thanks for all the feedback on the recent video! I hear you loud and clear-while I mentioned the Fairey Battle as a fighter plane, it was actually a light bomber. I appreciate you all keeping me on my toes! I’ll make sure to stick with fighters next time. Thanks for the support and for helping me get the details right. Stay tuned for more content!
The Fairey Battle was not a fighter. Survivors, of the Battle of France, were transferred to RAF Coastal Command and used to attack German coastal shipping. Coastal Command also upgraded the defensive armament from 1 x Vickers GO 303 LMG to 2 x Browning 303 MMG in the rear gun position. The Fairey Battle also had retractable wing bomb racks to allow it to divebomb. Many RAF light bomber specifications stipulated a requirement for divebombing, but the RAF never actually trained Fairey Battle crews for divebombing.
You're wrong about the P-39. It was available for combat from the beginning of the war, a year before the P-38 and 18 months before the P-47. Turbocharger was removed to get the plane in service asap, otherwise we only have the P-40 available in 1942. The P-39N had a higher ceiling than the FW190A (38,500' vs 34,000') and outclimbed it at all altitudes, hardly a low altitude plane. P-39 produced 5 of the top 10 Russian aces and shot down more Axis planes than any other American plane, more than the Mustang and Hellcat. All this from fewer than 5,000 delivered to the Russians.
Actually the ROC was a design given to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. The Navy got rid of them ASAP. Designed by the Air Ministry it then led to the Bolton Paul Defiant, another Air Ministry Turret Fighter…. Which is my choice for the Worst Fighter of WWII. Even so, it managed to shoot down several German aircraft due to a happy coincidence. The Radial Engine of the ROC was replaced by an early version of the Merlin in-line engine. As such, it looked very much like a Hurricane at distance. So initially the Germans, thinking they were jumping Hurricanes, tried to get behind them to attack what was the Hurricane’s weak point, but ironically they were flying into the teeth of the Defiant’s strong point. Only once the Germans realized this, they adjusted their tactics and virtually massacred the Defiants.
@@LegacyofWar You should also do a series on the 'phoenix' of the air, those planes which initially failed, yet managed to find a popular new lease of life elsewhere away from their originally designed role - eg Me110 (good at everything except that which it was originally designed for, as a long-range escort fighter); F4U Corsair (a tricky nightmare as a carrier fighter but a Godsend to the USMC and also FAA who used it as a multi-role aircraft), incidentally it was the FAA who eventually got it carrier-ready by changing the undercarriage, the batteries, the oil-system, sorting out the variable stall, and also finding a way you could land it on a carrier by approaching in sideways; the Brewster Buffalo which everyone hated bar the Finns who absolutely loved it as it was the only plane who coudl operate effectively in the savage Russian winters; and also the P-39 Cobra which completely failed as an air superiority fighter/interceptor, but which found a nice home with the Russians as a close ground support aircraft/fighter-bomber.
The early war A6M Zero only had a top speed of 316 MPH, in level flight. It was slower than both the Buffalo and the Wildcat, but its flimsy build, lack of armour plus lower weight allowed it to have a higher climb rate and roll rate. The Buffalo could out turn both the Zero and Wildcat, but not the Ki-43 Oscar.
The Finns loved it though and tried to order/buy some more for the Finish-Russian war of 39-40. When no more could be procurred, they actually tried to build their own copy under licence but only ever completed one. They preferred it to the Hawker Hurricane and several other foreign aircraft (like the Gloster Gladiator. Curtiss P-36 Hawk and Fokker X.XXI) that they managed to accumulate before the start of hostilities.
If Brewster is on this list, then this guy has no knowledge of kill ratio 1:33 can't be bad. First of course. Look for Russian losses in the Karelian Isthmus in the first years of the Continuation War, almost 500 shot down planes and only Bw planes . So how so bad. I am quoting the words of a famous Ace. An airplane is just a platform on which to bring the weapons to the right place and shoot, if you don't know how to do that, nothing works. 36 pilots shot more than five drops with bw planes and Hans Wind alone up to 39!
thanks for all the feedback on this recent video! I hear you loud and clear-while I mentioned the Fairey Battle as a fighter plane, it was actually a light bomber. I appreciate you all keeping me on my toes! I’ll make sure to stick with fighters next time. Thanks for the support and for helping me get the details right. Stay tuned for more content!
The P39 was an good and advanced deign. The point of altitude performance see P40) was the USAAF decision to eliminate Surper/turbo charging from production aircraft.
@@LegacyofWar -- I'm sorry, but in Soviet Union P-39 was never used for ground attack, for that there was the most numerous IL-2, and as a fighter aircraft, well top ten Allies Aces split nearly evenly between those who flew Lavochkin and P-39 AiroCobra.
Exactly, the army air delete it the supercharger after the 39 that was tested, that had one installed. Unfortunately the British got to see the 39 with the supercharger at this test. So when they received their 39s without the supercharger. They were mad and disappointed all at the same time. The Soviet used them effectively supporting their ground troops low level. I personally like the silhouette and the appeal of the bullet nose of the 39. My 80 inch model with an overpowered engine can reach up to 144 MPH. It is a delightful model to fly and I believe looks as good as a P 51 or a spitfire. There were some problems on the original 39s other than the supercharger and that was mainly the nose wheel. It was terrible in the mud. They improved it by giving it a bigger hub and tire. One last thing is, it was very easy to get it into a spin. See Bud Anderson’s book old Crow, he also flew the 39 along with Chuck Yeager.
@@nealrehm6900 wrote: " The Soviet used them effectively supporting their ground troops low level." -- All P-39 that was handed down to Soviets went to Fighter Regiments and Fighter Squadrons, that flew cover to IL-2 Sturmovics which provided their ground troops low level support, and also used to great success as a low level bomber interceptor and capable dog fighter, where 37mm canon became very handy(as creators intended, where only one shell is needed to obliterate enemy fighter, and two-three, to end bomber) firing centerline propeller hub propeller hub with two 50 Cal. M2 Browning firing through the propeller arc, and four 30 Cal. Browning in the wing most Soviet pilots removed, as those considered to be useless, and adversely affected construability of the aircraft, as well as some redundant armor. With saved weight P-39 could out turn just about, but not only German fighter aircraft, any other, in that configuration, except for Yak-3. Now problem with fitting this aircraft with two stage supercharger or single stage supercharger and turbocharger, is C.G. because engine was behind pilot, and with that it was already pushing 30-33% of MAC, but because most of Soviet pilots flew tail heavy aircraft like I-16 and MiG-1 and 3, so they felt "right" at home piloting P-39, as opposed to experienced RAF of American pilots who get used to fly aircraft with C.G. range of been between 25-30% MAC. There are interview with Soviet top Ace(second best Allied Ace), who love Cobra - his name is Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who address the issue of how "easy" P-39 goes into a spin, by saying only rookie who don't "feel"(baffet) the aircraft are prone for this kind of mistake. He also admired Cobra for excellent visibility(better then P-51 an P-47) not only upwards, but downward, so he never been shut down while piloting P-39, love tricycle landing gear, radio, how well and easy it was to pilot, and above all P-39's armament(37mm canon and (2)x50 cals M2). I also strongly believe, that despite the fact that he flew from day one of War, and illegally in 1944 and 45, as he was a commander who is not supposed to fly, but did this in American aircraft, that he is second best Ace, to Ivan Kazhedub who flew only Lavochkin since 1943.
@@nealrehm6900 wrote: " The Soviet used them effectively supporting their ground troops low level." -- All P-39 that was handed down to Soviets went to Fighter Regiments and Fighter Squadrons, that flew cover to IL-2 Sturmovics which provided their ground troops low level support, and also used to great success as a low level bomber interceptor and capable dog fighter, where 37mm canon became very handy(as creators intended, where only one shell is needed to obliterate enemy fighter, and two-three, to end bomber) firing centerline propeller hub propeller hub with two 50 Cal. M2 Browning firing through the propeller arc, and four 30 Cal. Browning in the wing most Soviet pilots removed, as those considered to be useless, and adversely affected construability of the aircraft, as well as some redundant armor. With saved weight P-39 could out turn just about, but not only German fighter aircraft, any other, in that configuration, except for Yak-3. Now problem with fitting this aircraft with two stage supercharger or single stage supercharger and turbocharger, is C.G. because engine was behind pilot, and with that it was already pushing 30-33% of MAC, but because most of Soviet pilots flew tail heavy aircraft like I-16 and MiG-1 and 3, so they felt "right" at home piloting P-39, as opposed to experienced RAF of American pilots who get used to fly aircraft with C.G. range of been between 25-30% MAC. There are interview with Soviet top Ace(second best Allied Ace), who love Cobra - his name is Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who address the issue of how "easy" P-39 goes into a spin, by saying only rookie who don't "feel"(baffet) the aircraft are prone for this kind of mistake. He also admired Cobra for excellent visibility(better then P-51 an P-47) not only upwards, but downward, so he never been shut down while piloting P-39, love tricycle landing gear, radio, how well and easy it was to pilot, and above all P-39's armament(37mm canon and (2)x50 cals M2). I also strongly believe, that despite the fact that he flew from day one of War, and illegally in 1944 and 45, as he was a commander who is not supposed to fly, but did this in American aircraft, that he is second best Ace, to Ivan Kazhedub who flew only Lavochkin since 1943.
One thing to remember about many of these designs is that they were designed and built during the interwar years when fighter technology was still in its early stages. Each air force had its own ideas of what would work and what wouldn't. Similar to what was happening in WW1 when air war fare was in its infancy.
@@LegacyofWar I don't have just one favorite but four. European theater: The P51, Pacific theater: the Hellcat, Corsair, and the Tigercat. Modern day: The F14 Tomcat
1)The Fairey Battle was a light bomber, although admittedly poorly armed and vulnerable where the was enemy air superiority, wasn't pathetic and went on to serve with RAAF units and South African units as well as in Greece bombing troops; it was subsequently used as a Training (T) aircraft and then a Target Tug (TT) aircraft; 2) When showing the Blackburn Roc, you showed footage of a Bolton-Paul Defiant, not the same aircraft, my friend, although the Roc was subcontracted out to Bolton-Paul who had an ongoing experimentation with turreted fighters; the Roc did score a success in it's role as an RN fighter against a Junkers Ju88 in Norway but it wasn't considered a success; that said it was designed as a Naval fighter, operating off carriers and larger ships well out of the range of the threat of land-based fighters, an advantage shared by most Naval aircraft including the Fairey Swordfish, which despite it's obsolescence at the beginning of WW2 was highly successful at Taranto and in the hunt for the Bismarck As an overall assessment, this isn't bad, but you've failed to mention a lot of the successes of these "failures"; it doesn't stand up to scrutiny; the Buffalo especially!!
Hi, Thanks for the great comment. I have since learned of the Buffalo in Finnish hands, and the P-39 with the soviets. I included both as they weren’t used well by the Air force they were designed for. I have done a separate video on the P-39, and the buffalo may get a mention in a video I’m releasing tomorrow. Check it out and let me know your thoughts 🙏🏻
In the mid-1930ies the first generation of monoplanes with retractable landing gear came out and was vastly more modern than the older biplanes. However, development in the next few years was so rapid that planes which had just been state-of-the-art were suddenly deathtraps. This applies to the Buffalo, Battle and I-16 shown as well as the Devastator, Blenheim and a lot of others. One of the bad ideas that had to be tried to find out it was a bad idea was the "heavy fighter" or "destroyer". The P-38 probably was the best of the bunch, and the BF 110 was at least useful as a night-fighter, others were worse. An even worse idea was the turret-fighter - fortunately not that many Defiants and Rocs were built. However, if you felt really suicidal, the right plane for you was the Me-163 of course. Nothing like being blown up by the remnants of the fuel ingedients coming together on a rough landing. Honorable mention must go to the He 177 Greif and the B-29 with their engine problems.
The Buffalo always gets so much hate ..so undeserved .. The Finns loved it .. also Many so called "better" planes also had trouble with the Japanese aircraft .. The Zero, Nate and Oscar where outstanding FOR THEIR TIME .. Light and powerful and flown by very good pilots - hardly the fault of the Buffalo .. (the Japaneses aircraft also had major flaws of course)
@@LegacyofWar Out of your list .. I would plump for the poor old Roc .. BUT off the list the Caudron C714 was pretty bad design .. The French airforce hated it .. Too light and underpowered ... .. The LaGG 1 was also a bit of a clunker
@@LegacyofWar Probably had more success than the Roc as it resembled a Hurricane and then surprised the Luftwaffe with its turret guns but once they sussed it out, not so much. Deployed as a nightfighter to confuse the Germans nevertheless the rear turret was the same daft idea as the Roc. performance
-- I-16 cockpit is cramp? There is a museum about 25 miles west of Orlando Florida, owned by Hermit Weeks called "Fantasy of Flight" - he own I-16. Go seat in I-16(if you ask them nicely), where you'll find out it is huge, one of the largest of WWII fighters. What made I-16 unpopular, for frankly same reasons Bf-109, flights characteristics was so different from all forgiving biplanes, that initially pilots afraid to fly much faster monoplanes. Also C.G.(Center of Gravity) was more AFT(toward rear of the aircraft) that made aircraft more sensitive in a pitch axis(controlled by elevator), similar problem for new pilots was on P-39 and P-63 AirCobras, so the airplane would Snap Roll, if pilot is not careful with controlling aircraft. So roll rate under normal circumstances was 3-4 seconds per single roll, in a Snap Roll, that featured in your video I-16 doing more then 360 degrees without use of ailerons, which is a nifty in dogfight if you know how to use it. To cure a fear of Snap Roll one of the first Air Pilotage Demo groups was formed called - Питёрочка(Five) where five I-16's were connected wing tip to wing tip with ribbon one meter apart, and they took off, then performed loop and roll, and then landed without breaking that ribbon. So most of the Aces that start the war flying I-16(letter "I" here is for "Истребитель" or fighter aircraft, and not for Ilishin) like Pokryshkin, Rechcalov, Guliaev, Golubev all later on transferred to fly P-39 where they felt comfortable with AFT C.G. aircraft.
Thank you. Always loved the I-15 & I -16. The 16 was a very nimble fighter which made it quite unforgiving but in the right hands was very capable. Granted, it was outclassed by newer fighters but it held good account of itself. The pilots were so used to open cockpit aircraft from the biplane days that they kept that philosophy for the 16. I have sat in the cockpit as I live within an hour of Kermit's collection and it is pretty roomy, and I am 6'2". You sit low in it so that when you pulled up the side access panels it provided some level of protection. Take care from Florida.
@@LegacyofWar Buffalo was and some Bright young Marine Aviators flew them bravely nevertheless. Think these young officers knew what they were getting into. Thanks!
@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qedoubtful because Official Soviet history was that the Red Army and Air Force practically beat the Germans with minimal assistance from the Allies.
Indeed it has one of the highest KD rations of any plane used in WW2 at hands of finns. In service from 1941 to 1945, Buffalos of Lentolaivue 24 (Fighter Squadron 24) claimed 477 Soviet Air Force warplanes destroyed, with the combat loss of just 19 Buffalos, an outstanding victory ratio of 26:1.
@@LegacyofWar Totally inadequate fighter designs were often switched to night fighter role, where they usually did not encounter enemy fighters. Typical examples would be Boulton-Paul Defiant and Messerschmitt Me 110.
The P39 did well on the eastern front , most of the air combat was done at med altitude . The right aircraft for the right areas , for the right role . The Soviet Seagull was an obsolete biplane fighter bomber , however it did fantastic in the caucus mountains , where its lower speed , and high manouverability paid off , against German ground targets . Russians would actually bomb the mountains themselves , creating rock avalanches down on Germans attempting to go through the passes . Destroying vehicles , and blocking the pass . As a fighter , it was junk , as a dangerous pest , it worked well . The Night Witches , flew an even more obsolete biplane , and used it too great effect . Flying only at night , the cutting the engion before going in for a bomb run .
@@LegacyofWar Kinda like the amphibious jeep . They were not all that usefull to the western allies , mostly because they had a lot better , and larger things . The Russians loved them , and most produced went to the USSR , as they were lacking in amphibious vehicles , of any kind .
I suggest you read a little bit more military history and learn a lot more about the aircraft you are criticizing. Because unfortunately all you have done in your video is to perpetuate myths and false truths and historical facts.
"The Soviets used it for ground attack rather than dogfighting" Wrong. Just 100% full fat incorrect. "prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk" does not mean ground attack. The nose cannon wasn't a draw-back in air-to-air combat, indeed it was the only gun that Soviet Pilots always left ON the P-39. Also the Fairy Battle wasn't a fighter plane...? Rather than going "haha bad", it'd be more enlightening to examine *why* the Soviets loved the P-39, or the Finns liked the Buffalo. And conversely, why the Soviets didn't like the Hurricane....
If they are using A.I. couldnt they use an understandable mode of speaking instead of a difficult to follow brogue? Criminey- interesting material ruined by the goofy accent.
If they knew then they should have been taken OOC who was responsible for not doing that,torpeto's that were duds,tanks that were toys next to the Germans,sombody is responsible what happened to them?
Check out our latest video where we take a more in depth look at the P39!
ua-cam.com/video/zuEnGOCjWXs/v-deo.htmlsi=LzXf8ihrolbVieBo
thanks for all the feedback on the recent video! I hear you loud and clear-while I mentioned the Fairey Battle as a fighter plane, it was actually a light bomber. I appreciate you all keeping me on my toes! I’ll make sure to stick with fighters next time. Thanks for the support and for helping me get the details right. Stay tuned for more content!
The Fairey Battle wasn't a fighter. Strike aircraft are always vulnerable to an enemy which has air superiority.
Hi,
Thanks for commenting. I’m working on a video about the worst bombers, should be ready in a couple of days. Stay tuned!
The Fairey Battle was not a fighter. Survivors, of the Battle of France, were transferred to RAF Coastal Command and used to attack German coastal shipping. Coastal Command also upgraded the defensive armament from 1 x Vickers GO 303 LMG to 2 x Browning 303 MMG in the rear gun position.
The Fairey Battle also had retractable wing bomb racks to allow it to divebomb. Many RAF light bomber specifications stipulated a requirement for divebombing, but the RAF never actually trained Fairey Battle crews for divebombing.
Thanks for the insight. In your opinion, what was the worst fighter?
You're wrong about the P-39. It was available for combat from the beginning of the war, a year before the P-38 and 18 months before the P-47. Turbocharger was removed to get the plane in service asap, otherwise we only have the P-40 available in 1942. The P-39N had a higher ceiling than the FW190A (38,500' vs 34,000') and outclimbed it at all altitudes, hardly a low altitude plane. P-39 produced 5 of the top 10 Russian aces and shot down more Axis planes than any other American plane, more than the Mustang and Hellcat. All this from fewer than 5,000 delivered to the Russians.
Great comment. These videos are opinion based. Which do you think was the worst?
@@LegacyofWar Probably the Roc. The Finns had great success with the Buffalo.
ua-cam.com/video/zuEnGOCjWXs/v-deo.htmlsi=6LRWOKYjsVikdnuu
Actually the ROC was a design given to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy. The Navy got rid of them ASAP. Designed by the Air Ministry it then led to the Bolton Paul Defiant, another Air Ministry Turret Fighter…. Which is my choice for the Worst Fighter of WWII. Even so, it managed to shoot down several German aircraft due to a happy coincidence. The Radial Engine of the ROC was replaced by an early version of the Merlin in-line engine. As such, it looked very much like a Hurricane at distance. So initially the Germans, thinking they were jumping Hurricanes, tried to get behind them to attack what was the Hurricane’s weak point, but ironically they were flying into the teeth of the Defiant’s strong point. Only once the Germans realized this, they adjusted their tactics and virtually massacred the Defiants.
@@oldtdjr great comment! I’m looking to do a follow up video. Stay tuned 👌🏼
Since the Battle was a light bomber, it’s unfair to include it in a list of the worst fighters.
It does deserve it's own separate category as one of the worst ever light bombers. Losses during the Battle of France were attrocious.
Hi,
Thanks for commenting. I’m working on a video about the worst bombers, should be ready in a couple of days. Stay tuned!
@@LegacyofWar You should also do a series on the 'phoenix' of the air, those planes which initially failed, yet managed to find a popular new lease of life elsewhere away from their originally designed role - eg Me110 (good at everything except that which it was originally designed for, as a long-range escort fighter); F4U Corsair (a tricky nightmare as a carrier fighter but a Godsend to the USMC and also FAA who used it as a multi-role aircraft), incidentally it was the FAA who eventually got it carrier-ready by changing the undercarriage, the batteries, the oil-system, sorting out the variable stall, and also finding a way you could land it on a carrier by approaching in sideways; the Brewster Buffalo which everyone hated bar the Finns who absolutely loved it as it was the only plane who coudl operate effectively in the savage Russian winters; and also the P-39 Cobra which completely failed as an air superiority fighter/interceptor, but which found a nice home with the Russians as a close ground support aircraft/fighter-bomber.
The early war A6M Zero only had a top speed of 316 MPH, in level flight. It was slower than both the Buffalo and the Wildcat, but its flimsy build, lack of armour plus lower weight allowed it to have a higher climb rate and roll rate.
The Buffalo could out turn both the Zero and Wildcat, but not the Ki-43 Oscar.
Great comments! 👍🏻
The Finns loved it though and tried to order/buy some more for the Finish-Russian war of 39-40. When no more could be procurred, they actually tried to build their own copy under licence but only ever completed one. They preferred it to the Hawker Hurricane and several other foreign aircraft (like the Gloster Gladiator. Curtiss P-36 Hawk and Fokker X.XXI) that they managed to accumulate before the start of hostilities.
@@xj900uk great comment! How did you find the video?
@@LegacyofWar I found the video very interesting. Thank you for preparing it and then putting it up for all of us historical aviation buffs!
If Brewster is on this list, then this guy has no knowledge of kill ratio 1:33 can't be bad. First of course. Look for Russian losses in the Karelian Isthmus in the first years of the Continuation War, almost 500 shot down planes and only Bw planes . So how so bad. I am quoting the words of a famous Ace. An airplane is just a platform on which to bring the weapons to the right place and shoot, if you don't know how to do that, nothing works. 36 pilots shot more than five drops with bw planes and Hans Wind alone up to 39!
Great comment 👍🏻
thanks for all the feedback on this recent video! I hear you loud and clear-while I mentioned the Fairey Battle as a fighter plane, it was actually a light bomber. I appreciate you all keeping me on my toes! I’ll make sure to stick with fighters next time. Thanks for the support and for helping me get the details right. Stay tuned for more content!
Surely you should have realised that the Battle wasn't a fighter during your research?
great video! Thanks for sharing!
Fairey Battle is a light bomber....not a fighter....you got to read up history before you say anythings.
Hi, thanks for feedback 👍🏻
The P39 was an good and advanced deign. The point of altitude performance see P40) was the USAAF decision to eliminate Surper/turbo charging from production aircraft.
Great comment 👍🏻
@@LegacyofWar -- I'm sorry, but in Soviet Union P-39 was never used for ground attack, for that there was the most numerous IL-2, and as a fighter aircraft, well top ten Allies Aces split nearly evenly between those who flew Lavochkin and P-39 AiroCobra.
Exactly, the army air delete it the supercharger after the 39 that was tested, that had one installed. Unfortunately the British got to see the 39 with the supercharger at this test. So when they received their 39s without the supercharger. They were mad and disappointed all at the same time.
The Soviet used them effectively supporting their ground troops low level.
I personally like the silhouette and the appeal of the bullet nose of the 39. My 80 inch model with an overpowered engine can reach up to 144 MPH. It is a delightful model to fly and I believe looks as good as a P 51 or a spitfire.
There were some problems on the original 39s other than the supercharger and that was mainly the nose wheel. It was terrible in the mud. They improved it by giving it a bigger hub and tire.
One last thing is, it was very easy to get it into a spin. See Bud Anderson’s book old Crow, he also flew the 39 along with Chuck Yeager.
@@nealrehm6900 wrote: " The Soviet used them effectively supporting their ground troops low level."
-- All P-39 that was handed down to Soviets went to Fighter Regiments and Fighter Squadrons, that flew cover to IL-2 Sturmovics which provided their ground troops low level support, and also used to great success as a low level bomber interceptor and capable dog fighter, where 37mm canon became very handy(as creators intended, where only one shell is needed to obliterate enemy fighter, and two-three, to end bomber) firing centerline propeller hub propeller hub with two 50 Cal. M2 Browning firing through the propeller arc, and four 30 Cal. Browning in the wing most Soviet pilots removed, as those considered to be useless, and adversely affected construability of the aircraft, as well as some redundant armor. With saved weight P-39 could out turn just about, but not only German fighter aircraft, any other, in that configuration, except for Yak-3. Now problem with fitting this aircraft with two stage supercharger or single stage supercharger and turbocharger, is C.G. because engine was behind pilot, and with that it was already pushing 30-33% of MAC, but because most of Soviet pilots flew tail heavy aircraft like I-16 and MiG-1 and 3, so they felt "right" at home piloting P-39, as opposed to experienced RAF of American pilots who get used to fly aircraft with C.G. range of been between 25-30% MAC. There are interview with Soviet top Ace(second best Allied Ace), who love Cobra - his name is Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who address the issue of how "easy" P-39 goes into a spin, by saying only rookie who don't "feel"(baffet) the aircraft are prone for this kind of mistake. He also admired Cobra for excellent visibility(better then P-51 an P-47) not only upwards, but downward, so he never been shut down while piloting P-39, love tricycle landing gear, radio, how well and easy it was to pilot, and above all P-39's armament(37mm canon and (2)x50 cals M2). I also strongly believe, that despite the fact that he flew from day one of War, and illegally in 1944 and 45, as he was a commander who is not supposed to fly, but did this in American aircraft, that he is second best Ace, to Ivan Kazhedub who flew only Lavochkin since 1943.
@@nealrehm6900 wrote: " The Soviet used them effectively supporting their ground troops low level."
-- All P-39 that was handed down to Soviets went to Fighter Regiments and Fighter Squadrons, that flew cover to IL-2 Sturmovics which provided their ground troops low level support, and also used to great success as a low level bomber interceptor and capable dog fighter, where 37mm canon became very handy(as creators intended, where only one shell is needed to obliterate enemy fighter, and two-three, to end bomber) firing centerline propeller hub propeller hub with two 50 Cal. M2 Browning firing through the propeller arc, and four 30 Cal. Browning in the wing most Soviet pilots removed, as those considered to be useless, and adversely affected construability of the aircraft, as well as some redundant armor. With saved weight P-39 could out turn just about, but not only German fighter aircraft, any other, in that configuration, except for Yak-3. Now problem with fitting this aircraft with two stage supercharger or single stage supercharger and turbocharger, is C.G. because engine was behind pilot, and with that it was already pushing 30-33% of MAC, but because most of Soviet pilots flew tail heavy aircraft like I-16 and MiG-1 and 3, so they felt "right" at home piloting P-39, as opposed to experienced RAF of American pilots who get used to fly aircraft with C.G. range of been between 25-30% MAC. There are interview with Soviet top Ace(second best Allied Ace), who love Cobra - his name is Aleksandr Pokryshkin, who address the issue of how "easy" P-39 goes into a spin, by saying only rookie who don't "feel"(baffet) the aircraft are prone for this kind of mistake. He also admired Cobra for excellent visibility(better then P-51 an P-47) not only upwards, but downward, so he never been shut down while piloting P-39, love tricycle landing gear, radio, how well and easy it was to pilot, and above all P-39's armament(37mm canon and (2)x50 cals M2). I also strongly believe, that despite the fact that he flew from day one of War, and illegally in 1944 and 45, as he was a commander who is not supposed to fly, but did this in American aircraft, that he is second best Ace, to Ivan Kazhedub who flew only Lavochkin since 1943.
One thing to remember about many of these designs is that they were designed and built during the interwar years when fighter technology was still in its early stages. Each air force had its own ideas of what would work and what wouldn't. Similar to what was happening in WW1 when air war fare was in its infancy.
Great comment!
Which do you think was the worst built?
@@LegacyofWar HE-162. Not an interwar year plane, but one built in desperation.
👌🏼 what’s your favourite? I have a video coming out today on the greatest fighter planes ever made. Check it out
@@LegacyofWar I don't have just one favorite but four. European theater: The P51, Pacific theater: the Hellcat, Corsair, and the Tigercat. Modern day: The F14 Tomcat
I’m also a fan of the F14…which I may mention in todays video 🤔
1)The Fairey Battle was a light bomber, although admittedly poorly armed and vulnerable where the was enemy air superiority, wasn't pathetic and went on to serve with RAAF units and South African units as well as in Greece bombing troops; it was subsequently used as a Training (T) aircraft and then a Target Tug (TT) aircraft; 2) When showing the Blackburn Roc, you showed footage of a Bolton-Paul Defiant, not the same aircraft, my friend, although the Roc was subcontracted out to Bolton-Paul who had an ongoing experimentation with turreted fighters; the Roc did score a success in it's role as an RN fighter against a Junkers Ju88 in Norway but it wasn't considered a success; that said it was designed as a Naval fighter, operating off carriers and larger ships well out of the range of the threat of land-based fighters, an advantage shared by most Naval aircraft including the Fairey Swordfish, which despite it's obsolescence at the beginning of WW2 was highly successful at Taranto and in the hunt for the Bismarck
As an overall assessment, this isn't bad, but you've failed to mention a lot of the successes of these "failures"; it doesn't stand up to scrutiny; the Buffalo especially!!
Hi,
Thanks for the great comment. I have since learned of the Buffalo in Finnish hands, and the P-39 with the soviets. I included both as they weren’t used well by the Air force they were designed for.
I have done a separate video on the P-39, and the buffalo may get a mention in a video I’m releasing tomorrow. Check it out and let me know your thoughts 🙏🏻
In the mid-1930ies the first generation of monoplanes with retractable landing gear came out and was vastly more modern than the older biplanes. However, development in the next few years was so rapid that planes which had just been state-of-the-art were suddenly deathtraps. This applies to the Buffalo, Battle and I-16 shown as well as the Devastator, Blenheim and a lot of others.
One of the bad ideas that had to be tried to find out it was a bad idea was the "heavy fighter" or "destroyer". The P-38 probably was the best of the bunch, and the BF 110 was at least useful as a night-fighter, others were worse. An even worse idea was the turret-fighter - fortunately not that many Defiants and Rocs were built.
However, if you felt really suicidal, the right plane for you was the Me-163 of course. Nothing like being blown up by the remnants of the fuel ingedients coming together on a rough landing. Honorable mention must go to the He 177 Greif and the B-29 with their engine problems.
Great comment and insight! 👌🏼
Good vid❤
The Buffalo always gets so much hate ..so undeserved .. The Finns loved it .. also Many so called "better" planes also had trouble with the Japanese aircraft .. The Zero, Nate and Oscar where outstanding FOR THEIR TIME .. Light and powerful and flown by very good pilots - hardly the fault of the Buffalo .. (the Japaneses aircraft also had major flaws of course)
Great comment. Which do you think was the worst?
@@LegacyofWar Out of your list .. I would plump for the poor old Roc .. BUT off the list the Caudron C714 was pretty bad design .. The French airforce hated it .. Too light and underpowered ... .. The LaGG 1 was also a bit of a clunker
'Flawed' just means inferior to what the enemy can come up with.
Hi,
Thanks for commenting! 👍🏻 which do you think is the worst?
The Battle isn't a fighter but a light bomber. The Finnish thought highly if the Buffalo and used it quite successfully as a fighter.
Great comment! 👍🏻
The early 1932 version of the I-16 had a top speed of 282 MPH. By 1941, the top speed had been increased to 312 MPH.
What was the worst in your opinion?
P39 held the line in SWPA until P38 was available. Even some P39 aces.
Great comment, thank you 👍🏻
ua-cam.com/video/zuEnGOCjWXs/v-deo.htmlsi=6LRWOKYjsVikdnuu
The Finnish fighter ace P Sovelius flew some test flight with a captured I-16. His opinion was that is was a better plane than a Brewster B-239
Thanks for commenting 👍🏻 which do you think was the worst?
Long list... Morane-Saulnier 406,Gloster Gladiator, Boulton-Paul Defiant, Lagg3, Mig3, ME 163...
Excellent, I’m planning on doing a follow up video with more 👍🏻
Bolton-Paul Defiant?
Hi,
Thanks for commenting. I will maybe do a follow up video as I couldn’t fit all bad planes on. Do you think the defiant was the worst one?
@@LegacyofWar Probably had more success than the Roc as it resembled a Hurricane and then surprised the Luftwaffe with its turret guns but once they sussed it out, not so much. Deployed as a nightfighter to confuse the Germans nevertheless the rear turret was the same daft idea as the Roc. performance
The Fairy Battle was NOT a fighter
What do you think was the worst fighter?
I’d have to agree with the Blackburn, although the Boulton Paul defiant would run a close second.👍🏻
Great comment 👍🏻
-- I-16 cockpit is cramp? There is a museum about 25 miles west of Orlando Florida, owned by Hermit Weeks called "Fantasy of Flight" - he own I-16. Go seat in I-16(if you ask them nicely), where you'll find out it is huge, one of the largest of WWII fighters. What made I-16 unpopular, for frankly same reasons Bf-109, flights characteristics was so different from all forgiving biplanes, that initially pilots afraid to fly much faster monoplanes. Also C.G.(Center of Gravity) was more AFT(toward rear of the aircraft) that made aircraft more sensitive in a pitch axis(controlled by elevator), similar problem for new pilots was on P-39 and P-63 AirCobras, so the airplane would Snap Roll, if pilot is not careful with controlling aircraft. So roll rate under normal circumstances was 3-4 seconds per single roll, in a Snap Roll, that featured in your video I-16 doing more then 360 degrees without use of ailerons, which is a nifty in dogfight if you know how to use it. To cure a fear of Snap Roll one of the first Air Pilotage Demo groups was formed called - Питёрочка(Five) where five I-16's were connected wing tip to wing tip with ribbon one meter apart, and they took off, then performed loop and roll, and then landed without breaking that ribbon. So most of the Aces that start the war flying I-16(letter "I" here is for "Истребитель" or fighter aircraft, and not for Ilishin) like Pokryshkin, Rechcalov, Guliaev, Golubev all later on transferred to fly P-39 where they felt comfortable with AFT C.G. aircraft.
Great comment! 👍🏻
Thank you. Always loved the I-15 & I -16. The 16 was a very nimble fighter which made it quite unforgiving but in the right hands was very capable. Granted, it was outclassed by newer fighters but it held good account of itself. The pilots were so used to open cockpit aircraft from the biplane days that they kept that philosophy for the 16. I have sat in the cockpit as I live within an hour of Kermit's collection and it is pretty roomy, and I am 6'2". You sit low in it so that when you pulled up the side access panels it provided some level of protection. Take care from Florida.
Wildcat did not fare much better operating from Midway with the Buffalo.
Hi, thanks for commenting. Which do you think is the worst?
@@LegacyofWar Buffalo was and some Bright young Marine Aviators flew them bravely nevertheless. Think these young officers knew what they were getting into. Thanks!
@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe Finns put the Buffalo to good use too
@@EC-hx2ou Agree ,made a Great account for themselves. Hope this is taught in their schools.
@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qedoubtful because Official Soviet history was that the Red Army and Air Force practically beat the Germans with minimal assistance from the Allies.
.... another blunder on this poorly made video is the inclusion of the 'Fairey Battle " which WASN'T a fighter aircraft, it was a light day bomber! .
Hi, thanks for commenting. I have already put on a comment about this, but thanks for pointing out the mistake 👍🏻
The battle of Midway was a carrier battle dont think the buffalo was used the wildcat was the main fighter
Great comment 🙌🏻
There were Buffalo's based at Midway Island but not on the carriers.
Brewster Buffalo fighters were based on Midway Island at the time of the battle, not on carriers.
Battle not a fighter???
The smaller FAA Fulmar was one, slow but it is the FAA fighter with the most victories.
Gathering more info please
Hi,
Thanks for commenting. I’m working on a video about the worst bombers, should be ready in a couple of days. Stay tuned!
LOL
Brewster Buffalo was excellent fighter.
Do your homework.
Correct; horses for courses. Using the right aircraft in the right theatre is the recipe for success.
Thanks for commenting. Which do you think is the worst fighter plane?
Indeed it has one of the highest KD rations of any plane used in WW2 at hands of finns. In service from 1941 to 1945, Buffalos of Lentolaivue 24 (Fighter Squadron 24) claimed 477 Soviet Air Force warplanes destroyed, with the combat loss of just 19 Buffalos, an outstanding victory ratio of 26:1.
@@Hellowenisti86 great comment. Which do you think is the worst?
@@LegacyofWar Totally inadequate fighter designs were often switched to night fighter role, where they usually did not encounter enemy fighters. Typical examples would be Boulton-Paul Defiant and Messerschmitt Me 110.
The P39 did well on the eastern front , most of the air combat was done at med altitude . The right aircraft for the right areas , for the right role . The Soviet Seagull was an obsolete biplane fighter bomber , however it did fantastic in the caucus mountains , where its lower speed , and high manouverability paid off , against German ground targets . Russians would actually bomb the mountains themselves , creating rock avalanches down on Germans attempting to go through the passes . Destroying vehicles , and blocking the pass . As a fighter , it was junk , as a dangerous pest , it worked well . The Night Witches , flew an even more obsolete biplane , and used it too great effect . Flying only at night , the cutting the engion before going in for a bomb run .
There’s a lot of love for the P-39!
Which one is the worst in your opinion?
ua-cam.com/video/zuEnGOCjWXs/v-deo.htmlsi=6LRWOKYjsVikdnuu
@@LegacyofWar Kinda like the amphibious jeep . They were not all that usefull to the western allies , mostly because they had a lot better , and larger things . The Russians loved them , and most produced went to the USSR , as they were lacking in amphibious vehicles , of any kind .
@@tolik5929 love this! 👌🏼
VL Myrsky was a quite bad plane
Thanks for the suggestion. I’m thinking about doing a follow up soon 👍🏻
You didn't bother doing much research did you? The Fairey Battle wasn't a fighter. First Wikipedia hit for a list of bad WWII aeroplanes?
Hi, thanks for commenting but this isn’t a Wikipedia list…this is my opinion. In your opinion, which do you think is the worst?
Bull! The P-39 was approved for construction with a supercharger. Bell produced them without that! Some of Russia's best aces praised that aircraft!
ua-cam.com/video/zuEnGOCjWXs/v-deo.htmlsi=6LRWOKYjsVikdnuu
I suggest you read a little bit more military history and learn a lot more about the aircraft you are criticizing. Because unfortunately all you have done in your video is to perpetuate myths and false truths and historical facts.
Thanks for commenting.
These are in my opinion 👍🏻 what do you believe to be the worst?
ua-cam.com/video/zuEnGOCjWXs/v-deo.htmlsi=6LRWOKYjsVikdnuu
"The Soviets used it for ground attack rather than dogfighting"
Wrong. Just 100% full fat incorrect. "prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk" does not mean ground attack. The nose cannon wasn't a draw-back in air-to-air combat, indeed it was the only gun that Soviet Pilots always left ON the P-39.
Also the Fairy Battle wasn't a fighter plane...?
Rather than going "haha bad", it'd be more enlightening to examine *why* the Soviets loved the P-39, or the Finns liked the Buffalo. And conversely, why the Soviets didn't like the Hurricane....
Hi,
Thanks for commenting. This video is opinion based. I do also say it’s low altitude and not just ground attack.
Which do you think was the worst?
ua-cam.com/video/zuEnGOCjWXs/v-deo.htmlsi=6LRWOKYjsVikdnuu
Fairly Battle was not a fighter!
Thanks for commenting. It was a light bomber. In your opinion, which do you think was the worst fighter?
@@LegacyofWar Hey sunshine, if you knew the Battle was a light bomber, why did you put it in your video?
@@towgod7985 Probably due to looks. it wasn’t too much bigger than other fighter planes and it looked very similar to other fighters 👍🏻
********CLICK BAIT***********
Thanks for the feedback 👌🏼
😂😂 fumb duck
This is not very good. Really.
Thanks for the feedback 👌🏼
The Fairy Battle was a light bomber not a fighter.
Hi, thanks for commenting. I do state that it was a light bomber in the video. In your opinion, which do you think was the worst?
Do actually know ANYTHING about WWII aircraft,the "FAIRY BATTLE" was a LIGHT BOMBER,NOT A FIGHTER.
😂
the comments of the video are really painful to listen
Thanks for the feedback 👌🏼
👍👍👍❤❤❤✈✈✈
🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
awesome videooo
Thank you. Which do you think is the worst?
@@LegacyofWar the Fairey planes
@@lourencocosta4815 ua-cam.com/video/Dmfnq8syHks/v-deo.htmlsi=70Y7Yu4wovwchjKe
Click bait garbage.
Hi,
Thanks for commenting.
Not really sure what I’ve put in the video which is clickbait?
If they are using A.I. couldnt they use an understandable mode of speaking instead of a difficult to follow brogue? Criminey- interesting material ruined by the goofy accent.
Thanks….thats my normal accent 👌🏼
If they knew then they should have been taken OOC who was responsible for not doing that,torpeto's that were duds,tanks that were toys next to the Germans,sombody is responsible what happened to them?
Thanks for commenting 👍🏻