Worst aircraft of WW2? (1 Viewer)

[Focke Wulf Meister]

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.

I'll give you that. Ju52s were true target drones without fighter escort.

My second choice for worst WWII aircraft was the Douglas TPD Devastator. It was only "devastating" if you were unlucky enough to be flying it on a one-way Midway torpedo run. What a deathtrap. God bless those Navy aircrew that flew those pieces of crap into the teeth of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

And thank GOD and GRUMMAN for the TBF Avenger!

 

[river]

Hi,

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?

Using that logic I guess the C47 would be another useless, defenseless transport that did less for the war than the bombers and fighters?

river

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The C-47 was probably the best and most important aircraft of WW2. It flew in all theaters, carried much needed material and personnel, and set the benchmark in design and systems configuration for all future multi engine transport aircraft. It was easily flown, carried an effective cargo load and was a workhorse for not only the US but all the allies. Have you ever heard of a small operation called D-Day and the role the C-47 played in transporting troops and gliders in to Nazi controlled Europe???? The C-47 was operated in the most extreme conditions, some were held together with beer cans and bailing wire, and yes - it was also used as a makeshift bomber!!!!

With out the C-47 hordes of bombers and fighters would have just sat on the ground, waiting for parts and fuel.​

I suggest research the contribution of the C-47 and keep the testosterone out of the equasion.

Just because an aircraft doesn't drop bombs or shoot guns doesn't mean an aircraft is not effective in its role or that it a sitting duck​

 

[imalko]

I think that River was just being sarcastic about Focke Wulf Meister's posts. I don't believe he seriously thinks that C-47 was useless...

 

[Condora]

The Battle, and even the Roc, were pretty good AIRPLANES, they just weren't very good WARPLANES. The Breda 88 was just plain lousy, it could barely fly, and Benito's bunch still put it into mass production. The last run of them went directly from the factory to the scrap heap!
As for limited production planes, I still vote for the Curtiss Caravan.

As a matter of fact, the Breda was an acceptable AIRPLANE - even beat a speed record -, UNTIL someone decided to add weapons to it: it just couldn't cope with the weight.

My vote would go to the turret-fighters (Roc, Battle...), if good old Marcel Bloch (Dassault) had not given me a winner: Bloch's MB.150.

A fighter that could not fly off the ground...

As for the C-47 dispute, didn't it get a version with guns on it, as it happened to the Hercules, etc.?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think that River was just being sarcastic about Focke Wulf Meister's posts. I don't believe he seriously thinks that C-47 was useless...

I realized that and edited my first post

 

[Condora]

Sure but that was an accident which had nothing to do with the design or concept of the aircraft/rocket. They just forgot to securely close the cockpit hood. Poor pilot was probably knocked unconscious...

Right. But what the nazi's didn't understand is that there is no value in a 'basically trained pilot'. At least not when used to perform combat in such a Volksjäger design.

Not only would the Volksjäger pilot have been hunted down and shot down by slower aircraft piloted by much more experienced pilots, the He 162 design was chosen based on a lie, that is that the design was already underway while the original design (P.1073 IIRC) was quite different from the later He 162. It seems to me that the original winner of the competition, the Blohm Voss P.211 project would have made a better aircraft for novice pilots. Best choice would have been the Lippisch P.20 though...

Kris

Hey guys, give the poor fellows some slack: I expect that people like Galand KNEW that, but since the beginning of the war, Germany was on erzatz-materials, everything from paper to fuel was sinthetic stuff.
The same happened to manpower - they didn't have the time to train proper pilots.
One of the reasons german aces had a bigger score than the pilots they were fighting, was that they were doing it non-stop since 1939. And then Germany started losing good pilots because they were exhausted...

I still believe that WW II was a victory of numbers, not quality:
The best admiral was japanese (Yamato), the best generals were german (Rommel), the best tanks were german (only a single russian model could challenge them), the best subs were german, some of the best naval units were either german or japanese... and although I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, the Axis' planes were at least as good as Allied planes.

At least give them that...

 

[river]

Hi,

I think that River was just being sarcastic about Focke Wulf Meister's posts. I don't believe he seriously thinks that C-47 was useless...

LOL, indeed I was. Maybe I'll use the "sarcasm being deployed" icon next time.

Aye, the C47 was a great plane. It's versatility and longetivity makes it perhaps the greatest aircraft of all time.

However, while its role as transport was important, the greatest transport mechanism in the war were ships (Liberty ships?), landing vessels and the ground transport logistics. Machines of war were delivered, fueled, loaded with bombs and ammo, and armies fed by this mechanism. It would of been more difficult to wage a war without the C47, but certainly impossible without the land-sea logistics in place.

river

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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 would not consider it the worst for that. Why? What you just described is transport aircraft. Any transport that is unprotected by fighter escort is going to have that same result. Should all transports be considered the worst aircraft?

No they did their job. The Me 323 did what it was designed to do. Be a heavy transport. Therefore it certainly was not the worst.

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?

You are comparing apples to oranges. How can you expect a transport to inflict damage?

Did the Gigant do its intended job or not? Yes it was a heavy transport. Without fighter escort it is a sitting duck, just like the C-47, Ju 52, etc..

Are they in the catagory of worst aircraft? Of course not...

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'...

You are comparing apple and oranges again. Did the Luftwaffe have to develope new aircraft to take on the C-47? NO

Did the allies have to develop new aircraft to take on the Ju 52? No

So again I ask you. How can a transport that does its intended task, be considered the worst.

 

[parsifal]

for transports, I think you would have to look at the los rate per ton of goods delivererd. You would have to divide this analysis into three categories, sorties into enemy controlled space and sorties into uncontrolled space and sorties into friendly controled space. The statistical sample would need to be large to undertake this properly.

The aircraft with the highest attrition rate in a given situation might be considered the worst at that task. I can think of a number of transports that failed pretty miserably to be honest, and make the Gigant look fine. The Condor for example was pressed into service in Stalingrad, and suffered repeated structural and engine failures that I am aware of. There was a French transport which I forget the name of which also suffred from these weaknesses

The Gigant is not the worst aircraft of WWII, its not even the worst transport of WWII

 

[Clay_Allison]

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

That doesn't surprise me, but it's still different and less intensive than a government driven program in rockets manned by the Hitler Youth. (They were crazy enough)

 

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Hi,



Using that logic I guess the C47 would be another useless, defenseless transport that did less for the war than the bombers and fighters?

river

No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323.

And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat. 8)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323.

And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat. 8)

I think you are missing the point of what makes an aircraft the worst. If an aircraft was able to do what it was designed to do, then it can not be the worst.

You do not provide air support for ANY transport, they are going to be shot down in droves.

The fact that a transport can not defend itself and is shot down in droves because of that, does not make it the worst. Sorry...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No. The C-47 was a much more useful aircraft than the 323. The 47 had a much more lengthy service life and saw action on multiple TOs and multiple wars. The same cannot be said for the 323.

And, unlike the 323, no where near all of the C-47s produced were lost in combat. 8)

The 323 met or exceeded its design requirements, in other words it flew as advertised. The fact that it was shot down in large numbers means nothing, that was an operational problem with the LW.

Left untouched, the 323 could deiver large amonts of cargo and had many innovations seen today.

 

[Focke Wulf Meister]

The fact that it was shot down in large numbers means nothing, that was an operational problem with the LW.

I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s.

So, we're to judge "the worst plane of WWII" in a vacuum? What is the criteria of "worst" in this debate anyway? Flight characteristics, armament, flight worthiness, maneuverability, length of service, numbers manufactured vs. number destroyed, combat effectiveness, payload, etc.?

The question is so broad, it is open to wide interpretation.

Did the limited number of 323s employed do their job? To an extent, yes. But, every freakin' example of the aircraft was either blown out of the sky or destroyed on the ground. How effective is the platform if it can't survive to fight another day?

 

[Elvis]

Did the Gigant do its intended job or not? Yes it was a heavy transport.

I'm surprised FlyboyJ didn't mention this in his prior post, as I believe he was the first poster in this thread to bring up this idea, but I believe we all agreed, early on in this thread, that the "worst" airplane of WWII (or any war) would be the one that DID NOT meet its design objective.
DerAdler is quite correct in the quote above and considering that the Gigant not only met its design objective, but did it on a more grand scale than any other single transport used during the war, makes it a candidate, not for the "worst" aircraft of WWII, but THE BEST.

...however, that's a whole other thread.


Elvis

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s.

So, we're to judge "the worst plane of WWII" in a vacuum? What is the criteria of "worst" in this debate anyway? Flight characteristics, armament, flight worthiness, maneuverability, length of service, numbers manufactured vs. number destroyed, combat effectiveness, payload, etc.?

The question is so broad, it is open to wide interpretation.

The worst has to be an aircraft that did not do what it was designed to do, not because of bad tactics, pilots, etc.

An aircraft can not be faulted for bad decisions in use or operational problems.

Did the limited number of 323s employed do their job? To an extent, yes. But, every freakin' example of the aircraft was either blown out of the sky or destroyed on the ground. How effective is the platform if it can't survive to fight another day?

Again that has nothing to do with the design of the aircraft or its capabilities. I repeat any transport that is left unprotected is going to be chewed up. That includes any transport.

Using your logic all of these aircraft must be considered the worst:

C-47
C-46
Ju 52
Ju 390
Fw 200
Ju 290
C-54
L-10

Unprotected they would all be blown out of the sky or destroyed on the ground. How effective is the platform if it can't survive to fight another day? (these are your words, repeat them when thinking of the aircraft above).

 

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Thank you, Elvis, for informing me of your guys' criteria and meaning of "worst". That clears things up tremendously.

Have a great day.

 

[river]

Hi,

C-47
C-46
Ju 52
Ju 390
Fw 200
Ju 290
C-54
L-10

C54!!!!

Were there many about in WW2?

I love the C-54/DC-4. I dunno why, but I think they're a gorgeous airplane. I wish we had more in Australia (only got 1 and I think it is being restored by HARS - who have the Constellation)

river

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'll bet it meant something to the poor bastards who were in those 323s.

It meant that the LW was not able to provide fighter cover to protect their transports!