There have been countless threads of the 'best' aircraft of WWII how about the worst. Badly thought out, badly designed, badly deployed can be of any type.


My 1st Choice

Boulton-Paul Defiant MK.I

Slow, manuevers like a Bus in mud, couldn't take much damage, had no forward firing armament. Even The turret which was weakly armed with 4x .303 machine guns couldn't fully rotate itself leaving various spots it couldn't protect. Not that it mattered as the guns on the ME109 had twice the range, meaning the Defiant could be attacked without risk.

Its first and last action in the BOB resulted in 2 squadrons being obliterated
in a single day. The few left were regulated to training duties afterward.

A flying coffin.

Any have another offering?

Ehh....I can't say that Defiant is the worst aircraft of WW2. It done better during the night.

I can't say which WW2 plane is the most worst. Maybe Zero? It has no protection for the fuel tank. Stukas? It was the flying coffin during Battle of Britain. Spitfires and Hurricanes shot them down easily whenever Stukas flying over South England.

Originally Posted by Fox

I can't say which WW2 plane is the most worst. Maybe Zero? It has no protection for the fuel tank.

Interesting, since Geoffrey Regan mentions the Zero in his book of military blunders. However, it is only to mention its prey the Brewster Buffalo "a combat aircraft of quite appalling inadequacy". They were withdrawn by the summer of 1942. he refers to the Zero as one of the best combat aircraft ever designed. I suppose its performance was down to its lightweight structure, so it could only be used against aircraft of lesser performance.

The Messerschmidt Gigant glider designed for operation Sealion, might be another contender. This monster had to be towed by two he-111 bombers bolted together, no wonder why the Luftwaffe required air superiority!

The Fairey Battle was another poor aircraft, although the Russians used the similar looking Il'yushin IL-2 which was armoured, built in larger numbers than any other single type of aircraft and formed the backbone of the Soviet air force for much of the war.

the Defiant was bad, but while we're at it, let's not forget the Blackburn Skua and Roc. At least the Defiant was nice to look at.

Fairey Battle was dreadful.

Brewster Buffalo, P-35, Anything Italian (exceptions: G55, MC202, MC205 RE2005) Bell P-39 fighter variant, Bachem 349 as well.

I'll have more later.

PS: I think there was a thread similar to this one, but it's been years. It's probably gone now.

I will nominate the Blackburn Botha B-26 it was very underpowered and from what I have read more of them fell out of the air of their own accord than were knocked down by the enemy.

Yeah, Blackburn Botha B-26 is also early retired in September 1944.

Zero would be a good plane in early World War 2 until Americans found out their weakness is an unprotection fuel tank.

ME-262. Flew like a bat out of hell but had no range and EXTREMELY limited flight time... wtf, over?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

ME-262. Flew like a bat out of hell but had no range and EXTREMELY limited flight time... wtf, over?

On these grounds the ME 163 would be a strong contender with a duration of 8 minuites and a speed of over 600mph. These had to glide back to earth and so were easy prey in this situation. They also used the same fuel as the V1 so it was in short supply. Hydrazine Hydrate & Methanol was mixed with hydrogen peroxide as an oxidant, these explode spontaneously on combustion, not nice if you get shot up either. The ME 163 and ME 262 were highly innovative though, but they had not rbeen refined as war weapons.

Originally Posted by Fox

I can't say which WW2 plane is the most worst. Maybe Zero? It has no protection for the fuel tank. Stukas? It was the flying coffin during Battle of Britain. Spitfires and Hurricanes shot them down easily whenever Stukas flying over South England.

I can't agree with the Stuka being a candidate. If used in its proper role with adequate fighter cover it was a devastating early war weapon, the A-10 Warthog of its day. Of course, without fighter cover or used in missions other than what they were designed for it was just waiting to be shot down.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I can't agree with the Stuka being a candidate. If used in its proper role with adequate fighter cover it was a devastating early war weapon, the A-10 Warthog of its day. Of course, without fighter cover or used in missions other than what they were designed for it was just waiting to be shot down.

Have to agree, used in the role it was designed for and with its intended support it was a very effective aircraft it even managed to fill the role of a tank buster late in the war very well.