Worst aircraft of WW2?

[r2800doublewasp]

The Breda Ba. 88! It was so bad the Italians stripped them and used them as decoys almost immediately after they left the production line. Also some were just scrapped. Brand New!

[moomoo2]

I'm not saying that its a bad aircraft as such, but the JU52 at one point in the war around 1942 they were losing more of them than they could replace. Something like 500 lost in a couple of months as opposed to 400 being built. It was a bit of a deathtrap i think. Does anyone have any more info on this?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by moomoo2

I'm not saying that its a bad aircraft as such, but the JU52 at one point in the war around 1942 they were losing more of them than they could replace. Something like 500 lost in a couple of months as opposed to 400 being built. It was a bit of a deathtrap i think. Does anyone have any more info on this?

Despite losses, the Ju 52 performed well and met or exceeded its design expectancy. The Breda BA.88 didn't come close to doing that.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by moomoo2

I'm not saying that its a bad aircraft as such, but the JU52 at one point in the war around 1942 they were losing more of them than they could replace. Something like 500 lost in a couple of months as opposed to 400 being built. It was a bit of a deathtrap i think. Does anyone have any more info on this?

I would not call it a bad aircraft because of that. It performed very well. Any transport is going to b a sitting duck unless is properly escorted or you have complete aerial superiority.

[wingnuts]

Originally Posted by moomoo2

I'm not saying that its a bad aircraft as such, but the JU52 at one point in the war around 1942 they were losing more of them than they could replace. Something like 500 lost in a couple of months as opposed to 400 being built. It was a bit of a deathtrap i think. Does anyone have any more info on this?

The JU5/3m "Tante Ju" was used used by BEA in the UK after the war and in many places around the world up to the 1960s... Swissair used them up to the 1980s....as well as those in the Spanish and other airforces.

Many were lost during the invasion of Crete and on the Eastern Front when being used for tasks they were never designed for.

Rather than the worst I think it could be classed as one of the best aircraft of the period. Many still airworthy today.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Spain as a matter of fact continued to build them until 1952. It was a very rugged and sound aircraft. Not spectacular in performance but a very well built and sound aircraft.

[parsifal]

The Ju 52 was certainly a valuable aircraft, and far from the "worst a/c type of the war.

However, it had its limitations.

Durng the Stalingrad airlift ther were many Ju52 casualties, some were due to the activities of the VVS and some to flak, however, according to Hayward ("Stopped At Stalingrad - The Luftwaffe and Hitlers defeat in the East 1942-3") more than half the casualties were due to engine failures with many engine failures due to icing. The casualty rate to non-combat reasons amongst the He111 units also used in the airlift was much lower (although the payload of the He 111 was also much lower when used as a transport). The He 111 also enjoyed a much longer range, such that after the capture of the main supply airbases at Morozovskaya, Tatinskaya and Salsk, the Ju52, with their shorter range than the Heinkels, could no longer airlift to Stalingrad

The heavy losses suffered over Tunisia highlighted the extreme vulnerability of the type, but also the fact that the german were often forced by the military circumstances they faced to take big risks. As the war progressed these big risks showed as heavy casualties.

The Germans suffered heavy casualties to their transport fleets in both the airborne ops they undertook, many of which, at Crete at least were destroyed as the Ju 52s landed , under fire, to discharge the Gebirgjagers sent in to rescue the paratroopers pinned at Maleme.

The losses in the transports had other bad effects on the Germans. The Ju52s were actually flown by elite pilots, working in the Bomber training schools using the Ju52s for that purpose. There were so many casualties suffered over Stalingrad in these crews, that the Germans were forced to curtail all their blind flying training for bombers, and cut back on bomber production generally, simply because for many months they could not train the crews needed to put the bombers into the air. Later the decision was taken to abandon bomber production in favour of fighters, but in early 1943 this decision had not yet been taken. It was forced on the germans as a result of the near total paralysis of the bomber training schools, brought about, in turn, by the losses to the transports over Stalingrad....

[Burmese Bandit]

Have to agree. The 52 was good - well, let's say more than adequate, the tactical usage horrendous.

[Boss Calamari]

The Ju-252 was supposed to replace the ju-52, but there wasn't time to change production orders because of the war condition.

[r2800doublewasp]

I gotta to go with (like I said before) the Breda BA 88. The Ba. 65 was also horrendous, but you got to factor in its age.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by wingnuts

Rather than the worst I think it could be classed as one of the best aircraft of the period. Many still airworthy today.

+1.
Couldn't have said it better myself.


Elvis

[Colin1]

For crippling losses over a comparatively short period of time

The Douglas Devastated?

[parsifal]

The TBD was outclassed in its battles, unquestionably, and its losses refelct that. To that extent I agree with you. But from a purely performance POV, ther is the French PL-7, and perhaps even the british Swordfish and Albacore. The fact that the british devised operational techniques to overcome those shortcomings does not hide the fact of the poor outright performance of these types. I am a BIG fan of the Swordfish, and its operations BTW

[Waynos]

No, you are right. I can see what you are saying. the losses of the Devastator are not a sign that the plane itself was bad. I'm sure the FAA would much rather have had Devastators than Swordfish, probably the pilots would have prefered it to the Barracuda too.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Waynos

No, you are right. I can see what you are saying. the losses of the Devastator are not a sign that the plane itself was bad

The losses of the Devastator were a sign that the plane was old.
Fast, sleek and with a number of features considered modern for 1935, monoplane structure, hydraulic wing-fold mechanism, all-metal construction.

1940 arrived and with the new decade came the inevitability that the TBD was losing its edge, the US Navy did set about looking for a replacement but in all honesty, without any real sense of urgency - rather scary considering the wars that were brewing in Europe and Asia; the TBD was state of the art 5 years ago, it will be now... right?

Wrong. Things had moved on. Considerably. The TBD was by now under-protected, under-powered and asked crews to deliver a torpedo that seemed to have a lot of trouble going off once it hit the target, that is IF it hit the target and didn't plough 11 - 14 feet under it as the test warhead used in trials was nowhere near as heavy as the real warhead carried on operations.

US Navy intransigence can certainly carry the can for most of the shortcomings of their own strike capability but trying to preserve the reputation of a platform on the basis that it was a little long in the tooth before it came to be used in anger is misguided; if the plane carrying you into battle is no longer up to the task then it's a bad plane.

It's also going to get you shot down, in the same way that over 90% of the TBD force deployed at Midway were.

I'm sure there's an argument for Swordfish and Barracuda crews wanting them in preference but that wasn't really the question.