Worst aircraft of WW2? (1 Viewer)

FLYBOYJ · Sep 15, 2005

Yep - and even after Midway and the introduction of the Avenger in understand torpedo bombing was accomplished on a limited basis.

The Japanese were extremely fearful of torpedo bombers - Karma from Pearl Harbor?

Dac · Sep 15, 2005

I guess torpedoing ships anchored in harbor is easier than in the open ocean.

F4D · Sep 21, 2005

Well as it seems that this thread is with qualifying guideline's yet.
I propose that the worst plane was one that crashed landed or just crashed every-time it took to the air and was very underpowered.

That being any glider aircraft used in the war.
JUST KIDDING!

I think you will find that all pre war combat aircraft had a tough time dealing with the reality of war.

wmaxt · Sep 21, 2005

F4D said:
I think you will find that all pre war combat aircraft had a tough time dealing with the reality of war.

Yes, thats true as far as it goes, of course the first rule of war is that all preconcieved ideas are wrong. There were also a few that rose to the occasion.

The P-40 was a hard worker durring the war and the P-38 held it's own in the begining and grew to true greatnes. In fact the P-38 in K format was the equal of any end of war design.

The Spitfire and Hurricane reacted similarly.

B-17 and the B-25 also rose to the occasion and carved out their niches.

How many others?

wmaxt

F4D · Sep 21, 2005

My bad! I was thinking of the TBD and the Defiant when I wrote that.

Look at the record of the Finnish Ace Eino Juuttilainen with the Buffalo (34 of his 94) and Aleksandr Pokryshkin of the Soviet Union with the P-39 (45 of his 59). The Finn faced 22 different fighter types built by both the British and Americans (flown by Russians) and the Soviet's and never got so much as a hole in his aircraft.

Some pre war birds could hang after all. Even if they didn't have the base
to be better developed in the war.

Glider · Sep 21, 2005

Ju88 did a fair job from the beginning to the end of the war

109 is an obvious one plus Sunderland, Catalina and Wildcat.

The Wellington didn't make it to the end of the war in great numbers at the front line service but its record was nothing to be ashamed about and someone would shoot me if I don't include the Swordfish.

CurzonDax · Sep 21, 2005

Well one plane that started out as a death trap was the Henschel 129. But put a big gun on it and some Russian tanks in front of it and BOOM! You have the A-10's uncle.

:{)

P38 Pilot · Oct 1, 2005

But put a big gun on it and some Russian tanks in front of it and BOOM! You have the A-10's uncle.

Good example there. The east would have been littered with Soviet T-34 tanks!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Oct 2, 2005

The East was littered with T-34 tanks.

CurzonDax · Oct 12, 2005

wmaxt said:
F4D said:

I think you will find that all pre war combat aircraft had a tough time dealing with the reality of war.

Click to expand...

Yes, thats true as far as it goes, of course the first rule of war is that all preconcieved ideas are wrong. There were also a few that rose to the occasion.

The P-40 was a hard worker durring the war and the P-38 held it's own in the begining and grew to true greatnes. In fact the P-38 in K format was the equal of any end of war design.

The Spitfire and Hurricane reacted similarly.

B-17 and the B-25 also rose to the occasion and carved out their niches.

How many others?

wmaxt

Look at the B-26 or the Hs-129 for example. Crew actually refused to fly in them but by the end of the war they racked up great war records.

:{)

ollieholmes · Oct 19, 2005

i would have to say the humble lysander. who ever designed it as a fighter should be shot. it did a great role as a soe plane but not as a fighter.

evangilder · Oct 19, 2005

ollieholmes said:
i would have to say the humble lysander. who ever designed it as a fighter should be shot. it did a great role as a soe plane but not as a fighter.

The Lysander was not developed as a fighter. It was developed for the RAF as an army cooperation aircraft and for ground support.

ollieholmes · Oct 19, 2005

ive seen pics of it with cannons in the weel spats and ive seen many pics of them downed in the battle for france.

evangilder · Oct 19, 2005

They can use cannons for ground support. They were not meant to be a fighter. As such they are obviously no match for a fighter of the time.

evangilder · Oct 19, 2005

More info on the Lizzie here:
http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html pages/WESTLAND LYSANDER.htm

plan_D · Oct 19, 2005

The Lysander was a ground support/spotter/liason aircraft. It was never intended as a fighter, and never took part in fighter operations. It was used as a light bomber for a small amount of time ...never as a fighter.

the lancaster kicks ass · Oct 20, 2005

and she cirtainly shouldn't be considdered for the worst aircraft of WWII..........

cheddar cheese · Oct 22, 2005

Hell no, although am I right in saying that It did score a couple of air-to-air kills early in the war? I remember reading it somewhere.

trackend · Oct 22, 2005

I agree she did her job well

Gnomey · Oct 22, 2005

trackend said:
I agree she did her job well

That she did Lee, especially later in the war, dropping and picking up agents in occupied countries (at least I think she did)

Worst aircraft of WW2? (1 Viewer)

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Airman

Major

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

"Shooter"

Airman 1st Class

"Shooter"

"Shooter"

Lieutenant Colonel

Major General

Major General

Chief Master Sergeant

Attachments

Globetrotting Surgeon General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads