Why does the Breda 88 get shit on so much

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

That both Warspite and Enterprise were sent for scrap speaks, in my mind, to the attitudes of the public they defended in deep crisis.

I don't believe in souls, much less in iron beasts having souls -- but if any two ships might be considered, it would be them. The history lost in the breakers' yards is just really sad.
 
Last edited:
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
The Bf 110 had its own problems, and was not very successful in its original role either. German tactics were better though, and they adapted the 110 into a role it could succeed in such as a night fighter.
Click to expand...

I like to think the Bf 110 was actually a fine aircraft, very well designed, versatile, and capable of a wide variety of tasks. Good looking too. The problem was the Zerstorer specification; it really was for a multi-role fighter bomber when broken down - a crew of three, internal bay for camera stowage for the reconnaissance role and long-range escort fighter. That it failed at the latter was not its fault, it was a tall order for a three-seat twin-engined bomber recon platform.

Our perception of it refuses to see past the "fighter" bit, when we should. Question is, if it was designed to be put into service as an attack bomber, a role it carried out with commendability and surprising efficiency during the Battle of Britain, but found itself impressed as a fighter, would we think of it as an excellent aircraft, but not a good fighter? Because it was built to be a fighter whilst carrying out all that other stuff, it gets a bad rap. It shouldn't though.

Let's also not forget that it was a brilliant night fighter, despite being a little long in the tooth by mid to late-war.

51131923497_4cf8ddd31b_b.jpg
RAFM 216
 
Admiral Beez said:
IDK, looks too chubby for my liking. Look at the fat mid section behind the gunner.

View attachment 625167

Now this, the 340 mph Kawasaki Ki-45 is how you make a streamlined twin seater, rear gunner, twin engined fighter.

View attachment 625168

Though if you want to keep the twin seater set-up, I'd suggest omitting the rear gunner and go with the Mosquito fighter or Mitsubishi Ki-83.
Click to expand...

The Breda ate too much pasta
 
nuuumannn said:
I like to think the Bf 110 was actually a fine aircraft, very well designed, versatile, and capable of a wide variety of tasks. Good looking too. The problem was the Zerstorer specification; it really was for a multi-role fighter bomber when broken down - a crew of three, internal bay for camera stowage for the reconnaissance role and long-range escort fighter. That it failed at the latter was not its fault, it was a tall order for a three-seat twin-engined bomber recon platform.

Our perception of it refuses to see past the "fighter" bit, when we should. Question is, if it was designed to be put into service as an attack bomber, a role it carried out with commendability and surprising efficiency during the Battle of Britain, but found itself impressed as a fighter, would we think of it as an excellent aircraft, but not a good fighter? Because it was built to be a fighter whilst carrying out all that other stuff, it gets a bad rap. It shouldn't though.

Let's also not forget that it was a brilliant night fighter, despite being a little long in the tooth by mid to late-war.

View attachment 625197RAFM 216
Click to expand...

I can agree with that.
 
To summarize the Ba.88:
Looked like a dangerous opponent from the front but from the side it looked like a fat cow with tiny wings.
Judging from the books I read it also flew like a fat cow AKA flying brick.
The Fw 190A-8/R8 was often called a flying brick but at least it was able to take off with ease even if fully loaded and uparmored, it was even able to reach ~8km of altitude to attack enemy heavy bombers.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
That both Warspite and Enterprise were sent for scrap speaks, in my mind, to the attitudes of the public they defended in deep crisis.

I don't believe in souls, much less in iron beasts having souls -- but if any two ships might be considered, it would be them. The history lost in the breakers' yards is just really sad.
Click to expand...
America focuses on preserving warships from the Second World War, which makes sense given the young age of the nation and that the veterans who served on these ships and the nation itself were economically prosperous in the first postwar decades. They had the will and the means to preserve many warships - though I believe with the passing of the "greatest generation" that many of these ships will be scrapped, indeed my recent visit to Battleship Cove showed all the ships in disrepair - do you really need to keep all four of the Iowa class, for example? I expect to see this reduce to perhaps two in my lifetime. USS Olympia of the Spanish-American war is likely to go next.

As for Britain, considering that the Royal Navy is over 475 years old, a period throughout much where the nation faced-off invasion and economic collapse, I'd say Britain has done well on museum ships. One could argue that the Spanish Armada of 1588 was a greater invasion risk to the UK than Germany's eventually abandoned Operation Sealion of 1940. British naval history needs to cover five centuries of service, not just the Second World War. With that in mind, the museum warships include: Mary Rose (1511), HMS Victory (1759), HMS Trincomalee (1817), HMS Unicorn (1824), HMS Warrior (1860), HMS Holland (1901), HMS Caroline (1914), and of course HMS Belfast (1938).

While I'd like to have seen the battleship HMS Warspite and one of the Illustrious class carriers persevered, along with a warship from the 1600s (I'll accept the replica Golden Hind Golden Hinde (1973) - Wikipedia) the British are a pragmatic and often unsentimental people, once a ship is done, it's usually quickly scrapped. With this in mind I believe Britain has done well to represent each of the RN's five centuries of service.
 
I visited U.S.S. Olympia a few years back. I hopped a train to Philadelphia to get a cheesesteak sandwich. I worked for a railroad so it was a free ride. I wasn't even aware that Olympia was still around. I saw the signs and high tailed it to U.S.S. Olympia. It was a thrill to be standing on the deck of this historic ship. Looking across the river, was U.S.S. New Jersey at her "retirement" berth. I was standing on the deck of a pre-Dreadnaught warship looking at the last of the Super Dreadnaughts. I was sure that I was the only one there who saw the significance of these two ships, the beginnings and end of the battleship.
We need all 4 Iowas and North Carolina and Massachusetts. I'd like to visit U.S.S. Constitution but Boston traffic really sucks. Yeah, I never drove on Saudi roads.
 
SaparotRob said:
I'd like to visit U.S.S. Constitution but Boston traffic really sucks. Yeah, I never drove on Saudi roads.
Click to expand...

I visited Constitution in Apr 2000, it's amazing.

USS Texas, berthed outside of Houston, is in great disrepair and unless a lot of funding is gathered it too may hit the breaker's yard, or become an artificial reef.

Visiting that ship was eye-opening. The gallery for the casemate 5" guns is fairly open, meaning the crews are all getting the din of multiple guns firing, and in the even of a hit there, terribly vulnerable to explosion and shrapnel. I could scarcely imagine the horror of doing naval combat in such a space. And those 14" gun turrets are much smaller inside than they appear on the outside.

Here's my son leaning up against a 5" mount in that gallery, from that visit:

Ta85ucm.jpg
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
I visited Constitution in Apr 2000, it's amazing.

USS Texas, berthed outside of Houston, is in great disrepair and unless a lot of funding is gathered it too may hit the breaker's yard, or become an artificial reef.

Visiting that ship was eye-opening. The gallery for the casemate 5" guns is fairly open, meaning the crews are all getting the din of multiple guns firing, and in the even of a hit there, terribly vulnerable to explosion and shrapnel. I could scarcely imagine the horror of doing naval combat in such a space. And those 14" gun turrets are much smaller inside than they appear on the outside.

Here's my son leaning up against a 5" mount in that gallery, from that visit:

View attachment 625432
Click to expand...
Texas should be drained and displayed out of water, like HMS Victory. Wasn't Texas recently drydocked and repainted?
 
Admiral Beez said:
Texas should be drained and displayed out of water, like HMS Victory. Wasn't Texas recently drydocked and repainted?
Click to expand...

I know that was in the planning stages a couple of years ago, but I've heard nothing more of it in the meantime. I imagine the pandemic, as well as funding issues, may have put a hamper on them, but I don't have a solid answer to your question.

I agree with a dry display, even though it means taking the ship out of her natural element. Even after the 1990 drydocking and repairs, by the time of our visit in 2014, the ship had to have pumps running constantly. They started planning and funding for a dry display in 2009 or so, but those funds were used instead for repairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

H
Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
6K
EwenS
E
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
1K
GregP
GregP
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
830
ThomasP
T
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
Replies
19
Views
603
spicmart
S
A
Why was the Seafire Mk.III so slow?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
don4331
D
Back