Worst aircraft of WW2?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
this what he is talking about:
Soviet P-39 Aces
Flying American equipment was a mixed blessing. The airplanes were as good (or better) as any Russian-made, but in the Stalinist era, carried a certain stigma. The leading Airacobra ace, Alexandr Pokryshkin, who finished the war with 59 aerial victories, was once denied a third award of the Hero of the Soviet Union, because that would have glorified foreign manufacturing.
mkloby
Master Sergeant
Welcome back - haven't seen you around in quite a while.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Yeah I got back a couple of days ago. I said I would be back at the forum in the beginning of October ... so here I am. 
Anyway, about the matter of the lend-lease equipment, I have my doubts about it. Awarding medals are not an exact science. It doesn't always makes sense why some get them and others don't. I can imagine it's normal to find reasons behind it.
Well, I'm not saying it wasn't because of the foreign equipment but I have my doubts about it as I don't hear this stories from the army of which half was equiped with lend-lease equipment.
Kris
Anyway, about the matter of the lend-lease equipment, I have my doubts about it. Awarding medals are not an exact science. It doesn't always makes sense why some get them and others don't. I can imagine it's normal to find reasons behind it.
Well, I'm not saying it wasn't because of the foreign equipment but I have my doubts about it as I don't hear this stories from the army of which half was equiped with lend-lease equipment.
Kris
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'm reading "Bloody Shambles" Vol. 2. Some of the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF pilots and aircrews who flew against the initial Japanese invasion forces in SE Asia should of been awarded the Victoria Cross (Especially those flying Wildebeest) and probably would of had they done the same actions in Europe.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Interesting. It's definitely true that those boys didn't get the attention nor the praise they deserved.
Just one of many factors which influence handing out medals or not.
Kris
Just one of many factors which influence handing out medals or not.
Kris
SteveH
Airman
I have to stand up for the Boomerang - it might not have shot much down (embarrassingly, I think it was the Wirraway that shot down the Zero), but it doesn't qualify for the list by virtue of its pleasant aesthetics. Arguably quite a pretty plane...
Steve
Steve
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
As a fighter the Boomerang was no match for the Zero and uncapable of catching most Jap bombers but it must have been a decent attack aircraft with its bombload and cannons.
At the time of its design the Australians didn't have an alternative, so better this aircraft than none at all.
Kris
At the time of its design the Australians didn't have an alternative, so better this aircraft than none at all.
Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
The thing with these light bombers is that it's not so much that these aircraft were bad, it was the concept with proved to be disastrous. All single-engined light bombers failed during WW2. The Germans were one of the few to realize this before the start of the war when they put the He 45 out of service. On the other hand, if the British had had a Stuka it would probably have faired just as bad as the Battle.
Kris
Kris
Negative Creep
Staff Sergeant
To say a plane is bad in no way takes away from the bravery of its pilots. If anything, it amplifies their courage
I'd have to say the RAF Defiant-aircraft-not because it couldn't shoot down EA-but because it not only had such a ludericous design-putting 4 MG in a Bomber type turrent on a figther aircraft yet not leaving any MG for the Pilot in the Wings! In fact it would have been better to have placed 2 to 4 MG in the Wings and streamlined the rear canopy os the gunner could fire 1 to 2 MG-but the whole concept of a EA bomber letting itself be blasted at close range by 4 MG from a fighter plane!!
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Again, it may not have been a bad aircraft but a bad concept.
There would be no need to change the Defiant into a conventional aircraft, you already had the Hurricane and Spitfire for that.
I can imagine it looked like a good idea in the late thirties...
And it did make a reasonably good nightfighter...
Kris
There would be no need to change the Defiant into a conventional aircraft, you already had the Hurricane and Spitfire for that.
I can imagine it looked like a good idea in the late thirties...
And it did make a reasonably good nightfighter...
Kris
Cdat88
Airman
Well, I would have to say the Breda Ba. 88 has my vote. Other than as a weight to keep the airfield from spinning off the planet, it seemed to have no useful purpose.
Decoy work not withstand, of course.
Decoy work not withstand, of course.
Wildcat
Major
I think you mis-read him, He said single engined light bombers, not crewed by a single man.
Ok, ya that is right.
That isn't counting the A-1 Skyraider, which was too late for ww2
Not to be argumentative, but the TBF Avenger, SBD Dauntless, Swordfish, SB2C Helldiver, and D3A Val were all single engined (mostly light) bombers,(if carrier baised) and were all relatively successful.
That isn't counting the A-1 Skyraider, which was too late for ww2
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
On the ROC's account that's wrong. It only had a useful defensive armament. That was the problem, like the Defiant, a good rear turret but no offensive/foreward-firing gins. A FIGHTER with NO offensive armament!!!
