Worst aircraft of WW2?

[BombTaxi]

Bobbysocks has already hit the nail on the head here - the P39 performed very poorly at higher altitudes and was therefore of little use to the USAAF and RAF. On the Eastern Front, where combat occurred at lower altitudes, it performed much better, and was a success - do you really see the VVS employing large numbers of an aircraft design that was no good? The list of high-scoring Soviet aces who used the P-39 for all or part of their career also suggests that this was not a 'bad' aircraft...

 

[Waynos]

There was a report on US aircraft published in Flight magazine in 1940 that is quite amusing to read today and I wonder where they got their information, the Germans?

Among the claims made in that piece were that the B-17 could be brought down by a single bullet and was 'obsolete by any standard' (!!) and that the only US type to approach British standards of light bomber design was the Douglas DB-7 (!!) But the bit that this part of the thread reminded me of was the open mockery of the first prototype P-39 report from Bell as fanciful rubbish and the outlandish claim that Bell would be well advised to forget all about it and concentrate on 'their only really promising type' the Airacuda (!!!!)

See the Flight archive and search 1940 to read the piece in full

 

[BombTaxi]

Excellent stuff Wayne - although the RAF can't have despised the Fortress that much as they used it as a heavy bomber soon after that report was published

Interestingly, the USAAC apparently warned the RAF that the Fortress I (B-17C) would be a disaster as an unescorted, high-altitude day bomber due to it's insufficient defensive armament - and they were proved absolutely correct (for a number of reasons).

Having plastered the machine with extra guns to create the B-17E/F variants, the Americans then went on to ignore their own advice and the disaster of Schweinfurt ensued - perhaps both sides suffered from a degree of hubris about the capabilities of their aircraft and crews?

 

[Waynos]

It wasn't the RAF's view, it was the Flight reporters own. Actually, it may not have been Flight, it might have been the Aeroplane, which is not online. I'll look for it and scan it if thats the case.

I thought it was the RAF who told the Americans about the B-17 and daylight raids, rather than the other way round?

 

[BombTaxi]

Let me go and check that - I came across the tale while researching 90 Squadron's Forts with a view to building one in 1/72 scale. All that stuff was on my old PC AFAIK (it isn't on this one anyway), but the thread with the links is on here somewhere 8)

 

[BombTaxi]

Just another though on that report - I can understand the hack rooting for the Airacuda - heavily-armed, twin-engined, multi-crew fighters were in vogue at the time, with the Bf110 leading the way and the RAF barking up a related tree with the Whirlwind. I presume the article was published before the 110 flopped over South-East England and the full extent of the Whirlwind's problems became known?

 

[Negative Creep]

How about the PZL.30 Zubr?

Completely obsolete before it was built and the undercarriage caused so many problems the crews just flew with it down. Then there is the fact they demonstrated it to the Romanians, whereupon it broke apart it mid air. Finally, it is so ugly you wonder if the plan was to make its opponents crash from laughing so hard

 

[BombTaxi]

The Zubr has to be from the same stable as the Amiot 143 and Farman F.222. Monumentally ugly with monumentally poor performance to boot. Having said that, all of them were as aerodynamic as a housebrick, so they were never going to win prizes for performance...

 

[zoomar]

My goal is to piss people off, so I will list some "worst" planes for each of the major combatants that may not be ususal suspects. To meet my rigorous requirements, these planes will have to have seen lots of active service. Some will be planes that actually performed well and acheived quite a bit in combat, but were in one way or another unpopular with pilots, unsuccessful in the major role they were intended for, slightly obsolescent when most needed, were prematurely introduced before all the kinks were worked out; or were good basic designs that suffered from poor manufacturing and reliability.

Great Britain: Defiant, Battle, Blenheim, Gladiator; Typhoon, Manchester, Stirling, Albacore,
Germany: He-111, He-177, Me-210, Do-17/215/217 night fighters, Hs-129, Fw-200, Bf-110, Ta-154, Me-163
Italy: Fiat CR42, Mc202/202 (actually just about the entire Regia Aeronautica)
USSR: LaGG-3, Mig-3; Il-4, I-15/16/153,
USA: Helldiver, Seamew, P-39, P-36, P-40, B-26 Marauder, F2A, Devastator
Japan: Ki-43, Ki-44, G3M, G4M, Ki-21, and with the possible exception of the Ki-46, Ki-67, and Ki-84, just abount anything else flown by the JAAF.

Obviously, this list includes some "great" planes.

 

[Negative Creep]

There was a Japanese transport, designed to carry fuel supplies towards the end of the war. I believe it actually used 80% of it's cargo getting there so in that respect it was hopeless. Only thing is I can't remember for the life of me what it was called. Any ideas? I think it looked somewhat like a Ju88

 

[BombTaxi]

My goal is to piss people off, so I will list some "worst" planes for each of the major combatants that may not be ususal suspects. To meet my rigorous requirements, these planes will have to have seen lots of active service. Some will be planes that actually performed well and acheived quite a bit in combat, but were in one way or another unpopular with pilots, unsuccessful in the major role they were intended for, slightly obsolescent when most needed, were prematurely introduced before all the kinks were worked out; or were good basic designs that suffered from poor manufacturing and reliability.

Great Britain: Defiant, Battle, Blenheim, Gladiator; Typhoon, Manchester, Stirling, Albacore,
Germany: He-111, He-177, Me-210, Do-17/215/217 night fighters, Hs-129, Fw-200, Bf-110, Ta-154, Me-163
Italy: Fiat CR42, Mc202/202 (actually just about the entire Regia Aeronautica)
USSR: LaGG-3, Mig-3; Il-4, I-15/16/153,
USA: Helldiver, Seamew, P-39, P-36, P-40, B-26 Marauder, F2A, Devastator
Japan: Ki-43, Ki-44, G3M, G4M, Ki-21, and with the possible exception of the Ki-46, Ki-67, and Ki-84, just abount anything else flown by the JAAF.

Obviously, this list includes some "great" planes.

In terms of the GB planes, the only fight I'm going to pick it the Typhoon. While it was indeed rubbish in its intended role, it was deadly in the role it later grew in to, and made a valuable contribution to Overlord and subsequent campaigns.

The LW: agree with your list except for the Fw200, which was the bane of Atlantic convoys (making bombing attacks then vectoring in the wolf packs) until CVEs became widespread towards the end of the war. I also disagree with the Bf110, and I'm sure many bomber Command veterans who were shot down by one would as well. Finally, I think it's a bit unfair to slate the Ta-154 as it never saw service. The design was fundamentally sound and it would have been deadly, but the bombing campaign prevented the Germans making high enough quality glue to hold the thing together, so the project was stillborn.

For the US, I would say that the F2A was a turkey, but this was in some ways down to the spec of the US versions rather than the design as a whole - after all, the Finns achieved great success with their Buffaloes against much 'better' opponents. The P-40, P-39 and B-26 I would also take off your list, the two fighters were both good performers, especially in Soviet hands in the case of the P-39. The B-26 could be classed as 'bad' because it took considerable skill to handle and killed a good few of it's pilots, but by that logic the Bf109 is also 'bad' because of the demands made by narrow-track landing gear, very limited view on the ground, and having a fuel tank under the seat. I would also question if the Helldiver was 'bad', or that it simply failed to live up to the legacy of the SBD which, after all, basically won the Battle of Midway.

I don't know enough about the Russians or Japanese to make too much comment, but will agree the Italians fielded very poor types. I have the view that this was partly due to extreme conservatism witihn the Italian airforce concerning armament, aircraft layout etc, and partly due to the Fascist government being heavily supported and even staffed by representatives of the Italian arms industry, who seemed to get paid a lot for build poor quality kit, not just planes, but notably tanks too.

I'm not pissed off... but I do love a good debate

 

[tomo pauk]

It's hardly a debate when a person just lumps the planes tells that those are bad ones

 

[BombTaxi]

It's hardly a debate when a person just lumps the planes tells that those are bad ones

True, but I am trying my best to start one

 

[zoomar]

In terms of the GB planes, the only fight I'm going to pick it the Typhoon. While it was indeed rubbish in its intended role, it was deadly in the role it later grew in to, and made a valuable contribution to Overlord and subsequent campaigns.

The LW: agree with your list except for the Fw200, which was the bane of Atlantic convoys (making bombing attacks then vectoring in the wolf packs) until CVEs became widespread towards the end of the war. I also disagree with the Bf110, and I'm sure many bomber Command veterans who were shot down by one would as well. Finally, I think it's a bit unfair to slate the Ta-154 as it never saw service. The design was fundamentally sound and it would have been deadly, but the bombing campaign prevented the Germans making high enough quality glue to hold the thing together, so the project was stillborn.

For the US, I would say that the F2A was a turkey, but this was in some ways down to the spec of the US versions rather than the design as a whole - after all, the Finns achieved great success with their Buffaloes against much 'better' opponents. The P-40, P-39 and B-26 I would also take off your list, the two fighters were both good performers, especially in Soviet hands in the case of the P-39. The B-26 could be classed as 'bad' because it took considerable skill to handle and killed a good few of it's pilots, but by that logic the Bf109 is also 'bad' because of the demands made by narrow-track landing gear, very limited view on the ground, and having a fuel tank under the seat. I would also question if the Helldiver was 'bad', or that it simply failed to live up to the legacy of the SBD which, after all, basically won the Battle of Midway.

I don't know enough about the Russians or Japanese to make too much comment, but will agree the Italians fielded very poor types. I have the view that this was partly due to extreme conservatism witihn the Italian airforce concerning armament, aircraft layout etc, and partly due to the Fascist government being heavily supported and even staffed by representatives of the Italian arms industry, who seemed to get paid a lot for build poor quality kit, not just planes, but notably tanks too.

I'm not pissed off... but I do love a good debate

Well, as I said, I included a number of planes that one might not normally include in a list of "worsts". I actually thought about some others that would raise even more eyebrows (how about the Bf-109G and Ki-84, for example). Part of my purpose was to point out that there really can't be any legitimate "worsts' or "bests" because so much more needs to be considered than simply performance or operational record. So let's discuss some of my examples.

Britain. Glad to see you basically agree with me here, and I realized that including the Typhoon was a stretch. But you pointed out the main reason I included it: There rarely has been a major warplane that was so bad at the role it was specifically designed for, and yet turned out to be great at something else entirely. How can highly skilled designers and manufacturers be so wrong about their own creation?

Germany. The point with this list was to ask another question. How is it that a whole country full of of highly skilled designers and manufacturers with an absolute leader that plotted for a European War he knew and virtually intended would eventually involve the the two greatest naval powers and the the largest continental power on earth, have an air force so ill-prepared for the task? With the (almost accidental) exception of the Ju-88, German bombers were all poorly equipped to succeed when they were needed most in 1940-41. Yes, the Fw-200 was amazingly successful for a year or two as a long-range maritime recon/bomber operating from bases on the bay of Biscay. Just imagine how much more successful an equivalent number of real warplanes like the Lancaster, B-17, B-24, or Sunderland would have been in this role? And what was the only halfway successful airplane the Germans turned to when the Fw-200 finally couldn't hack it? Not the He-177, which almost everyone puts at the top of their "worsts" list but another converted transport, the Ju-290. Such planning! Germany also produced a raft of twin-engined Zestorers, flying Swiss Army Knives that were compromised by having to do everything. And when they finally found a niche they excelled at (night-fighting), the war was basically over. When the war was still winnable and Germany really needed a long-range escort fighter in 1940-41, the Bf-110 was...well...not that plane. You will note that I did not include the infamous Ju-87 Stuka in my list. That's because it was designed for one role and one role only - dive bombing - a role at which it actually excelled. It is not the Stuka's fault it was mis-used in theatres any classic dive bomber would be shot down in droves.

USA. This list was hard, because it included a number of planes that were not really all that bad...and some that achieved greatness. As is the case with Germany the blame for the relatively poor standard for US fighters in the first part of WW2 (the P-39 and P-40) can probably be laid more on upper level officialdom and USAAF policy rather than the skill and ability of their manufacturers. The P-39 could have been a great fighter had it been given the right engine, and the P-40 had to soldier on too long because the US was slow to gear up for WW2 (something a traditional neutral like the USA can be excused for, not Nazi Germany). Both planes had excellent qualities, as the Russians eventually proved - especially with the P-39. Actually, if it weren't for the British the best and most iconic USAAF fighter would never have existed. The Helldiver was a horrible plane, hated by its aircrew, but achieved greatness nonetheless. I listed the B-26 for much the same reason, but I will admit that its initial problems were eventually resolved. I'll gladly remove it.

Regarding the Russians, I might have been a little unfair, especially with regard to the I-16, which through no fault of its own was just a tad old when WW2 came around. But the LaGGs and MiGs were produced in far greater numbers than they should have been - but if Stalin says "build it" you'd better build it by God!. By and large, I am not a fan of JAAF fighters, which to me had similar flaws as Italian fighters - under gunned, under powered, and too lightly constructed. Yes they were probably fun airplanes to fly around in, but not when bigger, faster, stronger, and more heavily armed enemies are out to get you.

 

[RAM]

Ok, gonna bite in this one. Too much factual errors in zoomar's posts to let them slip by before someone tells him about it, any casual reader will get a very wrong information if reading this post otherwise.

(how about the Bf-109G and Ki-84, for example).

you'd be so wrong as to be painful. The Bf109G ranged from an excellent fighter (G-2, G-10, G-14, G-6 with MW50) to an average, yet still quite good fighter (G-6 sans MW-50).

The Ki84 was a respected plane among the american aircrews. And that was flying with low quality gas (when tested in the US with proper high-octane gas it gave a sterling performance that raised many an eyebrow among the US airmen).

Germany....

Here you start with a false premise. Hitler never intended to go to war vs the US until PH. In fact during 1941 he actively tried to avoid entering war vs the US several times. And Hitler didn't really want to go to war vs Britain aswell. He only had a quarrel against France, and he wanted to see it fullfitted. And then of course, he wanted to destroy the USSR and take all European Russia and rest of the soviet states up to the Urals and Caucasus, enslave the slavic population and massacre every jew he found in every mile in his path.

But hitler didn't, ever, actively planned or seeked a war vs the UK and/or USA.

have an air force so ill-prepared for the task?

Calling the luftwaffe an "Ill-prepared force" is daunting. I'm not gonna comment this as it deserves no commentary. The Luftwaffe reigned supreme over the skies of europe between 1939 and 1942 (Even during the BoB the LW really got near victory; Dowding himself saw the abbyss coming fast to his Fighter command. Only thing that saved the day was Göring stupid regulations about close escort that rendered the Bf110 useless, and hitler's stupid decision to switch targets from the RAF to bombing civilians) and then only was slowly drained because HItler had given it too many a foe to fight in such an inferiority of numbers. If you think an "Ill prepared" force is able to do that, lord helps anyone who ever faces an "appropiately prepared" air force in a war.

German bombers were all poorly equipped to succeed when they were needed most in 1940-41.

The He111 receives very little respect from you, I see. Yet it was a very good medium bomber for it's day and kept being so until circa 1942, or even 1943 (the sailors aboard the convoys to Murmansk would have to agree with me, seeing how many of their ships this "poorly equiped" plane blew out of the water with it's torpedoes).

The Ju87 also does receive very little respect. For a plane that terrorized most of europe for three years in a row and was the main tool of one of the most feared anti-shipping air unit ever to fly (FliegerKorps X), certainly this "poorly equipped" plane, did its job well.

Yeah, both planes only could operate safely if air superiority wasn't on the enemy side. So the same can be said about every other bomber of the war. Without air superirity the B-17 was a sitting duck. The Il-2 was a duck. The B-24/25/26/you name it were sitting ducks. The Blenheims were sitting ducks. The beauforts were sitting ducks.The Wellingtons were sitting ducks. The Lancasters were sitting ducks. Etcetera. Include every succesfull bomber/ground assault plane here, you name it, unless it operated under a decently sized escort, or under a total air superiority, they were sitting ducks.

I guess every ground attack plane and bomber of WW2 sucked, then.


BTW, I'd have to tell you that it's not the planes' problem (nor fault) that their designers don't know what they will be expected to do with two or three years of advance because noone told them about it. The Bf109E had a limited range because noone expected it to be escorting bombers to strategic objectives. The Ju88/He111/Do17 (excellent planes for their time, otherwise) were designed to serve tactical purposes of ground support for the benefit of the Heer, not to conduct deep strikes into the heartland of Britain (something that never was put in their specifications). Those planes were designed for a certain set of roles, which they did accomplish brilliantly. It doesn't mean they sucked or were bad because they failed to perform better when they were asked to do things that they were NEVER intended to do in the first place.

As for the Bf-110 being "not that plane"...it was an excellent long range fighter for the time being. Watch its speed performance - faster than the Hurricane and almost on par on the Spitfire. with it's clean (for the time and it's size) aerodynamics and weight was a notable diver and zoomer and a quite adept plane at playing the "hit and run" tactics the german fighter doctrines demanded from their pilots. With the german standard fighter tactics (Freie jagd at high altitudes to bounce at an enemy distracted by trying to intercept bombers), the plane actually performed really well. It's not the model's fault that suddenly Göring drank too much schnapps and ordered ALL fighters to perform close escort duties only, forcing the Bf110 to enter every fight from there onwards lower and slower than it's enemies; a situation it couldn't cope with.

Just for the record, the Bf110 went on to get among the best night fighters of the war. But far from that fact, MANY Bf110s remained on day fighting squadrons and did a hell of a job as fighter/fighter bombers/ground attack at both the mediterranean and Russia. The Bf110 has been demonized for decades because they were mauled in the BoB, but that wasn't the model's fault, was Göring's.


About american planes. The P-39 sucked harder than a 2 cent "virtue selling" woman when paid one dollar. It was that hard. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know about the famous 1.5 K/D Ratio over Port Moresby. Hell, the Wildcats were getting far better K/Ds over guadalcanal at that time and honestly, the Wildcat was another dog. But that dog at least could fly from a carrier, something a P39 coudln't, and operat at altitudes over 13000 feet, something that the P-39 could not aswell. And the Wildcat was hard to get into a spin, and was easily recovered from one. The P-39 was highly unstable, easily put into a spin, and had no means to get out of one, if it ever entered it. Amazing model, yeah.
A handful of P-40s did achieve an amazing K/D ratio over china flying with the FLying Tigers under the command of Lt. Gen. Chennault. Noone will argue the P40 being a very limited (being very generous) fighter if anything. The thing here is that the opposition flew in worse planes (Ki27 nates and early Ki43 oscars. Planes that if asked to do anything but turn in tight circles were an absolute FAIL), and that the P40 did keep using the right tactics for its strong points, and for avoiding the enemy ones.

Similarly over PM and NG, the P39s had success because the enemy was in a relatively speaking dog (Yeah, the Zero, a plane that couldn't dive, couldn't zoom, had barely acceptable weaponry and got dissasembled if hit by anything bigger than a fly) with the proper tactics and team coordination. Good tactics always win. Bad tactics lose (the japanese always flew as individuals. Teamwork shined...because there was NONE at all.) Inflight comms do help winning aswell, even more if the enemy doesn't fly with a radio (many zeros didn't fly with a radio at the time, relying on visual gestures) .

Given all that, the K/D ratio tells me nothing about the P-39. The russian stories about how great the plane was don't tell me too much either because:

A) the russians were flying P-39s using engine settings that trashed their engines in 4-5 flights. They cared nothing about the lifetime of their machines.. They also retired part of the weaponry and most of the armor of the plane to make it lighter. So the P-39 flying in Soviet service wasn't the P-39 in US or british service, was a completely different plane with an abused engine and much lighter than the standard plane, and that was expected only to last for anything between 3-5 sorties before being trashed.

B) even so, any plane that gives up the altitude capabilities the P-39 certainly lacked, is a FUBAR fighter. Boelcke's diktat was as valid in 1939-45 as it was in 1915-18. He who is higher, controls the fight, and sets the rules of said fight. A fighter model that FORCES YOU to fly low because it CAN'T fly high is forcing you to give the initiative to the enemy. In air combat initiative=victory 90% of the times. So, the lighter-abused-P39 in soviet service still SUCKED.

C) all the above mentioned points are backed up by raw numbers. German fighters did shoot down russian planes in droves and a lot of them were P-39s. For anyone who brings K/D ratios into any discussion about the P39 (mentioning the New Guinea record of the model), I 'd ask him to dig up the REAL K/D of the P39 in soviet service. Even more I'd ask him to dig up the REAL Casualty/kill rate (given that the engines couldn't last more than 10-15 hours of running in the conditions the russian pilots ran them, and that the plane was unstable, easy to get into an accelerated spin, and unrecoverable once in said spin) of the model. That would shed some light about the ACTUAL value of that scrap-yard piece of crap the airacobra was.


As for the I-16 "having no fault on it's own", well, yet another plane that was so unstable on every and each of the three axis that the pilots had serious trouble keeping it in controlled flight "has no fault on it's own". Suprising to say the least.

So really your post has some blatant errors and misconceptions and,honestly,I can tell you-you hold opinions that I respect as such, but are based on nothing but factual errors. Next time you give a list as the one you gave, I'd suggest you to base it on some real grounds instead of so many errors.

Sorry if I sound too harsh, but really, it is that way.

 

[RAM]

as for the topic itself, I read up to page 29 of this thread until I jumped to the last 2 (too much to read of this thread, lol, I have limited time). I would like to give my vote which goes to the Breda Ba-88 (mentions of honor go for the Me163 and Bachem Natter). A plane which most brilliant service record is to lay down as a decoy in an airfield is...unspeakable of. The latter two were pure desperation projects, and as such at least they have an excuse for having ever existed...because they were pure death traps for anyone valiant enough to strap himself into their cockpit.


And a little information on the brewster buffalo. The F2B2 which flew over Midway (and that was a complete dog) was an overloaded design. The basic design (the brewster 339 which flew for the british over singapore and in the DEI and gave a good account of itself, and the finnish model which achieved such a succesfull career in their hands) had much less armor, lacked self sealing tanks and had much lighter radio equipment. As such was much more maneouverable and survivable than the heavily laden version that flew with the navy. So both the navy officer who said that sending pilots in that crate was to insta-losing them, and the finnish pilots who give accounts of a highly succesful fighter are right. There was little to compare between both versions: one (B339) was a very nimble and maneouverable respectable fighter. The other (F2B2) was a complete failure as a fighter.

All the best.

 

[Cromwell]

And a little information on the brewster buffalo. The F2B2 which flew over Midway (and that was a complete dog) was an overloaded design. The basic design (the Brewster 339 which flew for the British over Singapore and in the DEI and gave a good account of itself, and the Finnish model which achieved such a successful career in their hands) had much less armor, lacked self sealing tanks and had much lighter radio equipment. As such was much more maneuverable and survivable than the heavily laden version that flew with the navy. So both the navy officer who said that sending pilots in that crate was to insta-losing them, and the Finnish pilots who give accounts of a highly successful fighter are right. There was little to compare between both versions: one (B339) was a very nimble and maneuverable respectable fighter. The other (F2B2) was a complete failure as a fighter.

All the best.

The Navy in the US and the UK had a nasty habit of spoiling an otherwise great plane with, say, unnecessary 2nd crew, massively over-engineered equipment (like chunky compasses in huge gimbals - you should see them) - under powered like the dreadful Barracuda, even an emergency-power Griffon could hardly drag that barge off the deck, into the wind, ship doing 15 knots, etc

As regards the 'Buffalo' - this plane just keeps coming back atcha post after post - and it is a strange conundrum *

Personally I think it is partly to do with that other Old Chestnut - yes thats right - Operational Logistical Implementation.

Compare with the P39/40 in the hands of the Flying Tigers.

A big part of the Brit losses in Singapore were to do with bad leadership AND a barking failure to share resources with the Chinese and more importantly the US volunteers such as Claire Chenault

Claire was a top-bloke who was, of course, often ignored by the great and good - he kept a small force of planes operational against all odds. If only we had listened.


* Also - The Finns used to reverse the Oil Rings on the pistons to increase continuous power ratings - and it worked ! ...... So why didn't we all do that ?


Addendum : Think of the Firefly without the extra crew member and rid off the heavy unwanted contraptions - it could have really scored I think, even better than it did already.

 

[Cromwell]

How about the PZL.30 Zubr?

Completely obsolete before it was built and the undercarriage caused so many problems the crews just flew with it down. Then there is the fact they demonstrated it to the Romanians, whereupon it broke apart it mid air. Finally, it is so ugly you wonder if the plan was to make its opponents crash from laughing so hard

Have you noticed that 'Zubr' sounds a little bit like FUBAR ?

Anyway, I would like to build an indoor rubber-powered model of one just , well , because it represent the ultimate challenge in unsuitable design for flying scale model.

(it might work with foam wings and CO2 power)

 

[renrich]

Ram, don't know where you get your info about Japanese fighter pilot tacics but you need to read "The First Team" by John Lundstrom. The training and tactics of the IJN pilots in the early going was excellent. Your characterisation of the Zero is questionable at best. In the hands of a good pilot, it was still a formidable advesary in 1945 and in 1941 it was overall arguably the best fighter in the world.

 

[Waynos]

Yeah, both planes only could operate safely if air superiority wasn't on the enemy side. So the same can be said about every other bomber of the war. Without air superirity the B-17 was a sitting duck. The Il-2 was a duck. The B-24/25/26/you name it were sitting ducks. The Blenheims were sitting ducks. The beauforts were sitting ducks.The Wellingtons were sitting ducks. The Lancasters were sitting ducks. Etcetera. Include every succesfull bomber/ground assault plane here, you name it, unless it operated under a decently sized escort, or under a total air superiority, they were sitting ducks.
.

Mosquito