What Was the worst Aircraft of WWII?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i don't think anyone has ever produced a truely effective turret fighter have they??

 

[Lightning Guy]

The Defiant was probably as close as anyone got, and that's not saying much. The turrets were just too bulky to keep decent performance and maneuvaerability.

 

[plan_D]

The idea was flawed, and I think it came from the WW1 idea of moving fortresses, only these would be in the air. They weren't really big enough for that, therefore poor. Well even the big ones weren't very good, on their own, but at least they were bombers.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think they could have been improved with a couple of forward firing guns.................

 

[Lightning Guy]

The guns on the Defiant could be positioned to fire forwards. But I don't think the lack of forward firing guns is what hurt the turret-armed fighters. Their performance was just pathetic. It is interesting to look at the fighter concepts that developed between the world wars. I think the Bell Airacuda is one of the most interesting ideas for a turret armed fighter ever (pathetic but interesting).

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The guns on the Defiant could be positioned to fire forwards

yes but it was difficult to do, in the event of a front al attack the gunnt isn't gonna be able to turn the turret in time...................

 

[Lightning Guy]

True, but how often was a Defiant going to get onto the tail of a 109 in the first place? A dogfight between a Defiant and a 110 might have been interesting though.

 

[plan_D]

I think that would have been victory to the Bf-110, it was very heavily armed, and could get on the tail of a Defiant. If the Defiant got on the tail of the 110 it had its own rear defence.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I was just wondering. The 110 was the only Luftwaffe fighter that the Defiant might have had half a chance against.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it think if the 110 got on the tail of the defaint not realising it was a turret fighter the 110 would go down.............

 

[Lightning Guy]

Most likely. That's how the Defiant intially had success against the 109 (it did shoot down 17 without loss on one of its early missions). Once the Germans realized the Defiant had guns covering its tail it wasn't nearly as effective.

 

[plan_D]

The Defiant never really had much chance of shooting down the Bf-110 any other way. The 110 had rear defence as well, so the Defiant was screwed.
The 110 had heavier armament than the 109 so I think the Defiant would be ripped apart before the turret would rip the 110 apart.

 

[cheddar cheese]

defiants were regularly mistaken for hurricanes im informed

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes they were, to begin with, that's why they had initaial sucess, but they soon learnt to attack them from the front or side...................

 

[plan_D]

I still believe the Bf-110 would have been quite safe against a Defiant, although anything can happen in war. I'd say the Bf-110 would have a higher success rate against the Defiant, than the Defiant against the 110.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

even though the defaint did have a chance, i'm gonna have to agree that in most cases the 110 would win...............

 

[cheddar cheese]

me too 8)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

unless like i say the 110 get behind the defaint for to long............

 

[cheddar cheese]

yeah but as soon as the defiant started shooting behind it surely the 110 pilot would realise it was a turret fighter and move away 8)

 

[plan_D]

Even then the Defiant would be in deep trouble. The Bf-110 having twin engines gave it a higher survival rate, naturally. And the heavy armament on the Bf-110 would be much more destructive.
This being said, if the 110 was wavering over the tail of the Defiant without actually opening up for a hit. The Defiant would probably score a kill.