Worst Aircraft of WW2
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Breda 88
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Me163 hardly qualifies for that list unless it's failure to produce combat results out of 300 built is a factor.
Some airplanes like the Botha and the Me 210/410 were just plain bad designs. Sometimes the specifications were the problem as in the case of the Roc. Sometimes the design was great aeronautically but was so degraded when it was made into a fighting machine that the end product was useless. That was the case with the Breda 88. The 163 was just a crazy design with a half-cooked rational behind it. One can have a lot of airplanes to choose from when it comes to selecting the worst - but which worst? worst fighter, worst bomber, worst transport?
AerialTorpedoDude69
Airman 1st Class
- 126
- Mar 1, 2022
nuuumannn
as bad as it performed in fighter-vs-fighter combat, the Boulton Paul Defiant was designed for bomber interception using a Schrage Musik-style turret. It was actually the first of its kind. I think it was so far ahead of its time that commanders had problems conceiving a suitable role for it. Still, definitely worth mentioning in this sort of list because of how controversial it is.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Defiant was a "turret fighter" - "Schrägemusik" is fixed, upward firing armament.
A suitable role would be defending Scapa flow or the NE of England an Scotland.
Actually, the Hawker Demon was the first turret fighter, its Nash & Thompson FN.1 Lobsterback powered gun emplacement preceded the Defiant into service. The de Boysson turret was a marvel of sophistication and compact engineering and Boulton Paul got the best technology out of it and applied it to their subsequent turrets and it was a neat installation in the Daffy, but the concept as applied by the RAF, as a bomber destroyer was found to be flawed in the melee of combat. The idea was for the Defiants to dive among enemy bomber formations to break them up and attack bombers in first passes, then single-seat fighters would take care of the stragglers. It appealed because the Air Ministry saw the powered turret as something akin to a silver bullet that would improve efficiency, but in essence, the concept for a fighter was flawed, and it isn't just about the Defiant's performance against fighter opposition.
The Defiant was a well designed and crafted aeroplane that was widely regarded for its viceless handling, making it pleasant to fly and fight in, it got a reputation as being a gunner killer because egress for the gunner was difficult, to say the least. Aside from that little quirk, the idea of approaching a bomber from different approach vectors and directing fire in various directions is all very well and good in theory, but it requires a considerable amount of piloting skill and positioning in a extremely fast evolving set of circumstances but not only that, the gunner's role becomes almost superfluous as the pilot had the capacity to fire the guns once the gunner had turned the turret and aimed the guns (although the pilot didn't have a gunsight, there as a switch in the gun that could change firing control over to the pilot), which seems like a far too elaborate and hackneyed way to achieve a kill, when deleting the turret could achieve the same result with a faster, more manoeuvrable mount.
For its qualities, the Defiant was slow to accelerate, which was the biggest criticism that came of it, and its top speed was low, too. That Sqn Ldr Hunter of 264 Sqn devised tactics (the Lufbery Circle) as a defensive measure when approached by enemy fighters, this crucial piece of information was not shared by the sqn ldr of the other Defiant unit during the summer of 1940, 141 Sqn, and by consequence the unit suffered a loss of aircraft in a combat scenario that effectively killed the aircraft's career as a day fighter, although the "Slaughter of the Innocents" as it became known was subjected to a severe bout of Chinese whispers by the time Dowding got wind of it. It's interesting to note that the Bf 110s practised the same Lufbery Circle manoeuvre when attacked by multiple single-seaters.
Where the Defiant shone was as a night fighter and it proved that in the dark of night its qualities, two sets of eyes and a turret that was multi-directional, proved highly advantageous. The other factor leading to it success was a lack of fighter opposition, but again, its lack of speed did hamper it and there are ample combat reports where the enemy bomber once acquired slipped away in the darkness. Some 13 RAF squadrons fully or partially equipped with the Defiant between late 1940 and the end of 1942, when the type was finally withdrawn from the frontline. In late 1940 its replacement specification was released that was to see a turret armed twin-engined night fighter enter service, but the growing effectiveness off the radar-equipped Beaufighter and the sheer performance advantage of the de Havilland Mosquito meant that the turret armed night fighter would not continue past the Defiant.
The concept of the turret fighter was a good sounding idea, but in practise was hampered by its own complications and offered no real advantage over non-turret equipped fighters, although at the time the turret fighter concept was conceived that had yet to be discovered under real-world conditions.
AerialTorpedoDude69
Airman 1st Class
- 126
- Mar 1, 2022
Here's a passage from the Schrage Musik Wikipedia page on the Defiant:
It basically says that the Defiant was the most successful fighter of the '40-'41 Blitz even though it only equipped four squadrons? Does anyone know if that's true? Gotta say that the four aircraft in the video are real dogs in comparison to a cancelled aircraft.
Schräge Musik was a fully fixed installation of upper firing MG or cannon. It was not placed in a turret like that of the Defiant.
Is that last photo jazz-music?
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
buffnut453
Captain
No argument with the different installation methods but, fundamentally, the objective was the same for both the Defiant and Schräge Musik...the ability to perform zero-deflection attacks against bombers.
It equipped more than four squadrons in that period. They were as follows: 125, 141, 151, 153, 255, 256, 264, 307, 409, 410 and 456 Sqns, with 85 and 96 Sqns receiving a small number only.
That wee statement might not be completely true. Beaufighters racked up a similar kill ratio during the same period and based on different sources might have exceeded the number of Defiant night fighter kills. Beaufighters suffered numerous issues on their entry into service as night fighters, their radar was unreliable and the Beaufighter Mk.II powered by the Merlin had a high accident rate and proved very difficult to handle on the ground, which led to accidents, but it was, in the air very effective. Nevertheless, figures from different sources conflict with each other, meaning this statement about the Defiant might not be accurate.
Which aircraft was cancelled? The Defiant wasn't. It remained in frontline use by the RAF as an interceptor from late 1939 through to mid-to-late 1942, when it was declared obsolete in that role.
to be clear, Schragemuzik described the installation, not the tactic. The use of the turret to fire upwards into the belly of bombers was definitely used before the German Schragemuzik installation, and it was the result that was the same, not the installation.
AerialTorpedoDude69
Airman 1st Class
- 126
- Mar 1, 2022
Wasn't it phased out of production in '42? I think the Hurricane was produced well beyond that. Although I just read that they continually upgraded existing production in order to meet overseas orders.
IIRC, the British had the option to upengine the Defiant but instead chose to cancel its development (and production) and instead upgraded Beaufighters and Mosquitos. I've read numerous "accounts" of how bad the Defiant was although after reading the Wikipedia page and some of what you've written, it seems that reputation is undeserved. Seems like it wasn't bad at all.
John D. Voss
Airman
- 59
- Aug 10, 2016
My vote for the worst US WWII aircraft goes to the Curtiss SO3C Seamew.
Shortround6
Major General
A problem with evaluating the Defiant as a night fighter is that NONE of the British night fighters were very successful until about March of 1941.
At least one month over the winter saw no German bombers shot down at all and several other months only saw 2 -6 planes a month.
The most successful month in terms of planes shot down per night was May and because the the Luftwaffe packed up part way through May left for Russia. The Germans were mostly active in the first two weeks of May.
Old book by Bill Gunston says that the RAF destroyed 22 German planes in March of 1941, 48 planes destroyed in April and 96 destroyed in the first two weeks in May.
In the first two months of the night blitz British night fighters shot down eight (yes eight) German aircraft out of 12,000 hostile sorties. The German accident rate was much worse than the losses inflected by night fighters. The next 3 months were even worse for British shoot downs.
Some of this was do to weather, some of it was more hours of daylight (less hours of darkness) some of it was more Beaufighters coming on line. Lets also remember that the Defiant didn't get radar until Sept of 1941, well after the night Blitz was over.
until April and May of 1941 the British simply were not shooting down enough German planes to have any idea what was working and what was not. The Success rate of the British night fighters were pure chance.
Things were so bad that the Defiants looked good.
Please look up the LAM (Long Aerial Mine) and the Turbinlite (one success for each, unfortunately for the Turbinlite it was an "own goal".)
The Defiants "success" was pretty much pure luck, paid for the deaths of many crewmen flying hundreds of missions in the dark in crappy weather.
At least one month over the winter saw no German bombers shot down at all and several other months only saw 2 -6 planes a month.
The most successful month in terms of planes shot down per night was May and because the the Luftwaffe packed up part way through May left for Russia. The Germans were mostly active in the first two weeks of May.
Old book by Bill Gunston says that the RAF destroyed 22 German planes in March of 1941, 48 planes destroyed in April and 96 destroyed in the first two weeks in May.
In the first two months of the night blitz British night fighters shot down eight (yes eight) German aircraft out of 12,000 hostile sorties. The German accident rate was much worse than the losses inflected by night fighters. The next 3 months were even worse for British shoot downs.
Some of this was do to weather, some of it was more hours of daylight (less hours of darkness) some of it was more Beaufighters coming on line. Lets also remember that the Defiant didn't get radar until Sept of 1941, well after the night Blitz was over.
until April and May of 1941 the British simply were not shooting down enough German planes to have any idea what was working and what was not. The Success rate of the British night fighters were pure chance.
Things were so bad that the Defiants looked good.
Please look up the LAM (Long Aerial Mine) and the Turbinlite (one success for each, unfortunately for the Turbinlite it was an "own goal".)
The Defiants "success" was pretty much pure luck, paid for the deaths of many crewmen flying hundreds of missions in the dark in crappy weather.
All true, but a major part of the story was the increasing success of GCI RADAR. Ground Controlled Interception
Admiral Beez
Captain
Put a Griffon, four blade prop, a bomb rack, two pod mounted 40 mm cannons (see Hurricane below), and eight 3in RPs onto the Defiant and we have a British IL-2. She won't be fast at this weight, but our Defiant will kill tanks and woe to any fighter trying to attack from above and behind.
