Worst Aircraft of of WWII

mmarsh

mmarsh

Active member
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.
 
Fox said:
I can't say which WW2 plane is the most worst. Maybe Zero? It has no protection for the fuel tank.
Click to expand...

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 They were withdrawn by the summer of 1942.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?
 
bulldogg said:
ME-262. Flew like a bat out of hell but had no range and EXTREMELY limited flight time... wtf, over?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fox said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doppleganger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
perseus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Whole heartedly concur, it was grave oversight for me to omit the 163.
 
I'm going to disagree.

Remember that the primary role of both the 262 and 163 was bomber interception. The short flight duration was made up by simply moving the airstrips close to the targets they were defending. They were never intended as long range aircraft. Although both were dangerous to operate for beginners they were deadly in the right hands. The 163 saw very limited combat so its hard to accurately gauge.

I also disagree with the Zero. It was superior to anything the allies had until 1943. Before that it could out-turn, out-run, out-climb, and out shoot anything the allies had. Its range was also superior. The only tactic a Allied pilot had against a Zero (on a 1 to 1 basis) on its 6 was to out-dive it.

Its lack of a self-sealed fuel tank was eliminated in the A6M5.

All bombers are vulnerable to fighters, even the super-heavy B-29 needed protection. The Stuka was probably the best pure Dive Bomber of the War, maybe tied with the Aiichi D3A1 "Val".

I'll agree with both the Blackburn Skua and Roc although both the Brewster Buffalo and P-39 were actually very effective in non-US hands.

The Brewster (known as the B-239 by the Finns) was very popular during the 1939-1940 Continuation War and the 37mm cannon of the P-39 made mincemeat of the Panzers during the Russian Front. While the Finns eventually replaced the B-239 with Me109Gs the Russians kept ordering the P-39 even when the IL-2 was in full production.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I saw a 163 in person once, and my first take of it was "Wow, that's small." It's no more than four feet high. i can't imagine being packed into it and then launched at 600 miles per hour. it would be like a soap box derby car with a Formula 1 engine in it.

Kaboom?

EDIT:
mmarsh, I meant the P-39 in its US fighter role. It was quite successful (along with the superior P-63) in russia as a ground attack plane. As a fighter though, it was dreadful.
 
Last edited:
How about the Bell P-59 that thing was a dog when compared to jet aircraft of WW2 hell it wasn't even up to standard of the conventional aircraft it was going to go up against.
 
I would disqualify it because it never saw service. But yes, it was quite dreadful.

How about the Gloster Gladiator? A biplane built about the same time as the Spitfire? How behind the times is that?

Or maybe the PZL P.23?
 
The Other Guy said:
I would disqualify it because it never saw service. But yes, it was quite dreadful.

How about the Gloster Gladiator? A biplane built about the same time as the Spitfire? How behind the times is that?
Click to expand...


The Gladiator divisions in Finland did a very very good job against the Ruskies during the winter war.

Sure if you stack it up against early model spitfires it would look like someones **** up.
But then again, so would most fighters of that time.
The exceptions being the Me 109, and the Hurricane.
Only later on in the war did for example america get fighters that could contend and in some cases dominate the skies ie: The P-51 Mustang for example.


And I have to disagree with bd also.
The Me 262 was an exceptional fighter for it´s time.
As mmarsh stated it was intended as a bomber interceptor and to do recon in heavily fortified areas.
The Me 262 performed well in both these enviroments.
It did however didn´t perform as good in the "Blitzbomber" role that Mr Hitler imposed upon the Me 262 squadrons.

The recon missions was not as long as the allies had landed on european soil by then, that negated the problems it had with range.

In the interceptor role it was vastly superior to any aircraft of that same time period.

It did however have a problem during the landing sequence as it had to throttle back and make a long smooth uninterupted approach.
The allies realized this and started to take them out during this landing sequence.
More Me 262,s were lost to roaming Tempest and Mustangs over their own airfields then in dogfights.

Had the numbers of Me 262,s produced been greater the americans would have had to abandon daylight raids IMO.

Not that it had effected the outcome of the war in any significant way..


For worst aircraft I´d have to nominate the Me 163.

"I won´t ask one of my pilots to fly in this butterbox"
Adolf Galland


//KJ.
 
Last edited:
The Fairy Battle was a one engine bomber with a crew of three, a whole squadron of them was lost while trying to stem the German advance in France in 1940. There was another Bomber the Bombay two engine with fixed undercarriage, then there was the Whitley bomber and they lost so many it was turned over to the Army for parachute work. After war we got the Blackburn Beverly which was a transport plane, which was little more that a big box with wings. The plane was produced in the mid 1950's with a fixed undercarriage and when it had a full load it only had a range of 200 miles.
 
Last edited:
I'm adding the Amiot 143.

Amiot_143.jpg

Who on earth would be afraid of this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top