Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
It's hardly a debate when a person just lumps the planes tells that those are bad ones
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
(how about the Bf-109G and Ki-84, for example).
Germany....
have an air force so ill-prepared for the task?
German bombers were all poorly equipped to succeed when they were needed most in 1940-41.
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.
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
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.
.