PDA

View Full Version : WW2 Military History Trivia



FlakMagnent
01-12-2005, 12:45 AM
Thought that I would try something new for all the Hardcore Grognards/history buffs in this forum. Every day I will ask a trivia question involving WW2 from the Blitzkrieg to the end in 1945. Todays Question is: Through the course of the war, which "aircraft" was the most unreliable? This covers all planes. Please state the Plane, Model, year, and what made it so unreliable.

HotelBushranger
01-12-2005, 01:10 AM
Wouldn't that be a matter of opinion?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

FlakMagnent
01-12-2005, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Wouldn't that be a matter of opinion?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah I guess it would,but I would like to hear what everyone thinks

No1_Reggie
01-12-2005, 02:36 AM
Well it is a matter of opinion i guess. But from the RAF perspective, although the Fairey Battle and Boulton Paul Defiant were withdrawn quickly it wasnt because of unreliability, it was because they were totally outclassed. I would say for the RAF it was the P39. . they were issued to No601 Squadron and withdrawn i think after around 6 weeks. 601 Squadron lost more pilots as a result of the mechanical reliability of these aircraft than they did in combat till the pilots refused to fly them any more.

Most pilots were killed by random engine failures on take off. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is a quote from the official 601 Squadron history at the RAF history site.

"In February 1941, the squadron began taking part in offensive sweeps over northern France which continued until August, when re-equipment with Airacobras began. These proved useless and were discarded in favour of Spitfires in March 1942"

Here is the link for this article.
No601 Squadron History (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h601.html)

No1_Reggie
01-12-2005, 02:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by No1_Reggie:
Well it is a matter of opinion i guess. But from the RAF perspective, although the Fairey Battle and Boulton Paul Defiant were withdrawn quickly it wasnt because of unreliability, it was because they were totally outclassed. I would say for the RAF it was the P39. . they were issued to No601 Squadron and withdrawn i think after around 6 weeks. 601 Squadron lost more pilots as a result of the mechanical reliability of these aircraft than they did in combat till the pilots refused to fly them any more.

Most pilots were killed by random engine failures on take off. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is a quote from the official 601 Squadron history at the RAF history site.

"In February 1941, the squadron began taking part in offensive sweeps over northern France which continued until August, when re-equipment with Airacobras began. These proved useless and were discarded in favour of Spitfires in March 1942"

Here is the link for this article.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h601.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strangely enough, in game i quite like the P39.

WOLFMondo
01-12-2005, 03:06 AM
Early Typhoons were very unreliable. There Napier Sabres were also very unreliable.

HotelBushranger
01-12-2005, 03:18 AM
The Defiant had a great rear-ward armament, but no forward guns, which I think contributed to it's withdrawal. Never heard anything bout being unreliable, though.

WOLFMondo
01-12-2005, 04:00 AM
Wasn't the turret in fact a success in powered turret development?

Yimmy
01-12-2005, 06:09 AM
I believe the Defiant also had one (maybe two) forward fireing MG's.
It did rack up a few successes to, due to German pilots confusing it with a hurricane and lining themselves up behind it.

The turret I believe could actually rotate 360 degrees, and so fire over the frontal arc, and in theory would make a good bomber killer if given a better armament.

When withdrawn as a day fighter it continued to serve as a night fighter for a while, but I dont know how much success it saw or if it was fitted with any early radar.

Oh, and I agree that the most unreliable RAF aircraft was the early Typhoon.

WB_Outlaw
01-12-2005, 06:41 AM
Keep in mind that "unreliable" can also be somewhat subjective. For example, early on in the lend-lease program, the Soviets considered the allied aircraft engines unreliable. Most of the problems were due to the poor "oil culture" practiced by the Soviets. Once the Soviet ground crews were trained in the proper handling/transport/filtering/etc. of engine oil, it ceased to be a problem.

Conditions like this might explain the lower power to weight ratio of early Soviet engines as they had to be engineered for the prevailing maintenance conditions.

-Outlaw.

John_Stag
01-12-2005, 07:14 AM
Sorry, double post.

John_Stag
01-12-2005, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:
Sbojective, as HBR sez; but I'd go for the Avro Manchester and Hawker Tornado; both for exactly the same reason; their Rolls-Royce Vulture engines, acknowleged by Rolls-Royce as their only real failure.

Yimmy, the Defiant only had the turret as an armament; which was plenty against an unwary opponent. Kills racked up by the Defiant roughly equal the number of Defiants shot down, so you could say she gave as good as she got, though that wasn't good enough.

Against a switched-on oppponent, the Defiant has little to no chance.

Still want to fly her in Bob though; she was a good killer if the situation presented. The last daylight mission they took part in, one aircraft (Sorry, running from memory, can't remember the names of the crew but can look them up) took down two Dornier 17s, and one 109E which collided with a second 109 on the way down.

Then the rest of the German fighters arrived, knowing what they were dealing with, and that day became known as "The Slaughter of the Innocents" in RAF history.

S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edit: Although a contender in the Spitfire family would be the Mk.1b. It's initial performance (badly designed mounts for the hispano cannon and no secondary armament) was so poor as to merit its removal from service after two weeks.

Slick750
01-12-2005, 09:32 AM
ME-109, cold start problems...just a wild guess.

Chuck_Older
01-12-2005, 09:38 AM
Bf-109 wasn't just used in cold climates http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Can't see how we would come up with most unreliable aircraft. Completely subjective.

Come up with a new 'trivia' question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Slick750
01-12-2005, 09:45 AM
I know it was used all over the place, but during winter if you get hundreds of planes that dont start it can affect numbers.

_54th_Target
01-12-2005, 10:36 AM
The P39 was seriously outclassed by the time it entered service in th ETO. Its main feature, the 37mm cannon was prone to jamming and many pilots never fired at air targets with it. I think they had engine problems because of the coral dust on the Pacific islands too. The lack of high altitude capability because of the need for Oxygen (pilot) was a problem too.

Only the Russians seemed to like them. Hmm, I wonder if that is any reflection on the quality of Russian aircraft at the time they received the P39?

_54th_Target

WOLFMondo
01-12-2005, 10:55 AM
I doubt it, they liked it all through the war and asked for more of them and improved versions. the p39's were hardly outclassed by german planes as they progressed throughout the war.

The vvs didn't encounter coral dust and they didn't fight at high altitude and they tended to be very good at fixing things in the field.

Yimmy
01-12-2005, 10:59 AM
Was there an anti-tank AP or DS round for the 37mm gun?
I would imagine it to be a good tank killer.

NORAD_Zooly10
01-12-2005, 11:09 AM
not only did the Typhoon have chronic engine problems, the tail section had a tendancy to fall off, which could be regarded as quite a bad thing.
~S~
Zooly

WOLFMondo
01-12-2005, 12:29 PM
The tail thing was fixed early on and the engine decreased in its tempremental behaviour as the years went on but it required allot of very specific handling on the ground to keep them in order. Unreliable no, just very intense regieme to keep them in order. If you didn't follow that regieme then they became unreliable.

PlaneEater
01-12-2005, 12:33 PM
Hands down the Waco glider. I've never seen one make a good landing, much less take off again.

horseback
01-12-2005, 03:15 PM
"Most unreliable?" If we are talking about aircraft with serviceability problems, the late war Japanese types were notorious for unreliability and uneven performance. The Frank, George, and Ki-100 all had their moments in this regard.

For the Soviets, the early LaGGs were almost universally considered real pieces of crud ("laquered guaranteed wooden coffin"), a major accomplishment, considering some of their birds' quality.

Early FW 190s were a maintenance nightmare, with a distressing tendency to catch fire at engine startup, although the popular German choice would be the Me 210.

The Typhoon has been covered, although another contender might be the Manchester bomber-it really needed another pair of Merlins.

For the US, the B-18/23 Bolo never quite panned out, although the C-47 it was based on was an unqualified success. Other American candidates would be the F2A Buffalo, the Republic P-43 Lancer, and the SB2C Helldiver.

cheers

horseback

DuxCorvan
01-12-2005, 05:03 PM
All of you forget the late stuff. What about 10-hours-life Jumo jet engines?

But for me the winner is:

Me 163B Komet. You never knew whether it was going to melt you or explode in take off/landing... over that skid...

drapis
01-12-2005, 05:08 PM
yep, it must be the Me-163. These machines were real blast! (some of the literally http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )