What Was the worst Aircraft of WWII?

[cheddar cheese]

The LaGG 3 wasnt actually that bad, from what ive heard. It certainly wasnt great but planes such as the Blackburn B-25 Roc, Fairey Battle and Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet were far worse.

On a personal note, I happen to like the LaGG-3


Welcome to the site, BTW 8)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the thing about the -163 is that it was also one of the war's most advanced planes, and the worse..............

 

[cheddar cheese]

Potentially a good plane as well.

 

[Medvedya]

I think the Short Stirling has to be up there - if only because it was designed to fit the hangers, rather than the other way around.

 

[cheddar cheese]

The Short Stirling was a fine plane - not as good as the Halifax or Lancaster but it had its uses.

 

[Medvedya]

Well, the ceiling on the earlier models was only a pitiful 16,500 feet. Admittedly it was fast at low altitude - but it's losses were far higher than those in Halifax or Lancaster squadrons.

 

[cheddar cheese]

British bombers had low ceilings for a reason, mainly to evade any compressibility problems.

 

[Medvedya]

The Lanc had a ceiling of 24,500 and the Halifax around 22,000 - somewhat lower than the U.S.A.F bombers admittedly, but 17,000 is really too low for a raid into Germany. (hense the losses) The Stirling was changed to other duties very successfully such as glider-towing, mine-laying, and dropping paratroops, but performing in the role it was originaly designed for, that is, long range heavy bombing - it was a flop.

Also, it was not the easiest of planes to maintain - the high undercarrage meant that ground crew working on the engines and wings had a nasty drop down to the unforgiving concrete. There were quite a few broken legs suffered by ground crews from falling off Stirlings.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Hmmmmm I agree actually, but there were actually several other planes that were far worse.

Messerschmitt Me-163 Komet - Killed more Axis than Allies

Blackburn B-25 Roc - Similar to the Boulton-Paul Defiant, but about 10 times worse.

Fairey Battle - Only one .303 for defence, and it wasnt even the best when there was air superiority.

And the list goes on...But the Stirling was not the worst.

 

[redcoat]

My pick

Me 163, even refuelling it was dangerous

 

[cheddar cheese]

Good choice 8) I wouldnt use the term "refuelling" as I doubt many even made it back from the original "fuelling"

 

[germanace]

Id go with the 163 and the swordfish

 

[Hot Space]

The Short Stirling was a fine plane - not as good as the Halifax or Lancaster but it had its uses.

The Stirling was a really good turner though. If a German Nighterfighter got on it's tail and the crew knew of this, it would have a hard time getting a kill.

Hot Space

 

[Medvedya]

I wonder what it would have been like if they had extended its wings in later models?

Bit of trivia - the Airfix kit for the Stirling is the only one to have a tractor and bomb trollies with the main kit. Come to think of it, I haven't made a model in years, but I'd quite like to build one again, and do it justice this time round!

Here's a nice cut away drawing anyway.....
I got it from this excellent site....

http://www.stirling.box.nl/home.htm

 

[Hot Space]

Nice 8)

Hot Space

 

[cheddar cheese]

Indeed 8)

Id go with the 163 and the swordfish

163 yes; Swordfish? A BIG FAT NO. The Swordfish was extremely successful.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the most successfull torpedo bomber of the war.................

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

Id go with the 163 and the swordfish

Statistics don't make a plane bad, if this was true, the Komet would have been the best plane of the war...


The Swordfish was slow and vulnerable, but had INCREDIBLE battle success...

 

[Udet]

Just like the question on what aircraft was the best of WWII, telling which machine was the worst of the war, is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, question to answer with accuracy.

What of the parameters applied to answer the question? There can be as many as there are individuals thinking about it.

I would narrow my search to those machines who saw action in important numbers, leaving aside those which saw service in such small numbers they can even be considered as prototypes. (Still, I would never ever consider the Komet Me 163 as the worst, not at all; it was so revolutionary it still had to solve its problems, however, that would never place the Komet nowhere near amongst the "worst".)

Let the show begin:

For instance, the PZL polish fighters which faced the Luftwaffe during the invasion of Poland in September, 1939, strictly as machines were not that bad.

The problem was they were TOO OLD to still remain in service. Even worst, to see service against an extremely modern and tactically advanced foe such as the Luftwaffe equipped with cannon armed, radio equipped single-engined Bf109´s.

Still, a few Polish pilots, very few, made it airborne and shot down a small number of German planes, bombers mainly.

The same can be told about the soviet Polikarpovs, the I-15 biplane, the I-153 and the I-16 (Ishak). I repeat: strictly the machine, they made excellent planes when they were conceived. Likewise, they suffered the same fate of the Polish fighters when they met the very modern Bf109´s.

Those old soviet types had excellent maneuvering capabilities, but were very miserable at both climbing and diving, their speed was low.

Those 3 tiny soviet fighters were TOO OLD to be in service. Obsolete. Outclassed. Outpowered by the Luftwaffe´s single engine fighters.

Still a few Soviet pilots managed to score victories against the Luftwaffe flying those 3 planes. However, the bulk of the Polikarpovs got effectively blown out of the skies or destroyed at their bases by the superior planes and tactics of the Germans, still a few of those remained in service until 1943.

The soviet LaGG´s, which were far more modern than the Polikarpovs, were extremely mediocre and unreliable, and the Germans as well sent countless of those plummeting down to the earth.

PARTIAL CONCLUSION: (STRICTLY THE MACHINES) the Polish PZL´s the Soviet Polikarpovs while being very good planes, should have had an earlier retirement. WWII as it started, was not the business of such aging and obsolete types and their losses were frightful.

The LaGG´s, while including very interesting features made very bad planes. Totally unreliable. As a whole it can be said the LaGG-3 was a failure.

The RAF with the turret equipped Defiant made a contribution for nurturing the "worst plane" thread. Yes, it scored a few victories during the initial stages of the Battle of Britain, but it got immediatly outclassed in combat by the Bf109´s and losses were very high.

The USAAF with the Brewster Bufalo also is awarded a medal. It had nothing to do against the Japanese Zeros.

I do not think any of the German planes deployed in signifcant numbers to front units qualifies at all in the "worst aircraft" category.

Some obsolete types like the Henschel He123 biplane, were deployed in very small numbers for night harrasment missions, but in very small numbers, and such attackes were frequently succesful.

If you think of the Me210, which failed, it was a prototype being tested, which eventually lead to the excellent Me410 which brought the Luftwaffe back over England in 1944.

 

[Yeomanz]

Ju-87 was the worst plane , it was easily blown to smitheriens and was as fast as a snail , even though it could carry a hefty load