Worst aircraft of WW2?

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

Civettone said:
Who was that??

Kris
Click to expand...

this what he is talking about:

Soviet P-39 Aces


Flying American equipment was a mixed blessing. The airplanes were as good (or better) as any Russian-made, but in the Stalinist era, carried a certain stigma. The leading Airacobra ace, Alexandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war with 59 aerial victories, was once denied a third award of the Hero of the Soviet Union, because that would have glorified foreign manufacturing.
 
Yeah I got back a couple of days ago. I said I would be back at the forum in the beginning of October ... so here I am.

Anyway, about the matter of the lend-lease equipment, I have my doubts about it. Awarding medals are not an exact science. It doesn't always makes sense why some get them and others don't. I can imagine it's normal to find reasons behind it.

Well, I'm not saying it wasn't because of the foreign equipment but I have my doubts about it as I don't hear this stories from the army of which half was equiped with lend-lease equipment.
Kris
 
Civettone said:
Anyway, about the matter of the lend-lease equipment, I have my doubts about it. Awarding medals are not an exact science. It doesn't always makes sense why some get them and others don't. I can imagine it's normal to find reasons behind it.
Click to expand...
I'm reading "Bloody Shambles" Vol. 2. Some of the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF pilots and aircrews who flew against the initial Japanese invasion forces in SE Asia should of been awarded the Victoria Cross (Especially those flying Wildebeest) and probably would of had they done the same actions in Europe.
 
I have to stand up for the Boomerang - it might not have shot much down (embarrassingly, I think it was the Wirraway that shot down the Zero), but it doesn't qualify for the list by virtue of its pleasant aesthetics. Arguably quite a pretty plane...

Steve
 
As a fighter the Boomerang was no match for the Zero and uncapable of catching most Jap bombers but it must have been a decent attack aircraft with its bombload and cannons.
At the time of its design the Australians didn't have an alternative, so better this aircraft than none at all.

Kris
 
Dont diss the Battle some very brave pilots bombed german targets and harbours at the start of the war knowing what they had to go against but it was all we had at the time.Dont forget we were even still flying the Gladiator and Heyford
 
The thing with these light bombers is that it's not so much that these aircraft were bad, it was the concept with proved to be disastrous. All single-engined light bombers failed during WW2. The Germans were one of the few to realize this before the start of the war when they put the He 45 out of service. On the other hand, if the British had had a Stuka it would probably have faired just as bad as the Battle.

Kris
 
I'd have to say the RAF Defiant-aircraft-not because it couldn't shoot down EA-but because it not only had such a ludericous design-putting 4 MG in a Bomber type turrent on a figther aircraft yet not leaving any MG for the Pilot in the Wings! In fact it would have been better to have placed 2 to 4 MG in the Wings and streamlined the rear canopy os the gunner could fire 1 to 2 MG-but the whole concept of a EA bomber letting itself be blasted at close range by 4 MG from a fighter plane!!
 
Again, it may not have been a bad aircraft but a bad concept.

There would be no need to change the Defiant into a conventional aircraft, you already had the Hurricane and Spitfire for that.
I can imagine it looked like a good idea in the late thirties...

And it did make a reasonably good nightfighter...
Kris
 
Well, I would have to say the Breda Ba. 88 has my vote. Other than as a weight to keep the airfield from spinning off the planet, it seemed to have no useful purpose.

Decoy work not withstand, of course.
 
i dont know.... but i think it is the Potez 25. it was and old french biplane that didnt have a propose. the
All single-engined light bombers failed during WW2.
Click to expand...
. what about the Mosquito? it was 2 person, but could have easily been 1 person. nice picture cosimo90
 
the p 39 may be. the low power of alison singel engine and very weight airframe gives then bad mobility and poor dogfight capability. If he is a Bomber no problem but the main rolle of p 38 is fighter bomber.. he needs power and manover
 
Ok, ya that is right.
All single-engined light bombers failed during WW2
Click to expand...
Not to be argumentative, but the TBF Avenger, SBD Dauntless, Swordfish, SB2C Helldiver, and D3A Val were all single engined (mostly light) bombers,(if carrier baised) and were all relatively successful.
That isn't counting the A-1 Skyraider, which was too late for ww2
 
mosquitoman said:
The Battle, the Roc or the Botha were worse, they were underpowered, slow and had no useful defensive armament
Click to expand...

On the ROC's account that's wrong. It only had a useful defensive armament. That was the problem, like the Defiant, a good rear turret but no offensive/foreward-firing gins. A FIGHTER with NO offensive armament!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
15
Views
4K
Snautzer01
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
8K
ThomasP
T
Superlative Performance of Japanese Aircraft with Uprated Engines
Replies
17
Views
4K
NeilStirling
N
M
Bomber Armor In WW2
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ascent
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Barrett
B
Menu
Log in
Register