Worst aircraft of WW2?

I have to agree with FB on this one. It was an aircraft designed to a budget, and was able to meet the design specs for which it was built. If it had been able to operate in an environment that was realistic, it would have been a good aircraft.

All ASW aircraft tend to be vulnerable to air attack, because they are simply not designed with survivability in mind. The main imperatives are range and endurance.....think about some modern examples, like the Grumman S2, P3s and Il-76, all of them are vulnerable in a hostil environment, yet all are judged as successful types

At least it indicates that the admiralty at an early stage (42) actually showed some foresight in concern over the voulnerability of their shipping lanes, which otherwise might seem surprising in view of the course of events.

(Nice picture, one should think there were actually room for a turret with a 20 milimeter...)

Just Schmidt said:

(Nice picture, one should think there were actually room for a turret with a 20 milimeter...)

Click to expand...

only at the expense of the offensive war load.

Lets face it, this thing was little bigger than an AT-11.

for a defensive 20 mm you have either a free swinging 20mm which is actually of little use, hard to aim and limited ammo (15 shot drum?) and rate of fire or you use a power turret which weighs hundreds of pounds.

Shortround6 said:

for a defensive 20 mm you have either a free swinging 20mm which is actually of little use, hard to aim and limited ammo (15 shot drum?) and rate of fire or you use a power turret which weighs hundreds of pounds.

Click to expand...

I've read that the turret in Ki-21 ll was bicycle pedalled, but of course that wasn't sporting a 20 mm. Still I wish I know more about that arrangement, the possible savings in weight and how efficient it was...

Just Schmidt said:

(Nice picture, one should think there were actually room for a turret with a 20 milimeter...)

Click to expand...

It actually it had the provision to mount a 20mm in the nose which I could see being handy in a ASW roll.


It kinda lookes like a poor mans Ju 88, without all the performance.

Thats what I thought. Kind of like the designer saw the Ju-88, once for a few seconds, and then went away and tried to draw it, lol

A Ju-88 style nose makes a lot of sense in an ASW plane, as it maximizes visibilty from the cockpit. On the downside, it crams all the crew into a tight space where one flak shell or one burst of mg fire can incapacitate all of them in one go. I would also suggest that the weight of a power-operated turret would have a severe negative impact on range and search radius, for little pay-off. An ASW aircraft will be over deep water, so the odds of being attacked by fighters are low, unless you come across a carrier group...

I didn't read through all 114 pages but do the words Brewster, Buffalo and death trap mean anything to anyone out there?

Alexa said:

I didn't read through all 114 pages but do the words Brewster, Buffalo and death trap mean anything to anyone out there?

Click to expand...

I think there are a number of Finns that would disagree with that.

I do believe the Buffalo got its fair share of votes...but then the somebody always comes up with, "But the Finns...." Or the P-39, "But the Russians..." Or the Me-210, "But the Hungarians..."

Where as nobody could defend the Ba.88

Did anybody mentioned Savoia Marchetti S.M. 85, a dive bomber, 'winged banana'?

Just read up on that one, she would be a good candidate as well.

aircro said:

Did anybody mentioned Savoia Marchetti S.M. 85, a dive bomber, 'winged banana'?

Click to expand...

It actually flew missions and survived - bad, but not as bad as the Ba.88

BombTaxi said:

A Ju-88 style nose makes a lot of sense in an ASW plane, as it maximizes visibilty from the cockpit. On the downside, it crams all the crew into a tight space where one flak shell or one burst of mg fire can incapacitate all of them in one go.

Click to expand...

If the pilot and co-pilot are dead the plane is a goner as well. There are very few examples of planes being taken over by other crew members.


Kris

The worst airplane in WWII was that one that looks like a low wing trainer, in every movie when you see it in dark green with black crosses you know its gonna get shot down with black smoke comming out of it in the next ten seconds

The would be the Focke-Schmitt AT 1000-6, I believe, also license-built by the Japanese as the Nakasbishi Ki-AT-6 6M-F. And yes they burned like a sonofagun

johnbr said:

For me how can you top the Me 163 for bad.

Click to expand...

But that's because you dont know any better. No offence.
Look up sone previous discussions on the Me 163 at this forum

Kris

I sometimes check this thread just because someone always mentions the Brewster Buffalo in it.

Come on people, how can you say that the Brewster Buffalo was THE worst aircraft of WW2?

In the Finnish Eastern front, in Summer 1941, it was simply the best fighter available on either side. Why? From the all Finnish fighters, it was the fastest, had the best range, best armament, and was probably most reliable and durable.

Of course, the FAF fighter inventory then was not anything to cheer about:

Fokker D.XXI (totally outclassed in every way)
MS.406 (slow, but nimble)
Fiat G.50 (almost as good as B-239, weaker armament, open cockpit)
Curtiss Hawk 75 (slower, armament slightly weaker)

On the other side, Soviet air force had:

MiG-3 (good at higher altitudes but weak down low, weak armament)
LaGG-3 (faster than B-239 in all altitudes, but handling was inferior)
I-16 (slightly slower than B-239, but probably more manouverable)
I-153 (a lot slower than Buffalo, but highly manouverable)

With the B-239, using different tactics, every enemy plane could be beaten either by manouvering or by speed/climb/dive.

Why the "myth" of the Buffalo as the worst WW2 aircraft? The version Finland used (F2A-1 or B-239) was lighter than the later aircraft used by other countries, most notably the B-339. While it was slower than the USN F2A-2, it was also a bit lighter than that too.

It was not a success elsewhere because
1. The opposition was superior in performance (A6M and Ki-43)
2. The enemy had numerical and tactical superiority (applies for Commonwealth and Dutch atleast)
3. The enemy had better combat experience (USMC pilots trying to turn with the Zero...)

None of these apply for the Finnish front.

Now, if we compare it directly against A6M or Ki-43, we can be sure that no matter what the pilot does, the enemy always has the upper hand. He can outrun you, outclimb you and outturn you with a clear margin. Why? Because until 1942, the A6M Zero was a plane very few if any Allied fighters matched. I can name just two, the Spitfire and P-40. I listed 7 fighters in operational use in summer 1941 that were on par or worse than the Buffalo.

Also, you have to remember that the F2A-1 or B-239 was a 1939 plane. What fighters did such major countries like France, USA or Soviet union have back then?

Yes, MS.406, P-36 Hawk, I-16...