Worst aircraft of WW2?

[CurzonDax]

Another contender : General Motors (Fisher Body Division) XP 75 'Eagle'

Gawd, I had forgotten about this abortion. I do have to admit that during the war the US came up with some pretty strange designs.

:{)

 

[SUperflanker37]

In my opinion the B-17 could either be one of the best or one of the worst depending on how it was armed.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

How is that?

 

[SUperflanker37]

Well its pretty useless unarmed eh? Haha.. got you! (and your probably thinking, "Wow what an idiot..." dont worry i get that a lot)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No I am not thinking that, but they would not send an un armed bomber out over Germany.

 

[SUperflanker37]

I've yet to realize it but a few years ago I think I lost my sense of humor.. well I'm off on vacation.. I'll be back in a week or two I think.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Enjoy your vacation. See you when you get back.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

although if he means payload i can see his point about the B-17 being uselessy armed

 

[CurzonDax]

although if he means payload i can see his point about the B-17 being uselessy armed

Well the USAAF did send B-29s with only thier tailguns to do fire raids over Japan.

:{)

 

[syscom3]

although if he means payload i can see his point about the B-17 being uselessy armed

Well the USAAF did send B-29s with only thier tailguns to do fire raids over Japan.

:{)

Thats cause the Japanese had no nightfighter force to really worry about.

 

[mosquitoman]

Besides, it takes quite a bit to knock one of those monsters out of the sky

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

although if he means payload i can see his point about the B-17 being uselessy armed

Umm Lanc the B-17 could carry as much as the Lanc, but it did not for range reasons.

 

[R988]

No I am not thinking that, but they would not send an un armed bomber out over Germany.

The British sent unarmed (well they had bombs obviously) Mosquitos over Germany.

I suppose if you could lighten it enough to make it fly faster and/or higher than the enemy interceptors then it might work.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

adler you know as much as anyone that the lanc carried not only more on average per sortie than the B-17 but the lanc also had a greater maximum payload..........

 

[cheddar cheese]

But only 400lbs if we dont include the specially modified Grandslam lancs...B-17's had to carry around all those guns and ammo and armour plating too...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the lanc could carry the grand slam without modification (apart from removing the bomb bay doors) it was simply modified to increase range...........

 

[cheddar cheese]

Well removing the bomb-bay doors is still modifications...

 

[CurzonDax]

Well the USAAF did send B-29s with only thier tailguns to do fire raids over Japan.

:{)[/quote]

Thats cause the Japanese had no nightfighter force to really worry about.[/quote]

Yes and no. Also one of the reasons was to lighten the load as the Superforts firebombed Japan at low lovel.

:{)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

adler you know as much as anyone that the lanc carried not only more on average per sortie than the B-17 but the lanc also had a greater maximum payload..........

A B-17 gave up some of its bomb payload so that it could have a greater range and carry greater defensive armament. That is the only reason why.

 

[The Nerd]

The aircobra sucked, and it was ugly.