Worst Piston engined Bomber of World War Two
- Thread starter nuuumannn
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Tankworks
Airman
Agreed!
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Why do you say that?
I'm under the impression the He-177 was the primary German maritime patrol aircraft during the final 18 months of WWII. What aircraft would fill this role if the He-177 weren't available?
parsifal
Colonel
Probably the Do217. Even with the kinks ironed out, it (the He177) some sort of upgraded Dornier over the He 177, which was persevered with as much for political reasons as any.
It did eventually turn into a servicieable a/c, but I dont think it can ever be described as an outstanding success
Herer is a link to a site that gives some details of its service career. Of the 1000 or so produced, probably not more than 200 were ever used for sustained operations. Close to 900 were captured at the end of the war, most having never left the factory where they had been made.....
http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/234.html
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The Devastator makes the list because it was 3-4 years old when it went into combat, literally, not just a 4 year old design but the planes that were in combat in 1942 had come out of the factory in 1937-38. There was no MK II or "B" version so we don't know how a version with 40% more power, double the guns, armor and self sealing tanks would have done.
Yes, it was the "worst" US torpedo bomber or "worst" US single engine bomber but due to it's age and not any inherent defect/s.
Shortround6
Major General
Something to think on when working on these "worst lists".
The Devastator according to "wiki" " Devastator, which flew for the first time on 15 April 1935, marked a large number of "firsts" for the U.S. Navy.[3] It was the first widely-used carrier-based monoplane as well as the first all-metal naval aircraft, the first with a totally-enclosed cockpit, the first with power-actuated (hydraulically) folding wings; it is fair to say that the TBD was revolutionary.[4] A semi-retractable undercarriage was fitted, with the wheels designed to protrude 10 in (250 mm) below the wings to permit a "wheels-up" landing with only minimal damage."
It used an 850hp version of the R-1830 engine. As noted above the Navy never ordered a MK II version so there were NO improvements from the 1937-38 production model. Judged against it's "contemporaries" How bad was it? The Nakajima B5N first flew about 20 months after the Devastator and the Versions in front line service in 1941-42 had been fitted with a more powerful engine than the first production version.
On the other hand the Martin B-10 had made more than a few twin engine bombers obsolete over night. From Joe B's web site " In a demonstration of their reliability and efficiency, ten YB-10s undertook a survey flight to Alaska in July of 1934."
The Amiot 143 didn't enter service until one year later, July of 1935. While there may have been nothing wrong with it as a flying machine (handled well, didn't fall apart in the air or on landing, etc) it was obsolete on the day the first delivery was made. That it was still in first line service almost 5 years later (even as a night bomber) is a mark against the French aircraft procurement system.
Then you have something Like the Botha. Ordered off the Drawing board, (with the Air Ministry specifying which engine it was to use) it was so under powered that not only couldn't it be used as a combat service aircraft, it was actually judged too dangerous to continue using as a TRAINER.
IMHO while each aircraft could be considered as a "worst" in some category or fashion they demonstrate 3 different kinds of WORST.
The Devastator according to "wiki" " Devastator, which flew for the first time on 15 April 1935, marked a large number of "firsts" for the U.S. Navy.[3] It was the first widely-used carrier-based monoplane as well as the first all-metal naval aircraft, the first with a totally-enclosed cockpit, the first with power-actuated (hydraulically) folding wings; it is fair to say that the TBD was revolutionary.[4] A semi-retractable undercarriage was fitted, with the wheels designed to protrude 10 in (250 mm) below the wings to permit a "wheels-up" landing with only minimal damage."
It used an 850hp version of the R-1830 engine. As noted above the Navy never ordered a MK II version so there were NO improvements from the 1937-38 production model. Judged against it's "contemporaries" How bad was it? The Nakajima B5N first flew about 20 months after the Devastator and the Versions in front line service in 1941-42 had been fitted with a more powerful engine than the first production version.
On the other hand the Martin B-10 had made more than a few twin engine bombers obsolete over night. From Joe B's web site " In a demonstration of their reliability and efficiency, ten YB-10s undertook a survey flight to Alaska in July of 1934."
The Amiot 143 didn't enter service until one year later, July of 1935. While there may have been nothing wrong with it as a flying machine (handled well, didn't fall apart in the air or on landing, etc) it was obsolete on the day the first delivery was made. That it was still in first line service almost 5 years later (even as a night bomber) is a mark against the French aircraft procurement system.
Then you have something Like the Botha. Ordered off the Drawing board, (with the Air Ministry specifying which engine it was to use) it was so under powered that not only couldn't it be used as a combat service aircraft, it was actually judged too dangerous to continue using as a TRAINER.
IMHO while each aircraft could be considered as a "worst" in some category or fashion they demonstrate 3 different kinds of WORST.
model299
Airman 1st Class
This didn't ring a bell for me so I went looking for it.
Woof! That is one hideous looking BUTT-UGLY airplane! The source I found (Virtual Aircraft Museum) said the prototype fell apart in mid-air "unfortunately while carrying prospective Romanian purchasers."
It also said the survivors were put to work by the Luftwaffe as unarmed trainers. The trainees must have wondered what their transgressions were to be assigned to these things.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I agree that the TBD should have a chance to make the list but if it does why not have the Swordfish (Stringbag) on the list.
I wouldn't have either on the list. Both did what they were supposed to do,initially.
The Swordfish was very successful but of course never had its Midway.
If you include them then,on the same grounds,you could make a case for the Ju 87 which most would not consider a "bad" bomber. Without air superiority however.......
Steve
Last edited:
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I think there is a big difference between a poorly designed aircraft ( Ba.88 ) and a well designed aircraft that was made obsolete by other aircraft (TBD).
parsifal
Colonel
The stringbag has abilities and records of service not attributable to thee TBD. Swordfish were responsible for the sinking of 4 BBs, abour 250000 tons of shipping and many submarines. The Swordfish, was able to operate in rough conditions because of its flyin charaacteristics. from an early point n its career, it was fitted wih ASV radar. This made the swordfish the single most successful carrier borne torpedo bomber in the allied inverntory.
Criticisms of the Devastator are unjustified. Comparing the devastator to the Swordfish will only add to american embarrasment
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
I would note that there were only 139 Devastators ever made and due to operational accidents just over 100 still in service (?) on Dec 7 1941. There were almost 2400 Swordfish manufactured, I would certainly hope that over 2300 planes caused more damage to the enemy than about 100 planes 
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
OUCH!
Swordfish was obsolate and was only possible to operate it because complete lack of aerial opposition... its not really smart to compare its record to USN light bomber in the Pacific which faced arguably the best trained pilots in what was arguebly the best, or at least amongst the top naval fighters of the era.
How well the Swordfish fared under similar circumstance, ie. naval force with proper screen of smaller ships and air cover was well demonstrated during operation cerberus.. all were shot down and had not any success.
How well the Swordfish fared under similar circumstance, ie. naval force with proper screen of smaller ships and air cover was well demonstrated during operation cerberus.. all were shot down and had not any success.
parsifal
Colonel
Swordfish operating against effective daylight fighter cover, are going to be shot out of the sky. Those six swordfish that attacked in the channel that day, were meant to be protected by 2 squadrons of RAF fighters. Both fighter squadrons failed to rendevous.
Against 80+ fighters, what bomber in daylight, with just six available, is going to survive much less successfully complete their mission?
Against lesser odds, the Swordfish was reaonably successful in daylight, witness the results achieved off Norway in 1940. Albacores, their near cousin were also able to fight and survive by daylight in 1942, when provided with fighter cover. They were able to achieve a measure of success around the pedestal convoy and in offensive operations against the Tirpitz. Swordfish achieved similar results off Cape Spartivento in 1940, with enemy fighters present
However, both the the Albacore and the Swordfish were not daylight attack aircraft. Their crews, and the aircraft fitout were designed for night strikes, and in this they excelled. Here, their low performance actually helped them complete their primary nmission....put torpedoes into ships. Because they were slow, they were also stable and accurate, and this was why they were there. Swordfish (and Albacores) were also passable as Divebombers, again because they were so slow they could control their dives
Against 80+ fighters, what bomber in daylight, with just six available, is going to survive much less successfully complete their mission?
Against lesser odds, the Swordfish was reaonably successful in daylight, witness the results achieved off Norway in 1940. Albacores, their near cousin were also able to fight and survive by daylight in 1942, when provided with fighter cover. They were able to achieve a measure of success around the pedestal convoy and in offensive operations against the Tirpitz. Swordfish achieved similar results off Cape Spartivento in 1940, with enemy fighters present
However, both the the Albacore and the Swordfish were not daylight attack aircraft. Their crews, and the aircraft fitout were designed for night strikes, and in this they excelled. Here, their low performance actually helped them complete their primary nmission....put torpedoes into ships. Because they were slow, they were also stable and accurate, and this was why they were there. Swordfish (and Albacores) were also passable as Divebombers, again because they were so slow they could control their dives
baclightning
Airman
- 17
- May 12, 2011
I don't think there's a better example of a disparity between an aircraft's "paper" performance, and actual accomplichments than you get with the Swordfish. Was it obsolete? Yes. Did it have a fantastic war record? Certainly.
It was the Jamie Moyer of WW2 aircraft - old, slow, and with accomplishments far greater than would seem possible just by looking at it.
The Swordfish had the good fortune of rarely facing modern fighters. But the fact is that any torpedo bomber of WW2, including the much more modern Grumman TBF and Nakajima B5N, had a maximum speed of about 100 mph less than that of contemporary fighters, and a torpedo bomber keeping a steady course on its firing run would be easy prey. While the Swordfish was slow, its handling qualities were second to none, and that was a key factor to its success, especially in its ability to take-off and land from small ships such as the escort carriers and MAC ships that were so crucial in winning the Battle of the Atlantic.
Taranto and the Bismarck attack were the high water marks of the Swordfish's career, obviously, but it was used in a huge variety of roles, and in many places, from the heat of the Middle East to the frigid cold of the Arctic convoys. 830 Squadron, FAA, operating from Malta in 1940/41, destroyed 450,000 tons of Axis shipping in nine months, with the high total being 98,000 tons in one month. That's one squadron - no more than 27 aircraft. The Swordfish, after being equipped with radar, became the first aircraft to sink a submarine at night. Fitted with rockets, it became the first to sink an enemy submarine using that weapon. In May 1944, Swordfish operating from HMS Fencer sunk three U-Boats within 48 hours. In September 1944, Swordfish from HMS Vindex sunk four U-Boats in one voyage. During the war, the Swordfish served with 25 first-line FAA squadrons, 22 second-line squadrons, and 11 catapult flights. In addition, two RAF squadrons used them for mine-laying and even level bombing.
Those are real accomplishments, and made a real contribution to the Allies winning the war.
Here are a few quotes about the aircraft:
"Incredible as it may seem, the ancient Stringbag was ultimately responsible for the destruction of a greater tonnage of hostile shipping than any other type of Allied aircraft."
- The Fairey Swordfish Mks. I-IV, by Ian G. Stott
"Future historians are likely to find it difficult to justify the reputation of the Fairey Swordfish and to explain the reasons for its overall operational success. Here was what would later have been described as a strike aircraft of a design based largely on a specification which had been issued in 1930, and was virtually obsolescent before it went into service – yet was still in successful use nearly ten years later and after more than five years of highly competitive warfare between technologically advanced nations. This relic of the biplane era – an anachronism even before the outbreak of war in September 1939 – continued to operate successfully in a wide variety of roles until May 1945, and outlived, in Fleet Air Arm service, its intended replacement, the Fairey Albacore. The Swordfish was responsible, so the records say, for the destruction of a greater tonnage of hostile shipping than any other aircraft used by the Allied forces."
- Fairey Aircraft Since 1915, by H.A. Taylor
"The Top Torpedo-Bomber of World War II
1. Fairey Swordfish
2. Grumman Avenger
3. Nakajima Kate
4. Nakajima Jill
"The Swordfish was responsible for history's first successful air attack against a capital ship, and it virtually crippled the Italian fleet at Taranto in an epic night attack in late 1940, thus altering the balance of sea power in the Mediterranean. It also hunted and destroyed the German battleship Bismarck. But it was as an antisubmarine hunter-killer in the crucial Battle of Atlantic that the Swordfish excelled, operating from escort carriers and MACs day and night, in foul weather and fair, year after long year...
"...I did a lot of thinking before placing the obsolete Swordfish biplane before the more modern Avenger monoplane. Analysis of the facts shows that the Swordfish, in action well before the Avenger, obtained better torpedo results, and suffered fewer losses."
- Duels in the Sky - World War II Naval Aircraft in Combat, by Capt. Eric Brown
It was the Jamie Moyer of WW2 aircraft - old, slow, and with accomplishments far greater than would seem possible just by looking at it.
The Swordfish had the good fortune of rarely facing modern fighters. But the fact is that any torpedo bomber of WW2, including the much more modern Grumman TBF and Nakajima B5N, had a maximum speed of about 100 mph less than that of contemporary fighters, and a torpedo bomber keeping a steady course on its firing run would be easy prey. While the Swordfish was slow, its handling qualities were second to none, and that was a key factor to its success, especially in its ability to take-off and land from small ships such as the escort carriers and MAC ships that were so crucial in winning the Battle of the Atlantic.
Taranto and the Bismarck attack were the high water marks of the Swordfish's career, obviously, but it was used in a huge variety of roles, and in many places, from the heat of the Middle East to the frigid cold of the Arctic convoys. 830 Squadron, FAA, operating from Malta in 1940/41, destroyed 450,000 tons of Axis shipping in nine months, with the high total being 98,000 tons in one month. That's one squadron - no more than 27 aircraft. The Swordfish, after being equipped with radar, became the first aircraft to sink a submarine at night. Fitted with rockets, it became the first to sink an enemy submarine using that weapon. In May 1944, Swordfish operating from HMS Fencer sunk three U-Boats within 48 hours. In September 1944, Swordfish from HMS Vindex sunk four U-Boats in one voyage. During the war, the Swordfish served with 25 first-line FAA squadrons, 22 second-line squadrons, and 11 catapult flights. In addition, two RAF squadrons used them for mine-laying and even level bombing.
Those are real accomplishments, and made a real contribution to the Allies winning the war.
Here are a few quotes about the aircraft:
"Incredible as it may seem, the ancient Stringbag was ultimately responsible for the destruction of a greater tonnage of hostile shipping than any other type of Allied aircraft."
- The Fairey Swordfish Mks. I-IV, by Ian G. Stott
"Future historians are likely to find it difficult to justify the reputation of the Fairey Swordfish and to explain the reasons for its overall operational success. Here was what would later have been described as a strike aircraft of a design based largely on a specification which had been issued in 1930, and was virtually obsolescent before it went into service – yet was still in successful use nearly ten years later and after more than five years of highly competitive warfare between technologically advanced nations. This relic of the biplane era – an anachronism even before the outbreak of war in September 1939 – continued to operate successfully in a wide variety of roles until May 1945, and outlived, in Fleet Air Arm service, its intended replacement, the Fairey Albacore. The Swordfish was responsible, so the records say, for the destruction of a greater tonnage of hostile shipping than any other aircraft used by the Allied forces."
- Fairey Aircraft Since 1915, by H.A. Taylor
"The Top Torpedo-Bomber of World War II
1. Fairey Swordfish
2. Grumman Avenger
3. Nakajima Kate
4. Nakajima Jill
"The Swordfish was responsible for history's first successful air attack against a capital ship, and it virtually crippled the Italian fleet at Taranto in an epic night attack in late 1940, thus altering the balance of sea power in the Mediterranean. It also hunted and destroyed the German battleship Bismarck. But it was as an antisubmarine hunter-killer in the crucial Battle of Atlantic that the Swordfish excelled, operating from escort carriers and MACs day and night, in foul weather and fair, year after long year...
"...I did a lot of thinking before placing the obsolete Swordfish biplane before the more modern Avenger monoplane. Analysis of the facts shows that the Swordfish, in action well before the Avenger, obtained better torpedo results, and suffered fewer losses."
- Duels in the Sky - World War II Naval Aircraft in Combat, by Capt. Eric Brown
davebender
1st Lieutenant
IMO that hardly qualifies as a mass production aircraft. If not for Devastator participation in the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway it would be no more then a footnote in aviation history. Like the Me-109T which was produced in even smaller numbers and never fought a battle from an aircraft carrier flight deck.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
How many tons of shipping were sunk by aerial mines? I'm under the impression that's what finally crippled the Japanese economy during 1945.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Eric Brown's comparison of the Swordfish versus the TBF or Kate is baloney just like much of his writing comparing combat aircraft. If the Swordfish had equipped the American VT squadrons at Midway and Coral Sea with the American torpedoes, they would probably been even less successful than they were. The Swordfish could not even get into the battle compared to the Kate and the Avenger because of its low speed and lack of range. It was a disgrace that the RN, with it's tradition and experience, sent it's CVs to sea with the British designed shipboard AC that they had. And it is a tribute to the RN personnel that they accomplished what they did with such shoddy equipment.
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
I think I'll go with the Breda 88, as the Zubr looks like the love child of a Blenheim, an undersized Martin B-10 and someones 'homebrew'. - but it does seem more flyable via its wing area twin engines than the little(r) Breda looks like it should but seemingly didn't without struggle.
I can imagine some pilots ficticuosly saying later..
"This isa good aeroplane. It can go afast for its engine, it can carry some bombies too, it can carry enough fuel for me to see your wife, but it can only do two if its not warm weather, if you wanta do three thngs, well then..."
I can imagine some pilots ficticuosly saying later..
"This isa good aeroplane. It can go afast for its engine, it can carry some bombies too, it can carry enough fuel for me to see your wife, but it can only do two if its not warm weather, if you wanta do three thngs, well then..."
Last edited:
