Worst aircraft of WW2?

[Civettone]

Gott in Himmel! - that is one simple little plane! If it'd been any simpler, they could've just strapped the pilot to the engine, and have him hold and fire a sub-machinegun.

Venganza

hahahah


Kris

 

[river]

Hi,

Didn't the Japs have a small jet plane... looked like the V1 but with with a pilot and a warhead at the front. IIRC it was called the Cherry Blossom? I'll have to check my books.

Agree with the Botha (which I'm sure was a shortened version of "Don't (or why) bother?"). Didn't Blackburn also make a plane called the Skua, which also wasn't a great aircraft.

seeyuzz
river

 

[Juha]

You mean Baka. At least the Bettys carrying it to launching range were very vulnerable to USN fighter. Yes, Botha was a total waste of effort. Skua, while not a great plane, was reasonable dive bomber and sunk a CL of KM

Juha

 

[Elvis]

I think "Baka" was our name for that plane.
The Japanese referred to it as "Okha", which does translate to "Cherry Blossom".

Elvis

 

[cherry blossom]

As noted above Baka was a US name and means stupid in Japanese. Now you can see how I chose my username as I expected to ask many stupid questions and to be shot down well short of my objective.

However, I doubt if the Ohka was the least effective aircraft of ww2. With a 1.2 ton warhead it was likely to cause damage if it hit (sinking at least one destroyer and leaving another damaged beyond economic repair) and was quite hard to intercept after launch. It would have been very effective off Guadalcanal! There was a problem that it was hard to build up an expert force of pilots. To address that the designers came up with a version with a water warhead. After practising flying this, the water could be released and the much lighter Okha could then be landed as a glider.

 

[Elvis]

As noted above Baka was a US name and means stupid in Japanese. Now you can see how I chose my username as I expected to ask many stupid questions and to be shot down well short of my objective.

Bah-dump-bump.

It should also be noted that "Baka" is a descriptive used for a person.
You might reprimand someone (for lack of a better word) by saying, "Baka!", but a "rube goldberg" type of item, while it might be thought of as a "stupid" way to achieve an operation, would not be called "Baka".

Thus, I think the term "idiot" works better as a definition for "Baka", rather than "stupid".


Elvis

 

[Elvis]

...and Cherry Blossom, my apologies if it seems I'm playing "Semantics Police".
I do have some experience with the Japanese language and thought that clarification was in order.
I wish no harm and call no foul on your part.


Elvis

 

[Civettone]

Also, it could also have been ground launched. That way it would have been hidden (in caves for instance) and be used against invasion forces. Its short range would have been sufficient and at such low altitude it would have been to fast for any interceptor. As such it could have been a magnificent weapon.

That being said, the solution was to be found in Germany: a manned V 1 (Reichenberg). The Ohka should have been powered by a pulsejet engine. The Japs did build their own pulsejet flying bomb but that one carried a too small payload. A Reichenberg copy would have been the best solution!

Kris

 

[Clay_Allison]

A manned V-1 would have been pretty scary if used in Kamikaze (Göttlichewind?) attacks on US Bombers.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually the Okha did sink at least one ship

 

[Civettone]

A manned V-1 would have been pretty scary if used in Kamikaze (Göttlichewind?) attacks on US Bombers.

That's an excellent point. The Germans actually tried to develop a fighter with a pulsejet engine, the Me 328, as an escort fighter. But also later they decided to go for an as-cheap-as-possible-fighter with pulsejet propulsion.

However, there is one major reason why that would not have worked. Pulsejet engines perform well at low altitude. For instance, I don't recall what the V 1 operational ceiling was but I think it was around 4 km or so...

As a side note, an attack aircraft with pulsejet engines would have been a great possibility. Junkers actually developed a couple of those.
Kris

 

[Elvis]

...and to this day, people still work with the pulsejet engine...

Pulse Jet Engine


Elvis

 

[Clay_Allison]

That's an excellent point. The Germans actually tried to develop a fighter with a pulsejet engine, the Me 328, as an escort fighter. But also later they decided to go for an as-cheap-as-possible-fighter with pulsejet propulsion.

However, there is one major reason why that would not have worked. Pulsejet engines perform well at low altitude. For instance, I don't recall what the V 1 operational ceiling was but I think it was around 4 km or so...

As a side note, an attack aircraft with pulsejet engines would have been a great possibility. Junkers actually developed a couple of those.
Kris

Still, I always wondered why the Germans never decided to just make a cheaper version of the Komet and have people crash them into B-17s. You could even have an ejector seat so the pilot could bail out (and probably be shot to pieces by the .50s of the other bombers but you don't have to tell him that) just before impact.

 

[Elvis]

Clay,

I beleive that tactic was actually touched on, in an episode of either "Dogfights" or "Battle 360", on the History Channel.
I also remember reading something about this tactic in a magazine some years ago ("Air Combat", maybe?).
The German's learned it from the Russians, who called the manuver "Turan" ("Turran"?).
In that episode, they used Me-109's as the "crash vehicle" of choice.
The idea was to fly into the tail or a wing, thus disabiling the controllability of the bomber, but to do it in such a way, where the pilot could still eject from the fighter, after crashing it.


Elvis

 

[imalko]

Just a side note...Russian aircraft ramming tactic was called "Taran", but it didn't necessary included ramming into enemy planes. Very often Soviet pilots used the propeller in attempt to cut off enemy plane's rear fuselage or damage vertical tail surfaces.

 

[parsifal]

whatever you think of the Russians, those pilots carrying out the Taran attacks were some of thebaravest people I can think of.....deliberate ramming attacks of enemy aircraft. You gotta take your hat off to that

 

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Worst plane of WWII? I'm assuming we're talking about aircraft that actually saw combat.

In that case, I'd have to go with the Messerschmitt Me 323 Gigant.

The Me-323 was a powered variant of the Me-321 combat glider. It was the biggest aircraft of the war, and as such, one of the slowest. The aircraft was a virtual sitting duck in the air and could only be used with comprehensive air superiority. Even though the aircraft was known as the "Elastoplast Bomber" it was highly resiliant. Still, none of the 213 production aircraft survived past the summer of 1944. Multiple incidents of large formations of Me-323s being downed have been reported. In one incident 14 of the transports were destroyed resulting in 120 deaths. The loss of all 213 aircraft is one of the most complete destructions of one type of aircraft in history.

 

[GrauGeist]

Worst plane of WWII? I'm assuming we're talking about aircraft that actually saw combat.

In that case, I'd have to go with the Messerschmitt Me 323 Gigant.

The Me-323 was a powered variant of the Me-321 combat glider. It was the biggest aircraft of the war, and as such, one of the slowest. The aircraft was a virtual sitting duck in the air and could only be used with comprehensive air superiority. Even though the aircraft was known as the "Elastoplast Bomber" it was highly resiliant. Still, none of the 213 production aircraft survived past the summer of 1944. Multiple incidents of large formations of Me-323s being downed have been reported. In one incident 14 of the transports were destroyed resulting in 120 deaths. The loss of all 213 aircraft is one of the most complete destructions of one type of aircraft in history.

I don't think that a lack of air superiority makes the Gigant one of the worst aircraft of the war. It was designed as a heavy transport and performed it's tasks well, especially considering that the design started out as a heavy transport glider (another impressive feat).

If you base an aircraft's shortcomings on that, then the Lancaster and B-17 would fall into this category, as they suffered terrific losses early in the war, before long range escorts made the flights into Luftwaffe airspace survivable.

 

[Focke Wulf Meister]

I don't think that a lack of air superiority makes the Gigant one of the worst aircraft of the war. It was designed as a heavy transport and performed it's tasks well, especially considering that the design started out as a heavy transport glider (another impressive feat).

If you base an aircraft's shortcomings on that, then the Lancaster and B-17 would fall into this category, as they suffered terrific losses early in the war, before long range escorts made the flights into Luftwaffe airspace survivable.

I beg to differ. While the Lancaster and B-17 took terrific losses, they also inflicted much more damage than 323s. How many enemy aircraft were downed by Lancasters and B-17s compared to the Me-323?

Did the enemy have to continually develop new aircraft to take on the waves of Lancasters and 17s? Yes. Granted, much of that was due to the advancement of their escorts. But, did the allies have to develop new aircraft to deal with the 323 threat? No. The 323s were six-engine target practice.

Were every one of the thousands of Lancasters and B-17s built destroyed during the war by enemy fire, as was the case for the hapless 323? No.

I would much rather take my chances in a formation of 17s or Lancasters than in a formation of 323s.8)

I'm just sayin'...

 

[GrauGeist]

I hear ya', but the Gigant was a transport. It carried troops, armor and supplies as well as evacuated wounded. In those terms, it performed exceptionally well.

If you want to look at losses, check out the massacres of the Ju52 transports in the MTO. There were instances where unlikely adversaries like the Sunderlands and even B-25s were slaughtering them by the handfull.