Flightcommander
Airman
- 23
- Mar 20, 2008
here is a pic of the worst aircraft of ww2.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Probably this weekend. I am going through and finding quotes at the moment. There are a lot of threads to go through my friend...
here is a pic of the worst aircraft of ww2.
here is a pic of the worst aircraft of ww2.
No and I'll tell you why - they were designed to a specification and in many cases met or exceeded that basic specification. When you have an aircraft that not only can't perform it's mission but can't meet its design specification, well that's when you start looking at "bad to worse," and with that said I think the Breda BA.88 takes it.Should not these otherwise technical marvels therefore be considered amongst the "worst" aircraft of the war?
I don't know - Despite being shot down by the dozens I wouldn't call the Lancaster's deployment a failure by any means, especially by the technology of that day. The Mossie could not saturate a city the way the Lancaster could, perhaps only if they were built ten times their original production number - the call of the day was to put as many bombs as possible over a target and the Lancaster did that better than any other heavy bomber in the ETO.But a difficulty remains, and this gets back to my salient point, ie, that the original question is ill defined .....compare the harm the Ba88 did to Italy, versus the harm the lancaster did to the RAF. Who suffered more from the design failures of theserespective designs. Dont misunderstand me, I am not saying the Lanc was a failure as such. But the Lanc, along with the other heavies did not deliver what they were supposed to do, and failed in a spectacular fashion. I believe that if the British had adopted something like the Mosquito as their Bomber Command mainstay, there would have been measurably greater success than adopting the Lancs.
The Zero had limitations that were never fully addressed thorough out its career and it suffered for it. 1941 - Mid 1942 it was supreme in its environment, after that it was downhill.Similarly, the zero is acknowledged a agood design by most, but it had its limits, and because it was misused, and misunderstood by its owners, it ended up being a strategic disaster, contributing measurably to the ultimate Japanese defeat.
True about the Me 210 and how a desperate situation may dictate - at least the aircraft was able to fulfill a role - on at least one mission the Breda couldn't even remain airborne with it's designed payload - to me it doesn't get any worse than that!I am trying to get back to my original criticism....that the question is too nebulous to be answered properly
Let me finish on one last point, from the point of view of technical failure for an operational type, I agree one is hard pressed not to select the Breda. But the Me 210 is not so flash either (although, the hungarians, who produced them under licence, thought they were good aircraft, just shows how your attitude can change when you are desperate).
Mustangs with Allison engines to use as bomber escort...
bf109 E between 24,000 and 25,000 feet where the auto trans would switch pitches, leaving a nice puff of black smoke for enemy aircraft to spot..
Wouldn't matter much if the enemy aircraft was in front of the 109E when this occurred and it would seem that the size of the 109E would be as much a give away as puffs of black smoke. One of the greatest aircraft of all time
shorty stirling...lost a lot of crews
So did the B-17, B-24, B-26, Lancaster, Ju 88, He 111 He 177 and just about every 'superior' bomnber pressed into service in a hostile environment. Was the Short Sterling less survivable than the Betty?[/QUOTE]
The P-51A or even A-36 would have been excellent excorts at medium and low altitudes - it was only 30-40 kts slower at 20,000 feet than the Merlin 51B/C and lighter and more manueverable in the horizontal. The 20mm equipped variants had a lot more firepower.
You could only find 95% of all aircraft built during WWII that were 'worse' than a 51A
The RAF used the Mustang I for low level Recce up to the end of the war and scored quite well against 109s and 190s on the deck
and with that said I think the Breda BA.88 takes it.