Worst aircraft of WW2? (1 Viewer)

• Jan 29, 2005

• #61

mosquitoman

Master Sergeant

2,979

16

Jan 20, 2005

Saffron Walden/Sheffield

www.myspace.com

Botha, so bad it never became operational. Bad flight performance, under-armed and underpowered

 

• Jan 29, 2005

• Thread starter
• #62

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Lets look at said culprits...

TBD Devastator

Me-163 Komet


Blackburn Botha


B-25 Roc

Fairey Battle

 

Attachments

• breda_88.jpeg

  212.3 KB · Views: 1,125

• Jan 29, 2005

• #63

Yeomanz

Senior Airman

317

0

Nov 25, 2004

UK

323 gigant maybe , slow , very big-easily shot down ) and too many guns and they didnt help it in anyway

 

• Jan 29, 2005

• #64

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

it could be in the running i suppose although it was designed for secong line duties and not for combat with the enemy, i think..............

 

• Jan 29, 2005

• Thread starter
• #65

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Yeah, it wasnt perfect but it did the job ok. I think the planes mentioned were far worse...

 

• Jan 29, 2005

• #66

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

6

Apr 29, 2004

I think the 323 was an impressive aeronautical achievement for the simple fact that it flew.

 

• Jan 29, 2005

• Thread starter
• #67

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Me too. In trials one dropped a 17 ton bomb, but the aircraft crashed due to structural failure caused by an allied strafing earlier in the week

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• #68

V

Viper

Airman 1st Class

261

0

Dec 23, 2003

i agree those pics are the worst planes of the war that botha looks like a accomplishment in reverse and the others are beond words

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• Thread starter
• #69

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• #70

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

well the 323 could carry up to 44,000lbs at a struggle i think, but i'm a bit sceptical of the 17ton bomb, was it really a bomb?? any onfo on the bomb??

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• Thread starter
• #71

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Well 17 metric tons (which is what the site said) works out at about 39,000lbs I think...I have no info on the bomb im afraid. I read about it on www.warbirdsresourcegroup.com though...

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• #72

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

well that really is all it says, i'd rather have some more info on it............

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• Thread starter
• #73

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Me too...but AFAIC its true until proven otherwise

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• #74

N

Napier Sabre

Airman

30

0

Jan 29, 2005

England

www.waccoe.com

Has to be the Battle, those things got murdered.

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• Thread starter
• #75

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Nah, has to be the Breda 88, not only did they get slaughterd but they were crap in their role and could barely fly.

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• #76

mosquitoman

Master Sergeant

2,979

16

Jan 20, 2005

Saffron Walden/Sheffield

www.myspace.com

No it's the Botha, it was so bad it didn't even get to an operational squadron

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• #77

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

AFAIC

Click to expand...

what the hell's that mean??

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• Thread starter
• #78

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

As far as im concerned...

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• #79

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

ah well "AFAIC", i need more proof..............

 

• Jan 30, 2005

• Thread starter
• #80

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Ill get some after tea...yum Lasagne tonight