Worst aircraft of WW2?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Colin1

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.

The Devastator actually did well in the Battle of Coral Sea where it did help sink the Shoho. There was no doubt the aircraft was obsolete but the losses at Midway were also due to a tactical situation - the whole Japanese carrier task force fighter CAP converged on the unescorted Devastators. The TBD attack was planned with the assumption that these aircraft would of had fighter protection during their torpedo runs. Cmdr Thach and his fighters never rendezvous with the TBDs and their fate was sealed. Their sacrifice was not in vain however, as their attack not only forced the Japanese to delay launching their strike force, but also drew the defending fighters down to low altitudes, allowing the later arriving dive bombers, to attack without opposition and sink three carriers.

Also remember this - the much touted and advanced Grumman Avenger made its combat debut at Midway. Six Avengers of VT-8 were stationed at Midway and sent out to attack the Japanese as well - only one survived.

The TBD was at the end of its line at Midway but IMO the losses suffered by the aircraft wasn't only due to its obsolescence - simply it was at the wrong place at the wrong time and I also believe that if the newer TBM were placed in the same position, they probably would not of fared any better.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by Colin1

The losses of the Devastator were a sign that the plane was old.

Old doesn't equal bad, what we are talking about are the worst aeroplanes of WW2, planes like the Breda 88 or Blackburn Botha which were new, but crap, even dangerous and not in a good way.

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

No, the question is the worst plane of WW2, and if there were crews who would have preferred it to their own mounts then it can't have been the worst, can it? And I wouldn't even nominate the Swordfish as the worst, it did its job very well despite its obsolescence. Ironically the Swordfish is only a year older than the TBD, to me that is incredible.

I would say that any 'worst' aircraft would have to be one that was dangerous to its crews because it was a badly flawed design, not because people were shooting at it.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Old doesn't equal bad, what we are talking about are the worst aeroplanes of WW2...

...I would say that any 'worst' aircraft would have to be one that was dangerous to its crews because it was a badly flawed design, not because people were shooting at it.

Well, yes
we're talking about the worst aeroplanes of WWII, the problem is that the original thread on this topic doesn't provide any constraints in how we define 'worst'.

I'm not suggesting I'm right, I'm saying that's how I interpreted it; old was bad for a bunch of torpedo bomber crews at Midway.

I have to say that your own views are entirely valid and probably more appropriate to the thread than mine but when I read it, what popped into my head is what you see above.

[FLYBOYJ]

At least aircraft like the Devastator and Buffalo were able to get airborne and somewhat fight. A Breda Ba.88 could barely get airborne.

[Waynos]

Yes Colin, I am sorry if I came across as a bit preachy, I know I can do that without meaning to.

To me the TBD is a similar case to the Fairey Battle. A sound aeroplane, but totally in the wrong place at the wrong time (that time being 1939!)

[cormallen]

Hi Folks

I believe that some of the TBD losses were due to its very poor torpedo that required it to fly especially slow and low. The torp had been designed when biplanes were the usual carriers and the launching specs were rather easier to meet...

The japanese Kates could attack in fairly fast long dives so their attacking speed was much higher, reducing their vulnerability to both ships AA and any fighters around.

In terms of real flight performance most of the early war, largish, single engined attack aircraft - Battle, Devastator, B5N, Stuka, Dauntless etc - were all fairly similar... They could succeed (sometimes dramatically - Midway) if the opposition was weak, overwhelmed or just in the wrong place (Midway again...) but could equally die horribly when things went against them! (StuKa in BoB, TBD at Midway, Battle in france...).

regards alan

[flakhappy]

It surely had some fine qualities that are easy to overlook, but those of us who had to fly in them thought the Curtiss C46 was the most unstable aircraft in the world, especially on base leg and final approach, when the flaps went down.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by flakhappy

It surely had some fine qualities that are easy to overlook, but those of us who had to fly in them thought the Curtiss C46 was the most unstable aircraft in the world, especially on base leg and final approach, when the flaps went down.

Did you fly C-46s or just fly in them because I've heard just the opposite.

[parsifal]

Ive read that the C-46s could not get over the Hump in Burma, due to altitude issues. Not sure if that is true, and wanted confirmation from someone better informed if possible

[ONE_HELLCAT]

From what I know, C-46s weren't the highest flying planes, but they could make it across the Hump. I've never ridden in one, but I've been around the "China Doll" a lot, and it looks like it would be pretty stable. Though I've never talked to its pilots.

[FLYBOYJ]

One of my instructors in college flew one. He did say it did not have the altitude like the C-47 but carried more. He never mentioned anything about it being unstable, just that it was a big airplane that made you work.

[Ferdinand Foch]

I'm gonna have to go with the Brewster Buffalo. I know that the Finn's had a lot of success with them against Russia, but everywhere else they were literally coffins for their pilots. The losses that they suffered at Midway kinda prove it (though experience between the Japanese and American pilots was also a pivoting factor). I even heard that the Brewster Company went bankrupt during the war too.

[Waynos]

Not merely bankrupt, which would be nigh on impossible for an arms manufacturer in the middle of a world war, but the US Navy marched in and closed them down.

I would also like to nominate the Curtiss Seamew, regarding which here is a quote from Lieutenant-Commander William Menzies RN;

"I do not know if I was the first Royal Navy pilot to fly this thing, but I was the first of my squadron to do so, taking delivery at Roosevelt Field, Long Island and flying them to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. I have forgotten hown many Seamews were ferried to Yarmouth and how many we broke in the process, but we finally had enough and refused to fly them anymore.

I had thought that someone has done a high pressure sales job and sold us the rubbish that had been refused by the US Navy but now I know that both navies were suffering simultaneously I feel a bit better about the ten years the Seamew took off my life expectation"

from Bill Gunstons 'Back to the Drawing Board'

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Ferdinand Foch

I'm gonna have to go with the Brewster Buffalo. I know that the Finn's had a lot of success with them against Russia, but everywhere else they were literally coffins for their pilots. The losses that they suffered at Midway kinda prove it (though experience between the Japanese and American pilots was also a pivoting factor). I even heard that the Brewster Company went bankrupt during the war too.

The buffalo was actually quite a good aircraft. Most of it's pilots were inexperienced (see KNIL) pilots, hence the losses. The Zero was simply better at the time, although I read a report of a Dutch KNIL pilot who stated that the B339 was as good as the Zero.
The British version (and the later US for that matter) had added armour which made the a/c simply too heavy.

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Originally Posted by Marcel

The buffalo was actually quite a good aircraft. Most of it's pilots were inexperienced (see KNIL) pilots, hence the losses. The Zero was simply better at the time, although I read a report of a Dutch KNIL pilot who stated that the B339 was as good as the Zero.
The British version (and the later US for that matter) had added armour which made the a/c simply too heavy.

True, it'd might have better luck over in the European Theater, but the added weight didn't help it against the zero. It also didn't help that the Japanese had more experience with their zeros. And, if I can recall, defensive team tactics weren't introduced in the opening phases of the Pacific war, which would've helped the buffalo's survival rate increase.