Worst aircraft of WW2? (1 Viewer)

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Now that I know the criteria for "worst", here are my candidates:

Worst Bomber: Breda Ba.88 Lince

Two Italian groups were equipped with the Breda Ba.88 in June 1940, operating initially from Sardinia against the main airfield of Corsica. The crews found that the Bredas were extremely underpowered and lacked agility, but the lack of fighter opposition resulted in them being able to perform their missions without losses.

Later, 64 aircraft became operational serving 7imo Gruppo in the North African Theatre with 19imo stationed in Sardinia, but their performance remained extremely poor resulting in the 7imo Gruppo being grounded from the end of June until September, when the Italian offensive against British forces started. Of three aircraft used, one was not even capable of taking off, and another could not turn and was forced to fly straight.

Five months after the start of the war, on 10 June 1940, Bredas were phased out as bombers and given new tasks as decoys on airfields.

Nice plane, Moose.


Worst Interceptor: Messershmitt Me163 Komet

The rocket used two propellents (both quite unstable and corrosive), that when they came in contact with each other, exploded, thus powering the rocket. HTP hydrogen peroxide mixed with hydrazine hydrate makes quite a bang! Do not try this at home. The stuff burned off very rapidly, giving just a few minutes of flight. As there were no wheels, the Me 163 landed on a skid, which was a bumpy proposition. Any residual fuels left in the tanks would then combine and explode; several aircraft were lost in just this manner. Even by itself, the HTP was highly corrosive, especially to any organic materials, so the pilots had to wear protective suits of synthetic materials. But sometimes it seeped into the cockpit, or worked through the seams of the overalls. On occasion, an Me 163 would just blow up while sitting on the ground.

Production Me 163Bs were not ready for operational use until July 1944. The Luftwaffe planned to have small units of Komets dispersed to intercept Allied bomber formations, but only 279 Me 163Bs were delivered by the end of the war. The sole operational Komet group, JG 400, scored nine kills while losing 14 of its own aircraft.

Now, that is a kill ratio you can be proud of, Herman. Nice.


Worst Fighter: PZL P.7a

During the battle for Poland in 1939, pilots flying the P.7a claimed shooting down seven German aircraft (two He 111s, two Do 17s, one Hs 126 and two Bf 110s), suffering combat losses of 22 aircraft. How embarrassing for the Luftwaffe. You actually lost planes to this hunk of junk?

HM: Boulton Paul P.82 Defiant

Contemporary with the Royal Navy's Blackburn Roc (a disaster in its own right), the concept of a turret fighter was somewhat similar to the World War I-era Bristol Fighter. In practice, the Defiant was found to be vulnerable to the Luftwaffe's more agile, single-seat Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters; crucially, the Defiant did not have any forward-firing guns. Sounds like an F-4 Phantom. (Unlike the Brits, we Americans finally deduced adding a forward-firing gun to our Double Ugly would be a good idea.)


Worst Ground Attack Aircraft: Me 210

The Me 210 was designed to replace the Bf 110 in heavy fighter role. The first examples of the Me 210 were ready in 1939, but they proved to have poor flight characteristics.

A large-scale operational testing programm throughout 1941 and early 1942 did not cure the aircraft's problems. The design eventually entered limited service in 1943, but was almost immediately replaced by its successor, the Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse ("Hornet"). The Me 410 was a further development of the Me 210, renamed so as to avoid the 210's notoriety. The failure of the Me 210's development programme meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to continue fielding the outdated Bf 110, to mounting losses.

Surprisingly, no Japanese or Russian aircraft on my list. Hmmmm...

Anyway, that's my two cents...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually there was nothing wrong with the PZL P.7a - in its day it was one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. It was obsolete by the start of WW2 - that was its only problem.

Breda Ba.88 was the worse WW2 aircraft IMO.

 

[parsifal]

The Defiant had one moment of glory as a day fighter in 1940. After that it was releagated to the Night Fighter role, wher it enjoyed a modicum of success.

For the record, the Polish fighter groups shot down more German planes than they had in their own inventory at the beginning of the war. The P-7 was one of those fighters. They shot down more aircraft than you credit them for. Total Luftwaffe losses in the Polish campaign are in fact disputed, but are somewhere in the vicinity of 350 a/c.

Polish pilots were the best trained in Europe at that time. Their record in the BoB attests to that

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hi,



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

I believe that over 1000 of them saw service in WW2.

Now, that is a kill ratio you can be proud of, Herman. Nice.

I believe the word is Germans or German, not Herman...

 

[Waynos]

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

Correct. That title would have to go to the Junkers Mammut. A tank tranporter that could not carry tanks as the floor wasn't strong enough.

 

[Condora]

Well, FW Meister, you suggested the use of categories, I name these:

Worst Plane Misuse: Breda Ba.88 Lince
I agree with you, BUT the Ba.88 was not a bad airplane. It just wasn't suited for large loads, as the bombs a bomber has to carry. If somebody decided to use a B.17 as a fighter, the result would be the same.
It was a fast plane, had good range, maybe the italians should have used it as a reconnaissance plane.
But they had decided it would take bombs...

Worst Fighter: Bloch MB.150
A fighter which just isn't able to even FLY, is quite useless. 'Nough said.
(nobody else as even HEARD of this plane? It's a sure winner in this class!)

Worst Concept: The turret figher
Didn't somebody tell those guys that a fighter having a second crewmember waving a machine gun around had been dropped halfway through WW I?

Worst Bomber: Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe
Who was the genius that decided it should be a fast bomber? Oh, right... THAT guy.

I do not agree on a Ground-attack Award, the were few purpose-built airplanes during WW II, and they did their job quite well.

 

[Condora]

Correct. That title would have to go to the Junkers Mammut. A tank tranporter that could not carry tanks as the floor wasn't strong enough.

I didn't know about that one, it would fit perfectly as Worst Transport...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, FW Meister, you suggested the use of categories, I name these:

Worst Plane Misuse: Breda Ba.88 Lince
I agree with you, BUT the Ba.88 was not a bad airplane. It just wasn't suited for large loads, as the bombs a bomber has to carry. If somebody decided to use a B.17 as a fighter, the result would be the same.
It was a fast plane, had good range, maybe the italians should have used it as a reconnaissance plane.
But they had decided it would take bombs...

The Ba.88 with military equipment installed could not complete its mission. It could not sustain climb on one engine and performed poorly, again when configured for its military mission.

Worst Fighter: Bloch MB.150
A fighter which just isn't able to even FLY, is quite useless. 'Nough said.
(nobody else as even HEARD of this plane? It's a sure winner in this class!).

Nuff said

 

[Focke Wulf Meister]

Actually there was nothing wrong with the PZL P.7a - in its day it was one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. It was obsolete by the start of WW2 - that was its only problem.

Actually, I believe you stated in an earlier post that if an aircraft could not effectively perform its primary role or function, it was NOT considered a good wartime aircraft.

The PZL P.7a was a fine plane - it maneuvered and handled very well. I believe it was the first all-metal monoplane fighter to be mass-produced with state-of-the-art construction. With the P.7, he Polish Air Force became the first air force entirely equipped with all-metal fighters.

But, it was designed as a "fighter". In peacetime, 1933 to 1938, it performed well. However, in its wartime role, it failed. Period. No buts, no ifs. It was a failure. Although it was being phased out in favor of the P.11, there were still a number of them being used as fighters in the Polish Air Force when hostilities broke out in September 1939. And in that role as fighter, it failed.

It is irrelevant that the aircraft was "obsolete" at the start of WWII. The Russians used "obsolete" aircraft to great effect in the war. The Germans used the "obsolete" Me-110 in daytime attacks on U.S. bomber formations to good effect fairly late into the war. The Japanese used "obsolete" fighters and bombers to considerable effect as kamikazes. The Italians used "obsolete" aircraft throughout much of the war to much better effect than the Polish did with the PZL7.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Amazingly, even the Philippinos managed to score some victories in the P-26.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually, I believe you stated in an earlier post that if an aircraft could not effectively perform its primary role or function, it was NOT considered a good wartime aircraft.

The PZL P.7a was a fine plane - it maneuvered and handled very well. I believe it was the first all-metal monoplane fighter to be mass-produced with state-of-the-art construction. With the P.7, he Polish Air Force became the first air force entirely equipped with all-metal fighters.

But, it was designed as a "fighter". In peacetime, 1933 to 1938, it performed well. However, in its wartime role, it failed. Period. No buts, no ifs. It was a failure. Although it was being phased out in favor of the P.11, there were still a number of them being used as fighters in the Polish Air Force when hostilities broke out in September 1939. And in that role as fighter, it failed.

I suggest you look up the word obsolete Any fighter from any country a generation behind the Bf 109 would have been handed the same losses -Period!

It is irrelevant that the aircraft was "obsolete" at the start of WWII. The Russians used "obsolete" aircraft to great effect in the war. The Germans used the "obsolete" Me-110 in daytime attacks on U.S. bomber formations to good effect fairly late into the war. The Japanese used "obsolete" fighters and bombers to considerable effect as kamikazes. The Italians used "obsolete" aircraft throughout much of the war to much better effect than the Polish did with the PZL7.

It depends how and where obsolete aircraft are used - the obsolete aircraft you talk about had very specialized roles that enabled them to somewhat survive. Place them in the right situation and they were dead meat.

 

[Elvis]

The Me 210 was designed to replace the Bf 110 in heavy fighter role....The failure of the Me 210's development programme meant that the Luftwaffe was forced to continue fielding the outdated Bf 110, to mounting losses.

I realize you were commenting on the Me-210, but FWIW, its always been my belief that the Bf-110 was a good airplane throughout the war, it was simply placed in the wrong application.
It was originally meant as a long range fighter-escort, but obviously failed as a pure fighter.
Had it been pressed into the ground-attack / light bomber role from the get-go, it would probably be more favourably remembered.

JMHO.



Elvis

 

[parsifal]

I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.

Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......

The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service, and that did show, but it gave some return of value, and in my opinion that amounted to excellent value, given that it had also served for nearly ten years before that.

The P-7, incidentally when it was introduced was considered revolutionary and a world beater. Try comparing apples to apples, and look at the P-7 in the context of its contemporaries......you will find its performance and abilities to be superior to nearly all of them

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.

Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......

The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service, and that did show, but it gave some return of value, and in my opinion that amounted to excellent value, given that it had also served for nearly ten years before that.

The P-7, incidentally when it was introduced was considered revolutionary and a world beater. Try comparing apples to apples, and look at the P-7 in the context of its contemporaries......you will find its performance and abilities to be superior to nearly all of them

Parsifal - you know what "obsolete" means!

 

[parsifal]

apologies if I warmed this up a bit

 

[FLYBOYJ]

apologies if I warmed this up a bit

No worries - you hit the nail on the head

 

[Elvis]

The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service

Thanks for the idea for a new thread! (a search shows that question has not been asked yet).


Elvis

 

[Civettone]

I fail to see how equating "obsolete" to "worst" is a valid measure. And even if this is viewed as a measure of "worst", the P-7 just isnt the worst. There are scores of aircraft that just didnt perform their mission profiles because of that.....here are a few. The Hawker Hind/Audax (in service with the Persians, not one even got airborne whilst the country was being invaded), the Fury (in service with the Yugoslavs, did not even get airborne, Fairey Fox III. Belgian airforce, failed to halt the German advance even a little, over 100 were lost in less than 48 hours, Avions Hurricane, Belgian Airforce, failed to get airborne, totally destroyed on the ground, systemic gun failures. There are dozens of stories like this, the P-7, by comparison got airborne, shot down enemy aircraft, and was latterly used to distract enemy fighters and aircraft rather than as a true fighter. The Polish air force resisted better and for longer than nearly all the other minor nation air forces of the war yet it is continualy held up as having not been responsible for a fercious defence. The PAF destroyed alamost as many German aircraft as the French did, in its 3 weeks of existence (more or less) as compared to the first threee weeks of the FAF first three weeks of effort in May 1940.

Moreover, comparing an I-15 to a the P-7 is not a balanced comparison. The P-7 final production was in 1932, BEFORE even the first flight of the I-15. The I-15, and its derivatives were under production right up to the war....the I-153 did not enter production until May 1939!. In a sense the I-15 was a design 10 years younger, yet it does not show in the technology of the two types....a P-7 would have done quite erll against any of the I-15 derivatives. In fact, the Rumanians did use quite a number of P-7s in the opening phases of Barbarossa, though they were rapidly withdrawn because of spares issues, they continued in the training role and as emergency point defence aircraft until 1943, not bad for an aircraft by then more than ten years old.......

The P-7 was perhaps the oldest fighter to see extensive service, and that did show, but it gave some return of value, and in my opinion that amounted to excellent value, given that it had also served for nearly ten years before that.

The P-7, incidentally when it was introduced was considered revolutionary and a world beater. Try comparing apples to apples, and look at the P-7 in the context of its contemporaries......you will find its performance and abilities to be superior to nearly all of them

Excellent post! Claiming that any aircraft which was used once obsolete, is inherently a bad aircraft simply doesn't hold water!
I mean, some AFs used the P-51 until the 70s, that doesn't make it a bad fighter.

Kris

 

[Condora]

I recall that in Malta the "obsolete" Gloster Gladiators (just 4, I believe), kept in check the Italian Air Force, and later the Luftwaffe. The main difference between Gladiators and PZL P.7, as far as I know, was that Gladiators could wait for the enemy to get there, short on fuel, but the P.7 had the BF.109 arriving from close across the border... and the P.7 endurance was very bad.
I read someplace that german pilots just avoided a decision for a while, until the P.7 HAD TO land, and then shot them. Giving credit to that information, maybe the score would be something like:

P.7 6 kills and no losses while dogfighting;
BF.109 6 losses on dogfight, 22 kills when they were trying to land...​

What's the better plane, if this was the case?

 

[Waynos]

The gladiator was far newer than the P-7. It entered service only in 1937, same year as the Bf 109 and Hurricane