Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Clay,

I beleive that tactic was actually touched on, in an episode of either "Dogfights" or "Battle 360", on the History Channel.
I also remember reading something about this tactic in a magazine some years ago ("Air Combat", maybe?).
The German's learned it from the Russians, who called the manuver "Turan" ("Turran"?).
In that episode, they used Me-109's as the "crash vehicle" of choice.
The idea was to fly into the tail or a wing, thus disabiling the controllability of the bomber, but to do it in such a way, where the pilot could still eject from the fighter, after crashing it.


Elvis

That doesn't surprise me, but it's still different and less intensive than a government driven program in rockets manned by the Hitler Youth. (They were crazy enough)

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Originally Posted by river

Hi,



Using that logic I guess the C47 would be another useless, defenseless transport that did less for the war than the bombers and fighters?

river

No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323.

And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Focke Wulf Meister

No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323.

And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat.

I think you are missing the point of what makes an aircraft the worst. If an aircraft was able to do what it was designed to do, then it can not be the worst.

You do not provide air support for ANY transport, they are going to be shot down in droves.

The fact that a transport can not defend itself and is shot down in droves because of that, does not make it the worst. Sorry...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Focke Wulf Meister

No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323.

And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat.

The 323 met or exceeded its design requirements, in other words it flew as advertised. The fact that it was shot down in large numbers means nothing, that was an operational problem with the LW.

Left untouched, the 323 could deiver large amonts of cargo and had many innovations seen today.

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The fact that it was shot down in large numbers means nothing, that was an operational problem with the LW.

I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s.

So, we're to judge "the worst plane of WWII" in a vacuum? What is the criteria of "worst" in this debate anyway? Flight characteristics, armament, flight worthiness, maneuverability, length of service, numbers manufactured vs. number destroyed, combat effectiveness, payload, etc.?

The question is so broad, it is open to wide interpretation.

Did the limited number of 323s employed do their job? To an extent, yes. But, every freakin' example of the aircraft was either blown out of the sky or destroyed on the ground. How effective is the platform if it can't survive to fight another day?

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Did the Gigant do its intended job or not? Yes it was a heavy transport.

I'm surprised FlyboyJ didn't mention this in his prior post, as I believe he was the first poster in this thread to bring up this idea, but I believe we all agreed, early on in this thread, that the "worst" airplane of WWII (or any war) would be the one that DID NOT meet its design objective.
DerAdler is quite correct in the quote above and considering that the Gigant not only met its design objective, but did it on a more grand scale than any other single transport used during the war, makes it a candidate, not for the "worst" aircraft of WWII, but THE BEST.

...however, that's a whole other thread.


Elvis

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Focke Wulf Meister

I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s.

So, we're to judge "the worst plane of WWII" in a vacuum? What is the criteria of "worst" in this debate anyway? Flight characteristics, armament, flight worthiness, maneuverability, length of service, numbers manufactured vs. number destroyed, combat effectiveness, payload, etc.?

The question is so broad, it is open to wide interpretation.

The worst has to be an aircraft that did not do what it was designed to do, not because of bad tactics, pilots, etc.

An aircraft can not be faulted for bad decisions in use or operational problems.

Originally Posted by Focke Wulf Meister

Did the limited number of 323s employed do their job? To an extent, yes. But, every freakin' example of the aircraft was either blown out of the sky or destroyed on the ground. How effective is the platform if it can't survive to fight another day?

Again that has nothing to do with the design of the aircraft or its capabilities. I repeat any transport that is left unprotected is going to be chewed up. That includes any transport.

Using your logic all of these aircraft must be considered the worst:

C-47
C-46
Ju 52
Ju 390
Fw 200
Ju 290
C-54
L-10

Unprotected they would all be blown out of the sky or destroyed on the ground. How effective is the platform if it can't survive to fight another day? (these are your words, repeat them when thinking of the aircraft above).

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Thank you, Elvis, for informing me of your guys' criteria and meaning of "worst". That clears things up tremendously.

Have a great day.

[river]

Hi,

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

C-47
C-46
Ju 52
Ju 390
Fw 200
Ju 290
C-54
L-10

C54!!!!

Were there many about in WW2?

I love the C-54/DC-4. I dunno why, but I think they're a gorgeous airplane. I wish we had more in Australia (only got 1 and I think it is being restored by HARS - who have the Constellation)

river

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Focke Wulf Meister

I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s.

It meant that the LW was not able to provide fighter cover to protect their transports!

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Now that I know the criteria for "worst", here are my candidates:

Worst Bomber: Breda Ba.88 Lince

Two Italian groups were equipped with the Breda Ba.88 in June 1940, operating initially from Sardinia against the main airfield of Corsica. The crews found that the Bredas were extremely underpowered and lacked agility, but the lack of fighter opposition resulted in them being able to perform their missions without losses.

Later, 64 aircraft became operational serving 7imo Gruppo in the North African Theatre with 19imo stationed in Sardinia, but their performance remained extremely poor resulting in the 7imo Gruppo being grounded from the end of June until September, when the Italian offensive against British forces started. Of three aircraft used, one was not even capable of taking off, and another could not turn and was forced to fly straight.

Five months after the start of the war, on 10 June 1940, Bredas were phased out as bombers and given new tasks as decoys on airfields.

Nice plane, Moose.


Worst Interceptor: Messershmitt Me163 Komet

The rocket used two propellents (both quite unstable and corrosive), that when they came in contact with each other, exploded, thus powering the rocket. HTP hydrogen peroxide mixed with hydrazine hydrate makes quite a bang! Do not try this at home. The stuff burned off very rapidly, giving just a few minutes of flight. As there were no wheels, the Me 163 landed on a skid, which was a bumpy proposition. Any residual fuels left in the tanks would then combine and explode; several aircraft were lost in just this manner. Even by itself, the HTP was highly corrosive, especially to any organic materials, so the pilots had to wear protective suits of synthetic materials. But sometimes it seeped into the cockpit, or worked through the seams of the overalls. On occasion, an Me 163 would just blow up while sitting on the ground.

Production Me 163Bs were not ready for operational use until July 1944. The Luftwaffe planned to have small units of Komets dispersed to intercept Allied bomber formations, but only 279 Me 163Bs were delivered by the end of the war. The sole operational Komet group, JG 400, scored nine kills while losing 14 of its own aircraft.

Now, that is a kill ratio you can be proud of, Herman. Nice.


Worst Fighter: PZL P.7a

During the battle for Poland in 1939, pilots flying the P.7a claimed shooting down seven German aircraft (two He 111s, two Do 17s, one Hs 126 and two Bf 110s), suffering combat losses of 22 aircraft. How embarrassing for the Luftwaffe. You actually lost planes to this hunk of junk?

HM: Boulton Paul P.82 Defiant

Contemporary with the Royal Navy's Blackburn Roc (a disaster in its own right), the concept of a turret fighter was somewhat similar to the World War I-era Bristol Fighter. In practice, the Defiant was found to be vulnerable to the Luftwaffe's more agile, single-seat Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters; crucially, the Defiant did not have any forward-firing guns. Sounds like an F-4 Phantom. (Unlike the Brits, we Americans finally deduced adding a forward-firing gun to our Double Ugly would be a good idea.)


Worst Ground Attack Aircraft: Me 210

The Me 210 was designed to replace the Bf 110 in heavy fighter role. The first examples of the Me 210 were ready in 1939, but they proved to have poor flight characteristics.

A large-scale operational testing programm throughout 1941 and early 1942 did not cure the aircraft's problems. The design eventually entered limited service in 1943, but was almost immediately replaced by its successor, the Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse ("Hornet"). The Me 410 was a further development of the Me 210, renamed so as to avoid the 210's notoriety. The failure of the Me 210's development programme meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to continue fielding the outdated Bf 110, to mounting losses.

Surprisingly, no Japanese or Russian aircraft on my list. Hmmmm...

Anyway, that's my two cents...

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually there was nothing wrong with the PZL P.7a - in its day it was one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. It was obsolete by the start of WW2 - that was its only problem.

Breda Ba.88 was the worse WW2 aircraft IMO.

[parsifal]

The Defiant had one moment of glory as a day fighter in 1940. After that it was releagated to the Night Fighter role, wher it enjoyed a modicum of success.

For the record, the Polish fighter groups shot down more German planes than they had in their own inventory at the beginning of the war. The P-7 was one of those fighters. They shot down more aircraft than you credit them for. Total Luftwaffe losses in the Polish campaign are in fact disputed, but are somewhere in the vicinity of 350 a/c.

Polish pilots were the best trained in Europe at that time. Their record in the BoB attests to that

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by river

Hi,



C54!!!!

Were there many about in WW2?

I love the C-54/DC-4. I dunno why, but I think they're a gorgeous airplane. I wish we had more in Australia (only got 1 and I think it is being restored by HARS - who have the Constellation)

river

I believe that over 1000 of them saw service in WW2.

Originally Posted by Focke Wulf Meister

Now, that is a kill ratio you can be proud of, Herman. Nice.

I believe the word is Germans or German, not Herman...

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by parsifal

The Gigant is not the worst aircraft of WWII, its not even the worst transport of WWII

Correct. That title would have to go to the Junkers Mammut. A tank tranporter that could not carry tanks as the floor wasn't strong enough.