had about 270 hours of training before they went to a fleet fighter squadrons while most IJN pilots had 800 hours and most of that was combat.Now lets take Aug 30th 1942. While flying at 15000FT Maj. Smith heard calls for help from the P-400 pilots bellow.Maj Smith with 8 F4Fs dove into the fight. When it was all over the P-400 got 4 kills lost 4 of its aircraft and 7 others would never fly again.The F4Fs on the other hand had no losses and got 14 kills.All this being said I think The F4F was one tough little bird that was flown by some hot pilots and the two were able to hold there own and give it back in spades.:typing:

[PHo17]

The Finns Buffaloes were almost 500 pounds lighter than American one... This can make a difference.

Pepe

Sure it made them much more manoeuverable.

[bearcat241]

... The Zero can turn inside of ANY American 1940/41 plane.

Depended on which way it had to turn....its reported to have had a nasty mechanical deficiency that hampered its ability to make a quick hard right and hold it. It wasn't a glaring problem, but just enought to give a smart attacker/defender a small window of opportunity.

Plus, you might wanna read this for another perspective: http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm

[Jagdflieger]

I've read that too. In fact, as I recall, the tactic to get away from a Zero was to dive and spiral to the right.

The Zero had very large ailerons to give the pilots the maneuverability that they demanded and of course like all planes of the period, they were not power boosted but depended on the pilot's muscles to operate. At high air speeds, those large ailerons became difficult to move and thus gave allied pilots an advantage at higher air speeds and thus the tactic of diving and turning to the right.

[bobhegf]

I saw this artical or one like it some place about a year ago.It stated that above 200kts the zero lost its high rate of turn.I thought I would try it in CFS2 just to see if it had been moded in.I took one of my moded up Zero AIs and put it at 225kts.and went up to fight,sure enough if you could get close enough you had about one sec. to lead and fire on the Zero in a turn I then did a split S and ran like hell.I flew the same mission again but this time I slowed the Zero down to 180KTS.I found I could not turn inside of him and within two to two and a half turns he was on me.:typing:

[xavierb]

Bobhegf,

Just a point. The US fighter pilots counted with a great asset: they were normally warned beforehand of the approach of the Japanese planes thanks to the network of coastal observers hidden on the islands of the "Slot" (a brilliant piece of foresight the Australians made even before the fall of Guadalcanal in May 1942). This translated into early warning that the fighter defence used to place at higher altitude than the attackers. And you know: altitude advantage is a great asset in fighter combat. I recall John Lundstrom's evaluation of fighter combats at "The first team and the Guadalcanal campaign" where he states that results were decided mostly by that early warning and altitude advantage. Also, Japanese pilots were very tired before entering combat because of the long flight they had to take (and this was a serious consecuence of the IJN Command on accepting to fight at such long distances). Of course, all the above does not diminish an inch the level of professionality that displayed both the Japanese and American pilots, who were simply great.


At Guadalcanal the F4F-4 held its own and did a real good job.Durring a period between Aug 20th 1942 and Oct 11th 1942 62 F4Fs took out over 127 enemy aircraft.This doesn`t include another 75 to 100 enemy planes that were so damaged that they didn`t make it home.The 127 enemy aircraft were counted kills.When the F4Fs attacked they preformed a high side pass and then headed toward a cloud.There was no such thing as a nice tight attack formation,they went in one ,twos,theres or what ever formation they could form durring the time alloted.The F4F pilots formed up the best they could while climbing to attack altitude.Durring the high side pass it was not uncommon for the leader to lose his wing man or the wingman to lose his leader.The rule then was to head for a cloud and/or if you were lucky enough to see another F4F the two of you join up and head for a cloud and then home.The F4Fs were outnumbered two to three to one and still were able to come out on top and take out some if the best of the IJN pilots that were left after the battle Of Midway and also top IJA pilots as well.You have got to consider the conditions thies pilots were flying under.Bad food,cramps because of the food,very bad runway and conditions,being bombed and shelled every night and shot at by snipers when you landed or tookoff or just walked around as wellas flying to to three combat missions almost every day,illness,note: most of the pilots usually flew with a temp. of 102* or a little less,not being able to hit the enemy in force but ones,twos or threes, most of the time. Thies UNMC and USN pilots just did, if they were lucky, have enough time to climb to attack altitude.Now, lets consider the flight training which was hit or miss at the time.Most of the pilots only had about 270 hours of training before they went to a fleet fighter squadrons while most IJN pilots had 800 hours and most of that was combat.Now lets take Aug 30th 1942. While flying at 15000FT Maj. Smith heard calls for help from the P-400 pilots bellow.Maj Smith with 8 F4Fs dove into the fight. When it was all over the P-400 got 4 kills lost 4 of its aircraft and 7 others would never fly again.The F4Fs on the other hand had no losses and got 14 kills.All this being said I think The F4F was one tough little bird that was flown by some hot pilots and the two were able to hold there own and give it back in spades.:typing:

[Jerm]

F4F Wildcat

I always disagree when I here stories about how the Japanese Zero totally outclassed everything in the sky in the first years of world war 2. The Wildcat held the fort down and it should be proud of a job well done.:amen:

[bearcat241]

:amen:

[Cowboy1968]

examples of planes that kept with the Zero........

P-36 Mohawk
P-40 Warhawk
F4F Wildcat
Hurricane
Spitfire

and on technical terms even the
F2A Buffalo (in an even fight)
P-39 Airacobra (used in limited numbers, man army fighter of the period were the P-38 and P-40)

What gave the Zero and even the Oscar in the first year of the Pacific war was the pilots had more experience in combat. As the experienced Japanese pilots were lost, so their machines lost their reputation for being the best.

BTW the Ki-43 was a much better plane then the A6M

[Shessi]

Like the Wildcat there were others that soldiered on and kept delivering:-

How about something like the Fairey Swordfish then or the Stuka?

Both in the thick of fighting from 1936 to 1945. Very successful at what they did best i.e Taranto/Bismark, Blitz Krieg in Europe and the Eastern Front.
Ok so the Stuka was relegated to night level-bombing by '45, but the Swordfish was still patroling the Channel in '45 and even outlasted it's replacement the Albacore.

Shessi

[hewman100]

Certainly with you on the Swordfish. Not only did it outlast it's replacement, but could still do the job better than it's next descendant, the Barracuda which was stopped from being used as a torpedo bomber because of stability issues.

[Rami]

At Cowboy's request, this thread has been closed.