bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
Typical isn't it though? the two main contenders for worse aircraft of WW2 are both British!! 
What was the worst Aircraft of WWII?
- Thread starter Hot Space
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
kiwimac
Staff Sergeant
Yes, when the Brits built an awful plane (a rarity BTW) they built them DAMN awful, no half-measures there.
Kiwimac
Kiwimac
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
No, we Brits never do anything in half measures...thats why our women have such high standards! 8) 
cheddar cheese
Major General
Hugh Janus
Recruit
- 8
- Mar 30, 2004
you guys are dumb, the b-25 roc was one of the best planes of the war 
the mustang was a SHIT plane and im surprised it could even take off, ive seen more aerodynamic breeze blocks
the mustang was a SHIT plane and im surprised it could even take off, ive seen more aerodynamic breeze blocks
kiwimac
Staff Sergeant
Hmmm,
Can you all say 'Troll", I KNOW you can!
Kiwimac
Can you all say 'Troll", I KNOW you can!
Kiwimac
cheddar cheese
Major General
tr- tr- tr- transvestite! nope cant say it 
nope cant say it bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
I was just reading up about our old friend the Blackburn Roc and take a look at this link...
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/blackburn_roc.htm
doesn't seem the old Roc was quite as bad as its critics made it out to be (still not very hot though) interestingly enough though (fans of German bombers brace yourselves!) the only enemy aircraft that the Blackburn Roc reportedly shot down was a Ju88!!
hard luck guys - told you it wasn't that much cop 8)
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/blackburn_roc.htm
doesn't seem the old Roc was quite as bad as its critics made it out to be (still not very hot though) interestingly enough though (fans of German bombers brace yourselves!) the only enemy aircraft that the Blackburn Roc reportedly shot down was a Ju88!!
hard luck guys - told you it wasn't that much cop 8)
kiwimac
Staff Sergeant
Mate,
If you snuck up behind 'em even that bloody gladiator of yours could have shot down a bomber.
Its not what you shoot down, its how!
Kiwimac
If you snuck up behind 'em even that bloody gladiator of yours could have shot down a bomber.
Its not what you shoot down, its how!
Kiwimac
In my opinion the Heinkel He113 was possilbly the worst aircraft of the second war war, mainly due to the fact that it didnt actually exist. The Nazi propaganda machine claimed that the He113 was a development of the He112. It was supposed to be powered by a single mercedas benz engine with 1200hp and a max speed of 350mph. It had a cannon in the nose and two machine guns.
Actually this was just a ruse by the nazi's to trick us into thinking that they whad an excellent nightfighter. The Ju88 was good but they wanted this thing to outshine the lot. In truth however, it was just a He112 or even a He110.
And what such a lovely site!
Actually this was just a ruse by the nazi's to trick us into thinking that they whad an excellent nightfighter. The Ju88 was good but they wanted this thing to outshine the lot. In truth however, it was just a He112 or even a He110.
And what such a lovely site!
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
kiwimac said:
I'll have you know the 'Bloody' Gladiator did shoot down alot of Nazi bombers! and it didn't always sneak up on them!
How do you suppose a huge, clumsy and incredibly SLOW plane like the Roc managed to 'sneak up' on a Ju88 without being seen by its numerous gunners? Perhaps the Germans wanted to give it a sporting chance...?
cheddar cheese
Major General
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
Would planes like the Boulton Paul Defiant and the Blackburn Roc have been more sucessful if......
A) They were faster?
B) They had wing mounted forward firing machine guns?
C) A ball turret under the plane, like a B-17?
I know its a daft question but i was thinking - both these planes were let down by their speed (especially the Roc) and if they had more speed (a better engine for a start) would they have faired better?
Also the only weapons they had were in the slow turning turret - would mounted wing machine guns have been more use?
Both the fighters were very vulnerable from underneath... could a ball turret under the plane provide the underbelly protection they needed and enable the pilot to be claer to aim his aircraft at the target with the wing mounted guns and fire away assured that his underbelly is protected...?
cheers
A) They were faster?
B) They had wing mounted forward firing machine guns?
C) A ball turret under the plane, like a B-17?
I know its a daft question but i was thinking - both these planes were let down by their speed (especially the Roc) and if they had more speed (a better engine for a start) would they have faired better?
Also the only weapons they had were in the slow turning turret - would mounted wing machine guns have been more use?
Both the fighters were very vulnerable from underneath... could a ball turret under the plane provide the underbelly protection they needed and enable the pilot to be claer to aim his aircraft at the target with the wing mounted guns and fire away assured that his underbelly is protected...?
cheers
IMO, Bronzewhaler, I think that the points that you have made are very valid. The Roc and the defiant were both let down as you say by the speed. But if it is so obvious to us, and I know Hindsight is a good skill to possess...then surely ALL planes would have been fitted with a better engine? It seems absurd that there were planes with as much as a 150moh plus difference in speed, on the same side. So why werent all planes fitted with the best engines. I know for instance that the Mosquito was made from balsa wood so perhaps the weight may have something to do with it. Perhaps the economics played a part as well?
kiwimac
Staff Sergeant
Whaler,
The Germans have always been very sporting! I hold to the opinion that the Roc was successful because as soon as the Germans saw it they began laughing so hard they could not actually point the guns!
Reminds me of the following (possibly apocryphal story)
An Atlantic convoy, passinig through the Artic circle, was being shadowed by a Condor. The plane flew around the convey in great circles, outside the range of the AA guns mounted on the ships, BUT always in just one direction.
Eventually the Captain of the Destroyer leading the convoy told his Aldis operator to "Tell that bloody jerry to go in the opposite direction, as he is making me dizzy!" Which the aldis op proceeded to do.
After a couple of minutes the following reply came via the Aldis mounted in the Condor. "Anything for the Royal Navy, Old Bean" and slowly the Condor began once again to circle the convoy, in the opposite direction.
Remind me to tell you all about the German POW who won the George Medal sometime (or FTM the English POW who won the Iron Cross [civilian catagory])
Kiwimac
The Germans have always been very sporting! I hold to the opinion that the Roc was successful because as soon as the Germans saw it they began laughing so hard they could not actually point the guns!
Reminds me of the following (possibly apocryphal story)
An Atlantic convoy, passinig through the Artic circle, was being shadowed by a Condor. The plane flew around the convey in great circles, outside the range of the AA guns mounted on the ships, BUT always in just one direction.
Eventually the Captain of the Destroyer leading the convoy told his Aldis operator to "Tell that bloody jerry to go in the opposite direction, as he is making me dizzy!" Which the aldis op proceeded to do.
After a couple of minutes the following reply came via the Aldis mounted in the Condor. "Anything for the Royal Navy, Old Bean" and slowly the Condor began once again to circle the convoy, in the opposite direction.
Remind me to tell you all about the German POW who won the George Medal sometime (or FTM the English POW who won the Iron Cross [civilian catagory])
Kiwimac
Crazy
Senior Airman
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
Is that a true story Kiwi or are you pulling my leg? You missed out the part where the Condor turned on the fleet and sank three ships!
If that story is true its very interesting...and the story about the medals sounds interesting too...do tell... 8)
Oleanna,
Thanks for not laughing at my post Thats an interesting question you ask and i'm not sure of the answer myself...sometimes the reason why certain planes in an airforce (lets use the RAF as an example) are considerably slower than others is that they are older and they were fitted with the best engines available at the time and when they became obsolete, they were still useful and kept on - so newer planes with newer engines could outrun them.
However it is true to say that economics came into the equation....planes were commisioned by the gov after specs were drawn up by independant companies (De Havilland, Supermarine, Hawker, Avro etc...) at the request of the government - for example when the idea for the De Havilland Mosquito was put forward to the British Gov they laughed at the mere suggestion of a wooden aircraft in that day and age - though ironically it turned into the most useful aircraft the RAF posessed during the entire war! (IMO anyway... 8) )
Some campanies had more money and resources than others so they couldn't nessasarily afford the latest engine...but just because an aircraft is slow doesn't mean its no good - the Gloster Gladiator is one of my fav fighters from WW2 and its top speed was only 257mph!
You're also right in saying that the weight plays a vital role too - in fact the main reason the Roc and Defiant were so slow was the very heavy turret fitted onto the plane (from a Handley Page Halifax bomber
) it is on record that apparently the Defiant fighter prototype flew and handled extremely well with a respectable top speed - until the bulky turret was fitted and then its performance was less impressive...
A smaller, more streamlined ball Turret armed with only two .303 machine guns (with a very small, light, bloke sitting inside ) would weigh considerably less than its predessesor and perhaps a stronger engine would be able to pull it faster - fixed machine guns would add to the overall weight but i can't help but feel perhaps it still would have been more sucessful than the original designs...but as you say hindsight is a wonderful thing and it really doesn't matter now anyway...still, at least it made for an interesting topic 8)
You missed out the part where the Condor turned on the fleet and sank three ships! If that story is true its very interesting...and the story about the medals sounds interesting too...do tell... 8)
Oleanna,
Thanks for not laughing at my post
Thats an interesting question you ask and i'm not sure of the answer myself...sometimes the reason why certain planes in an airforce (lets use the RAF as an example) are considerably slower than others is that they are older and they were fitted with the best engines available at the time and when they became obsolete, they were still useful and kept on - so newer planes with newer engines could outrun them. However it is true to say that economics came into the equation....planes were commisioned by the gov after specs were drawn up by independant companies (De Havilland, Supermarine, Hawker, Avro etc...) at the request of the government - for example when the idea for the De Havilland Mosquito was put forward to the British Gov they laughed at the mere suggestion of a wooden aircraft in that day and age - though ironically it turned into the most useful aircraft the RAF posessed during the entire war! (IMO anyway... 8) )
Some campanies had more money and resources than others so they couldn't nessasarily afford the latest engine...but just because an aircraft is slow doesn't mean its no good - the Gloster Gladiator is one of my fav fighters from WW2 and its top speed was only 257mph!
You're also right in saying that the weight plays a vital role too - in fact the main reason the Roc and Defiant were so slow was the very heavy turret fitted onto the plane (from a Handley Page Halifax bomber
) it is on record that apparently the Defiant fighter prototype flew and handled extremely well with a respectable top speed - until the bulky turret was fitted and then its performance was less impressive... A smaller, more streamlined ball Turret armed with only two .303 machine guns (with a very small, light, bloke sitting inside
) would weigh considerably less than its predessesor and perhaps a stronger engine would be able to pull it faster - fixed machine guns would add to the overall weight but i can't help but feel perhaps it still would have been more sucessful than the original designs...but as you say hindsight is a wonderful thing and it really doesn't matter now anyway...still, at least it made for an interesting topic 8)
kiwimac
Staff Sergeant
Whaler,
Well I did say apocryphal BUT I have heard it from 4 or 5 different sources all with the same basic details, so I'm willing to consider it true.
Well I did say apocryphal BUT I have heard it from 4 or 5 different sources all with the same basic details, so I'm willing to consider it true.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
would you look at that, i go away for a week and suddenly all threads are back on topic...........................
cheddar cheese
Major General
yup 8) cant you handle it?
