PDA

View Full Version : What were the worst planes of WW2



ak474me
04-05-2006, 11:12 AM
I was wondering what people thought were the worst planes of WW2. my own thoughts tend to be on the fighter Briton Paul Defiant with its only machine guns in the back turret or perhaps the Breda 88 which basically used as ground decoys because it could realy never reach its bomber targets. Although i think it looks good but its performance was truly bad.

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-05-2006, 11:14 AM
Fairey battle.

Boandlgramer
04-05-2006, 11:38 AM
The Fairley Battle was for sure NOT the worst aircraft of WW 2.
the planes went out to combatmissions many times without escorts ( battle of france).
and they had some impossible task to do.
i am not sure which was the worst AC but to 100% not the Fairley.

Rammjaeger
04-05-2006, 11:46 AM
There are many candidates for sure...

Polikarpov I-5 (it saw action in 1941), I-15
Yak-2 light bomber
TB-3
early LaGG-3
late Zero variants (compared to other fighters at that day)
early Me-210
Me-163
Ki-115 Tsurugi

Bremspropeller
04-05-2006, 11:47 AM
Pee-51Dweeb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-05-2006, 11:48 AM
Maybe not the worst, but in my book it certainly makes the list.

Then again, it's my list. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

mortoma
04-05-2006, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
There are many candidates for sure...

Polikarpov I-5 (it saw action in 1941), I-15
Yak-2 light bomber
TB-3
early LaGG-3
late Zero variants (compared to other fighters at that day)
early Me-210
Me-163
Ki-115 Tsurugi Early LaGG?? Not the in game one surely, maybe the real life one was.
Even with the new weight adjustment Oleg gave it, it's still very good against 109s and early 190s!! As a matter of fact, I can't tell it's any heavier at all, not even when I try to climb in it. The in game LaGG is semi-uber, be sure.

Megile_
04-05-2006, 12:00 PM
Spitfire XIV

Rammjaeger
04-05-2006, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
There are many candidates for sure...

Polikarpov I-5 (it saw action in 1941), I-15
Yak-2 light bomber
TB-3
early LaGG-3
late Zero variants (compared to other fighters at that day)
early Me-210
Me-163
Ki-115 Tsurugi Early LaGG?? Not the in game one surely, maybe the real life one was.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. The engine was grossly insufficient for a plane of that weight.

Treetop64
04-05-2006, 12:17 PM
The worst that actually saw service is probably the Me210.

The Me410 made up for a lot of the deficiencies in the 210, and was more successful.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
04-05-2006, 12:32 PM
This is my list:
-Mig3(it wasnt designed for eastern front)
-I16(were still flying until '43!)
-Lagg(who made that ****?)
-P11C (I had to say that, even if if im from Poland)
-BF110(any other plane could take mission that BF110 were doing)
-Komet,Salamander(total waste of resources)
-All Yaks T version with that 37mm cannon

tigertalon
04-05-2006, 01:09 PM
Question should go:"which aircraft was in your opinion the worst for its job but still got produced massively?"

In this case late zeros all the way.

ak474me
04-05-2006, 02:01 PM
I am going to have to go look again through my WW2 books and look for more lousy airplanes. It does not matter to me if they do not appear in the game i just want to get some opinions on this matter. The P-11c was a good plane for its time although outclassed by WW2. However Poland was the 1st country with an all mononplane fighter force in the very early 30's

tigertalon
04-05-2006, 02:28 PM
The P-11c was a good plane for its time although outclassed by WW2. However Poland was the 1st country with an all mononplane fighter force in the very early 30's

When introduced P11 was most likely the best fighter on the world.

fordfan25
04-05-2006, 02:31 PM
well to hear the n00bs on this forum and if you only exp is playing this game id say anything USA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

GR142_Astro
04-05-2006, 02:38 PM
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_005/Heinkel%20He%2011H-6%20Zwilling.jpg

telsono
04-05-2006, 02:38 PM
My list for the worse would be:

1) Breda 88, as per mentioned earlier
2) Fairy Battle, too much airplane for that motor
3) Boulton Paul Defiant, wrong concept and grossly underpowered
4) B-18, The C-47 was great, but it couldn't be made into a bomber.

I wouldn't add aircraft like the TB-3, P.11 or Wildebeest that were designed for the situation 5 to 10 years earlier, but were dragged in as they were all that were available.

dazza9806482
04-05-2006, 03:08 PM
HE-177

Eric Brown didnae like it

Blood_Splat
04-05-2006, 03:10 PM
Anyone you had to bail out of.

ImpStarDuece
04-05-2006, 04:11 PM
Breda Ba. 88

Such a poor performer that its most valuable wartime service was to sit on Italian airfields as target dummies for British Bombers and fighters. Some new production batches went straight to the scrap yards, engineless.

Fairey Battle

Performed right to specifications. Only problem was that the specification was obsolete before it was written. The idea of a single engine strategic light bomber was never something that should of got off the ground. Should of been replaced by the Hawker Henley light/dive bomber in 1939, which had a smaller bombload, but was some 60mph faster and far more manouverable.

Me-210

Messerschmitts chief test pilot Fritz Wendel said that the 210 had "all of the least desirable attributes an aeroplane could posses". The 410 showed that the basic design had potential, but they had to change almost everything to get it right.

Potez 63 serise

Underpowered, overweight and underarmed. A French version of the Blenheim, developed from a night figher, it was the first Allied aircraft shot down in Western Europe and was lost in larger numbers than any other French aircraft. Any glimmer of performance was snuffed by fitting 700hp enines instead of the proposed 900-950 hp Ghnome-Rhone 14N 14 cylinder radials.

JG53Frankyboy
04-05-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
This is my list:
-Mig3(it wasnt designed for eastern front)
-I16(were still flying until '43!)
-Lagg(who made that ****?)
-P11C (I had to say that, even if if im from Poland)
-BF110(any other plane could take mission that BF110 were doing)
-Komet,Salamander(total waste of resources)
-All Yaks T version with that 37mm cannon

actually the Yak-9T was a very succsefull and much build (over 2000) variant . it gave the Fw190A something to think about when they went in a Headon with these Yaks !

Daiichidoku
04-05-2006, 11:01 PM
FAA skua

CaptainGelo
04-06-2006, 12:58 AM
all early US planes (exept for cobras)

The-Pizza-Man
04-06-2006, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by oleg86:
all early US planes (exept for cobras)

There was nothing wrong with Tomohawks and Kittyhawks. They did well in North Africa and the Pacific.

polak5
04-06-2006, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Breda Ba. 88

Such a poor performer that its most valuable wartime service was to sit on Italian airfields as target dummies for British Bombers and fighters. Some new production batches went straight to the scrap yards, engineless.


The breda was not really a bad airplane in itself. The first tests high promising numbers, the problem came afterard. When they installed all the millitary gear, the plane was not to par.

Guess those silly engineers forgot about that little detail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

HotelBushranger
04-06-2006, 04:00 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'd say I have to agree with Daiichidoku, the Skua was a pile of poop. And the Helldiver.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
04-06-2006, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
This is my list:
-Mig3(it wasnt designed for eastern front)
-I16(were still flying until '43!)
-Lagg(who made that ****?)
-P11C (I had to say that, even if if im from Poland)
-BF110(any other plane could take mission that BF110 were doing)
-Komet,Salamander(total waste of resources)
-All Yaks T version with that 37mm cannon

actually the Yak-9T was a very succsefull and much build (over 2000) variant . it gave the Fw190A something to think about when they went in a Headon with these Yaks ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not talking about ingame Yak's T, but rl. I guess u dont know how they behaved in rl. After few shoots it was so shaking, that it could damage ur airframe. Production of Yaks, was very poor, these cannons werent precise, it was hard to hit a tank, and there were only few rounds of ammo. Lets say that they were useless. Russian were producing every aircraft in great numbers, so 2000 wasnt really muchhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
04-06-2006, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'd say I have to agree with Daiichidoku, the Skua was a pile of poop. And the Helldiver.

What about the Roc?

HotelBushranger
04-06-2006, 04:38 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
04-06-2006, 04:38 AM
well, Gordon&Khazanov in their "Soviet Combat Aircraft" are saying different things about the Yak-9T . but its as always, different sources are claiming different things.

JG52Karaya-X
04-06-2006, 05:30 AM
My list of worst planes:

- A6M Zero late5 (b, c) and 7 series; completely outclassed in '44
- Ju87G; heavy, slow, weak defensive armament, I have a lot of respect for Hans Ulrich Rudel who flew that brick for a long time in 43/44
- I153 Tchaika; funny sports plane but definitely not a fighter and completely obsolete back in '39
- MiG3; fast high alt plane for '41 but not really useful for the Eastern Front, structurally weak and underarmed, also had big troubles with its engine (oil loss, etc.)
- Bf110G4; simply a patchwork nightfighter that was built out of sheer lack of dedicated designs to take on the job
- TB3; good payload and handling but veeery slooow and clumsy, makes for good target practice for enemy fighter pilots though
- Me210; the LW had great hopes in this one but was utterly disappointed, one nightmare of a handling and even worse performance wise than the Bf110G2; its successor the Me410 turned out to be a great plane however
- Me163B; phenomenal performance but at the price of extreme risk for the pilot, very small endurance and tiny range, needed an expert at the controls and wasnt at all successful in its assigned task

panther3485
04-06-2006, 05:54 AM
Blackburn Roc
[and others of its ilk!]

panther3485

Beaufort-RAF
04-06-2006, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:

Vultee Vengeance

panther3485

The Vengeance was a good aircraft, not even on the radar for worst of WW2.

For various reasons it had an unfortunate relationship with the USAAF, but was used successfully by the RAF & IAF over Burma and the Aussies (albeit somewhat briefly) in the SWP.

panther3485
04-06-2006, 09:17 AM
Hi, Beaufort-RAF

Quote 1:
"The Vengeance was a good aircraft, not even on the radar for worst of WW2.
For various reasons it had an unfortunate relationship with the USAAF, but was used successfully by the RAF & IAF over Burma and the Aussies (albeit somewhat briefly) in the SWP."


Quote 2:
"Described by one USAAF General in 1943 as "a shining example of the waste of material, manpower and time", the Vengeance - as can perhaps be gathered - had an indifferent combat career despite being built in quite large numbers....
The bulk of production was for the RAF but despite developing a generally poor reputation in Europe enjoyed some brief success with four squadrons in Burma. The RAF ordered 700 Vultee V-72s in 1940 as the Vengeance and the prototype first flew in July 1941. Supplied under Lend-Lease, deliveries to the RAF began in late 1942....
US designations were A-31 (covering the RAF's Mks I, IA, II and III); A-35A (for the USAAF) and A-35B (Mk. IV).
Total RAF procurement was 1562 of which Australia received 342 in 1942-44, five RAAF squadrons operating them in New Guinea until their basic unsuitability was realized. After that they were used for communications and target tug duties, a fate which also befell most British aircraft.
The USAAF received 99 A-35As and 243 of the 300 Vengeance IIs were diverted from the British order and operated by the USAAF under the manufacturer's designation V-72. Almost all the US aircraft also found themselves operating as target tugs."


That second quote was from 'Aircraft of WWII' by Stewart Wilson, Aerospace Publications.

I might add that I personally know a number of WW2 Australian veterans. None of them has much in the way of a good word to say for the Vengeance.

OK, not the outright worst plane of WW2 perhaps, but clearly towards the bottom of the heap!

And as for whether or not it was 'one of the worst' or 'not even on the radar for worst', with respect I suggest that opinion might play some part in this! Each of us is entitled to his own, right?


Best regards,
panther3485

dadada1
04-06-2006, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'd say I have to agree with Daiichidoku, the Skua was a pile of poop. And the Helldiver.

What about the Roc? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would go further and say just about anything produced by Blackburn, it poses questions such as: How on earth did they manage to get contracts? Who in the hell test flew the designs then gave them a clean bill of health? Who was the person responsible for penning such hideously ugly aircraft?

panther3485
04-06-2006, 09:43 AM
I think every nation built some ugly planes but if we're gonna start talking about 'hideously ugly' aircraft, let's check out a few of the French classics!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Over to you!

panther3485

Buzzsaw-
04-06-2006, 09:56 AM
Salute

If you base your assessment strictly on combat losses as a percentage of sorties flown, then the early Soviet aircraft are undoubtably the worst with a very high percentage lost per sortie.

Even the IL-2 looks pretty awful when you look at its loss to sortie ratio.

P.S. The He-177 was a horrible plane, with huge technical glitches, it sucked up very large amounts of desperately needed German resources, and never provided any payoff in missions accomplished.

whiteladder
04-06-2006, 10:09 AM
I would go further and say just about anything produced by Blackburn, it poses questions such as: How on earth did they manage to get contracts? Who in the hell test flew the designs then gave them a clean bill of health? Who was the person responsible for penning such hideously ugly aircraft?


What should be remembered is that all Blackburn were doing is designing to a specification supplied to them by the Admiralty. The Skua was designed as a Dive bomber with a secondary role as a fighter. It was predominately used as a fighter and a divebomber secondary.

Beaufort-RAF
04-06-2006, 12:27 PM
Hi, Beaufort-RAF

Quote 1:
"The Vengeance was a good aircraft, not even on the radar for worst of WW2.
For various reasons it had an unfortunate relationship with the USAAF, but was used successfully by the RAF & IAF over Burma and the Aussies (albeit somewhat briefly) in the SWP."


Quote 2:
"Described by one USAAF General in 1943 as "a shining example of the waste of material, manpower and time", the Vengeance - as can perhaps be gathered - had an indifferent combat career despite being built in quite large numbers....
The bulk of production was for the RAF but despite developing a generally poor reputation in Europe enjoyed some brief success with four squadrons in Burma. The RAF ordered 700 Vultee V-72s in 1940 as the Vengeance and the prototype first flew in July 1941. Supplied under Lend-Lease, deliveries to the RAF began in late 1942....
US designations were A-31 (covering the RAF's Mks I, IA, II and III); A-35A (for the USAAF) and A-35B (Mk. IV).
Total RAF procurement was 1562 of which Australia received 342 in 1942-44, five RAAF squadrons operating them in New Guinea until their basic unsuitability was realized. After that they were used for communications and target tug duties, a fate which also befell most British aircraft.
The USAAF received 99 A-35As and 243 of the 300 Vengeance IIs were diverted from the British order and operated by the USAAF under the manufacturer's designation V-72. Almost all the US aircraft also found themselves operating as target tugs."


That second quote was from 'Aircraft of WWII' by Stewart Wilson, Aerospace Publications.


That's rather what the reputation of the Vegeance has suffered from, ill-formed comments in 'aircraft profiles'.


I might add that I personally know a number of WW2 Australian veterans. None of them has much in the way of a good word to say for the Vengeance.


That depends on what, where & when though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Which Mk they flew, which unit, what role etc.

The Aussies that acually flew sorties against the Japanese did so successfully and with with few losses.


OK, not the outright worst plane of WW2 perhaps, but clearly towards the bottom of the heap!

No. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Slickun
04-06-2006, 01:52 PM
SB2C. The Helldiver.

Supposed to "replace" the SBD Dauntless late in the war, but in reality probably was not an improvement.

POS. SBD was named "slow but deadly". SB2C was the son of a *****, second class.

raisen
04-06-2006, 10:07 PM
What about the poor doomed souls that had to fly the early war USN tropedo bomber.... Vindicator I think. Barge like manouverability, lousy climb, lousy dive, minimal armour, no self seal, no worthwhile armament - other than its single torpedo, and early war the fuse in that torpedo is likely to be useless. Can't run, can't fight.

All in all, even if getting to the point where you can use the torpedo didn't get you killed, the torpedo would likely be less use than lobbing hand grenades over the side.... And then you have to swag it back home somehow.

Again I think that the Vindicator would have been a success if it had been used for its intended purpose prior to the arrival of machines like the A6M. In any event it rapidly came to be seen that torpedo bombing commits the aircraft to long slow approach to target with limited evasion opportunities, things that don't improve markedly once the fish has been dumped. Quite simply, dive bombers were much more survivable.

As an aside, didn't some of those two man turreted fighters finally make the grade as early RAF night fighters in GC intercept situations.

Raisen

CaptainGelo
04-07-2006, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
This is my list:
-Mig3(it wasnt designed for eastern front)
-I16(were still flying until '43!)
-Lagg(who made that ****?)
-P11C (I had to say that, even if if im from Poland)
-BF110(any other plane could take mission that BF110 were doing)
-Komet,Salamander(total waste of resources)
-All Yaks T version with that 37mm cannon

actually the Yak-9T was a very succsefull and much build (over 2000) variant . it gave the Fw190A something to think about when they went in a Headon with these Yaks ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not talking about ingame Yak's T, but rl. I guess u dont know how they behaved in rl. After few shoots it was so shaking, that it could damage ur airframe. Production of Yaks, was very poor, these cannons werent precise, it was hard to hit a tank, and there were only few rounds of ammo. Lets say that they were useless. Russian were producing every aircraft in great numbers, so 2000 wasnt really muchhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its pritty obiouse that you have no idea what you talking about

CaptainGelo
04-07-2006, 12:23 AM
btw, that torpedo planes, that damaged bishmak, fish..something? got to be one of the worst planes...suesidal

joeap
04-07-2006, 03:28 AM
Swordfish.

WOLFMondo
04-07-2006, 04:10 AM
Swordfish? Bah! Go educate yourself. :P The Swordfish was so good German ship guns couldn't track it, admittedly because it was so slow but thats clearly a good thing for the Swordfish.

panther3485
04-07-2006, 04:11 AM
Hello again, Beaufort-RAF

Quote:
"quote:
Hi, Beaufort-RAF

Quote 1:
"The Vengeance was a good aircraft, not even on the radar for worst of WW2.
For various reasons it had an unfortunate relationship with the USAAF, but was used successfully by the RAF & IAF over Burma and the Aussies (albeit somewhat briefly) in the SWP."


Quote 2:
"Described by one USAAF General in 1943 as "a shining example of the waste of material, manpower and time", the Vengeance - as can perhaps be gathered - had an indifferent combat career despite being built in quite large numbers....
The bulk of production was for the RAF but despite developing a generally poor reputation in Europe enjoyed some brief success with four squadrons in Burma. The RAF ordered 700 Vultee V-72s in 1940 as the Vengeance and the prototype first flew in July 1941. Supplied under Lend-Lease, deliveries to the RAF began in late 1942....
US designations were A-31 (covering the RAF's Mks I, IA, II and III); A-35A (for the USAAF) and A-35B (Mk. IV).
Total RAF procurement was 1562 of which Australia received 342 in 1942-44, five RAAF squadrons operating them in New Guinea until their basic unsuitability was realized. After that they were used for communications and target tug duties, a fate which also befell most British aircraft.
The USAAF received 99 A-35As and 243 of the 300 Vengeance IIs were diverted from the British order and operated by the USAAF under the manufacturer's designation V-72. Almost all the US aircraft also found themselves operating as target tugs."


That second quote was from 'Aircraft of WWII' by Stewart Wilson, Aerospace Publications.



That's rather what the reputation of the Vegeance has suffered from, ill-formed comments in 'aircraft profiles'.


quote:
I might add that I personally know a number of WW2 Australian veterans. None of them has much in the way of a good word to say for the Vengeance.



That depends on what, where & when though.

Which Mk they flew, which unit, what role etc.

The Aussies that acually flew sorties against the Japanese did so successfully and with with few losses.


quote:
OK, not the outright worst plane of WW2 perhaps, but clearly towards the bottom of the heap!


No."


As far as I'm concerned so far, unless you can substantiate what you're saying from proper authoritative sources, Stewart Wilson and Aerospace Publications are not "ill-formed comments in 'aircraft profiles'" At least I quoted a proper source from a reputable publisher! Of course, I'm not saying that any author or publisher is perfect (which is why I try to cross-reference whenever I can).

Quote:
"No"

So, if you've got better information from better sources, then why don't you quote that, instead of just pontificating down to us all from an ivory tower? Or are we expected to change our minds on your say-so alone?

The Australian veterans I've spoken to all served in and around New Guinea, the region where the Vengeance saw most, if not all, of its RAAF combat action. [Five different squadrons but all in the same general region AFAIK]. If they tell me they didn't particulary like the plane compared to other types they used, I'm strongly inclined to believe them, regardless of whether their sorties were more or less successful.

I have what I believe are good reasons to respect my two primary sources - Aerospace Publications and the words of some veterans I've spoken to. Sorry, but so far you've given me no substantial reason why I should believe you over them .

Having said all the above, once again I invite you to put up verifiable and reputable sources to support your position. Unless and until you can, I have no reason to revise my current opinion of this aircraft type.

If you do put up good sources, I will happily re-consider my stance on the Vultee Vengeance.


Ball in your court.


Best regards,
panther3485

Beaufort-RAF
04-07-2006, 04:39 AM
I have what I believe are good reasons to respect my two primary sources - Aerospace Publications and the words of some veterans I've spoken to. Sorry, but so far you've given me no substantial reason why I should believe you over them .

Having said all the above, once again I invite you to put up verifiable and reputable sources to support your position. Unless and until you can, I have no reason to revise my current opinion of this aircraft type.

If you do put up good sources, I will happily re-consider my stance on the Vultee Vengeance.

Ball in your court.

Best regards,
panther3485

Source. (http://www.dive-bombers.co.uk/Vengeance.htm)

It's a good book, well worth picking up a copy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
04-07-2006, 05:25 AM
Thanks, Beaufort-RAF

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

That's more like it - just the sort of thing I was angling after!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Apologies if I sounded rather strident before but in a situation like this, I do like to see reference to sources, if possible . I guess I also find it a tad annoying if, when I quote from a source, another correspondent nay-says what I posted without providing any sources of their own.

Thank you for posting that link. The book does indeed appear to provide a distinctly different and refreshingly new perspective on an aircraft I'd always thought was a bit of a dog. [The fact that this view was shared/supported by some veterans of the New Guinea campaign only served to confirm, in my mind, what I'd already been reading.]

I intend to get my hands on a copy of this book if I can and I'm sure it'll make an interesting and informative read.

So for now and thanks to you, until I've read it, my mind is re-opened on the question of the Vultee Vengeance!
(So the Blackburn Roc and others of it's ilk will have to do for my original post, for now! -- Vultee Vengeance to be removed by edit!)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Thanks once again for 'coming to the party' on this! You now have my respect (not that you'd give a toss, in all probability, but you've got it anyway.)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

dadada1
04-07-2006, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

If you base your assessment strictly on combat losses as a percentage of sorties flown, then the early Soviet aircraft are undoubtably the worst with a very high percentage lost per sortie.

Even the IL-2 looks pretty awful when you look at its loss to sortie ratio.

P.S. The He-177 was a horrible plane, with huge technical glitches, it sucked up very large amounts of desperately needed German resources, and never provided any payoff in missions accomplished.

Combat losses is not a sound way of assessing an aircrafts performance during WW2. Poor pilot training and lack of experience would be a significant factor in those losses rather the aircraft.

Beaufort-RAF
04-07-2006, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:

Apologies if I sounded rather strident before but in a situation like this, I do like to see reference to sources, if possible . I guess I also find it a tad annoying if, when I quote from a source, another correspondent nay-says what I posted without providing any sources of their own.

Thank you for posting that link. The book does indeed appear to provide a distinctly different and refreshingly new perspective on an aircraft I'd always thought was a bit of a dog. [The fact that this view was shared/supported by some veterans of the New Guinea campaign only served to confirm, in my mind, what I'd already been reading.]

I intend to get my hands on a copy of this book if I can and I'm sure it'll make an interesting and informative read.

Best regards,
panther3485

I should have just recommended the book in the first place, I knew little about the Vengeance before reading it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If you do get the book you'll see the various reasons for which it was never going to become a major allied type.

The author is a big believer in dive bombers (see the other other tiltes in the link) & I did think he went a bit far with some of his views but he corrects the unfair coverage the Vengeance has recieved over the years.

panther3485
04-07-2006, 09:54 AM
No worries, Beaufort

Thanks again

panther3485

LilHorse
04-07-2006, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
My list of worst planes:
- Ju87G; heavy, slow, weak defensive armament, I have a lot of respect for Hans Ulrich Rudel who flew that brick for a long time in 43/44


It's operational record would prove it to be one of the most effective ground attack planes of the war. H.U.R. wasn't the only pilot to have great success with it.

It's a popular misconception that the Stuka was "obsolete" by the start of the war. It got that rep mainly because Goering terribly mis-used it during the BoB. People say: "Well, it couldn't fight off Spits and Hurris." Not much that wasn't a fighter could. I always liken that to saying that the A-10 is obsolete because it can't fight off MiG-29s or Su-27s. Nobody would say that if they understand the role of the Warthog.

Like an A-10 it was best used while the LW had air superiority. And in the operational/tactical role. Not the tactical/strategic role that Goering attempted to press it into. And even when the skies were being handily contested they were still very effective in the East and Med/N. Africa.

I believe they still rank as the highest scoring a/c type in destroying armor.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
04-07-2006, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by oleg86:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
This is my list:
-Mig3(it wasnt designed for eastern front)
-I16(were still flying until '43!)
-Lagg(who made that ****?)
-P11C (I had to say that, even if if im from Poland)
-BF110(any other plane could take mission that BF110 were doing)
-Komet,Salamander(total waste of resources)
-All Yaks T version with that 37mm cannon

actually the Yak-9T was a very succsefull and much build (over 2000) variant . it gave the Fw190A something to think about when they went in a Headon with these Yaks ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im not talking about ingame Yak's T, but rl. I guess u dont know how they behaved in rl. After few shoots it was so shaking, that it could damage ur airframe. Production of Yaks, was very poor, these cannons werent precise, it was hard to hit a tank, and there were only few rounds of ammo. Lets say that they were useless. Russian were producing every aircraft in great numbers, so 2000 wasnt really muchhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its pritty obiouse that you have no idea what you talking about </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
BE SURE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
And please stop watching this propaganda movieshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

EPP_Gibbs
04-07-2006, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Swordfish.

Swordfish? A plane so bad that 815 SQN RNAS used them to cripple the Italian fleet in Taranto Harbour for the loss of only two?

Strange usage of the word 'worst' I wasn't previously aware of... their pilots certainly didn't think so either.

joeap
04-08-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by EPP_Gibbs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Swordfish.

Swordfish? A plane so bad that 815 SQN RNAS used them to cripple the Italian fleet in Taranto Harbour for the loss of only two?

Strange usage of the word 'worst' I wasn't previously aware of... their pilots certainly didn't think so either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not say they were the worst, you did not read the thread above when this "oleg86" forgot the name of the plane.

Heck they still hunted u-boats after the left the front line as strike planes and were even fitted with radar to find em.

VF-17_Jolly
04-08-2006, 04:04 PM
The Fairey Albacore was pretty dreadfull, it was design to replace the Swordfish but was obsolete before it left the factory. it was so bad in service that they replaced it with the Swordfish again until the Tarpon/Avenger arrived

JSG72
04-08-2006, 04:07 PM
Mmmm.......Don't think the P-40 was all that good!
Q Smoke and flames Stats, figures, Bollocks!

MB_Avro_UK
04-08-2006, 04:22 PM
Great post dadada1,

Nice one...

''I would go further and say just about anything produced by Blackburn, it poses questions such as: How on earth did they manage to get contracts? Who in the hell test flew the designs then gave them a clean bill of health? Who was the person responsible for penning such hideously ugly aircraft?''

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

PBNA-Boosher
04-08-2006, 04:30 PM
the Skua?

JSG72
04-08-2006, 04:38 PM
Skua. Shot down the first German bomber after Britain declared War on Germany.
The ROC now that was a Different kettle of fish.
As proven by the fact that Bolton Paul Took the concept one step further with that other DUD. The Defiant.

PBNA-Boosher
04-08-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
The Defiant.

Okay, I'll agree with that!

WOLFMondo
04-08-2006, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
My list of worst planes:
- Ju87G; heavy, slow, weak defensive armament, I have a lot of respect for Hans Ulrich Rudel who flew that brick for a long time in 43/44


It's operational record would prove it to be one of the most effective ground attack planes of the war. H.U.R. wasn't the only pilot to have great success with it.

It's a popular misconception that the Stuka was "obsolete" by the start of the war. It got that rep mainly because Goering terribly mis-used it during the BoB. People say: "Well, it couldn't fight off Spits and Hurris." Not much that wasn't a fighter could. I always liken that to saying that the A-10 is obsolete because it can't fight off MiG-29s or Su-27s. Nobody would say that if they understand the role of the Warthog.

Like an A-10 it was best used while the LW had air superiority. And in the operational/tactical role. Not the tactical/strategic role that Goering attempted to press it into. And even when the skies were being handily contested they were still very effective in the East and Med/N. Africa.

I believe they still rank as the highest scoring a/c type in destroying armor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were only effective when there was no fighters attacking them, they were dead meat otherwise. Compare it to the RAF or USAAF equivilent...the Typhoon and the P47. Drastic contrast of capability.

MB_Avro_UK
04-08-2006, 05:33 PM
Hi all,

What about the RAF Bristol Blenheim? It was state of the art in 1936 and was faster than the then available RAF biplane fighters.

The death rates of Blenheim crews in 1940 at the hands of Me 109s as they attacked in daylight targets in France far exceeded those of RAF Battle of Britain fighter pilots. This is largely forgotten.

They were sent on almost suicidle daylight missions without fighter escorts.

This is a picture from my collection of a shot down Blenheim.All crew were killed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/MB_Avro/Scan10036.jpg

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Viper2005_
04-08-2006, 06:56 PM
Me-163. An accident waiting to happen, ideal for those who don't like long waits.

He-177. Perhaps best thought of as a German equivalant to the Manchester. Redevelopment with 4 engines of known reliability and performance might have turned it into a rather more useful machine...

YB-40. About the only good thing you could say about the YB-40 is that it pioneered the chin turret. Technology demonstrator yes. War machine, no.

Blottogg
04-08-2006, 11:05 PM
Leafing through Bill Yenne's "The World's Worst Aircraft" to jog my memory, I'll submit these two:

P-75 Eagle. Powered by a compound Allison V-3420 (two V-1710's side-by-side, an Achille's heel similar to that of the He-177), with the wing of a P-40, the gear from a Corsair and the tail of an SBD, it thankfully never made it past the prototype stage. The sole survivor is in the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton.

Bachem Ba-349 Natter (Adder or Viper in English). This thing made the Me-163 look OSHA compliant by comparison. Rocket powered, rocket armed, vertically launched, and recovering only the engine and pilot (by parachute, if seven consecutive miracles occurred properly), this too thankfully (for the crew and those within its blast radius) never made it all the way to operational use. A much better "Viper" would have to wait for the efforts of the good engineers at General Dynamics almost thirty years later.

WOLFMondo
04-09-2006, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:


He-177. Perhaps best thought of as a German equivalant to the Manchester. Redevelopment with 4 engines of known reliability and performance might have turned it into a rather more useful machine...

He177 looked like a great idea but had a terrible service history. I don't think its worst though, not in the same catergory as the Defiant.

major_setback
04-09-2006, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by raisen:
What about the poor doomed souls that had to fly the early war USN tropedo bomber.... Vindicator I think. Barge like manouverability, lousy climb, lousy dive, minimal armour, no self seal, no worthwhile armament - other than its single torpedo, and early war the fuse in that torpedo is likely to be useless. Can't run, can't fight.

All in all, even if getting to the point where you can use the torpedo didn't get you killed, the torpedo would likely be less use than lobbing hand grenades over the side.... And then you have to swag it back home somehow.

Again I think that the Vindicator would have been a success if it had been used for its intended purpose prior to the arrival of machines like the A6M. In any event it rapidly came to be seen that torpedo bombing commits the aircraft to long slow approach to target with limited evasion opportunities, things that don't improve markedly once the fish has been dumped. Quite simply, dive bombers were much more survivable.

As an aside, didn't some of those two man turreted fighters finally make the grade as early RAF night fighters in GC intercept situations.

Raisen

Thanks for pointing out ths plane..I hadn't heard of it.

Vindicator:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/vindicator2.jpg

ploughman
04-09-2006, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

What about the RAF Bristol Blenheim? It was state of the art in 1936 and was faster than the then available RAF biplane fighters.

The death rates of Blenheim crews in 1940 at the hands of Me 109s as they attacked in daylight targets in France far exceeded those of RAF Battle of Britain fighter pilots. This is largely forgotten.

They were sent on almost suicidle daylight missions without fighter escorts.

This is a picture from my collection of a shot down Blenheim.All crew were killed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/MB_Avro/Scan10036.jpg

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

For sure, but isn't that more of a 'stupid' mission problem? Perhaps the Blenheim can have it's own category, "The Most Stupidly Used."

Nimits
04-09-2006, 03:16 AM
What about the poor doomed souls that had to fly the early war USN tropedo bomber.... Vindicator

I'm thinking you mean the Douglass TBD-1 Devestator. The Vindicator (Vought SB2U) was a dive bomber, and its only WWII action was three missions flown by VMSB-241 at Midway. Though not particularly regarded by its crews (it was nicknamed, among other things, the "Vibrator" and the "Wind Indicator), because their relative tactical situations, the SB2U-3s actually faired better (losing 3 of 11 strikers) than same squadrons SBD-2s (8 of 15 lost).

The TBD gets alot of bad press (and deservedly so) for the debacle at Midway, yet one must keep in mind that, prior to June 4, the TBD could arguablt be considered the most successful torpedo bomber in the war in terms of planes and aircrew lost (from all causes), which through June 3 were lower than either than either the B5N or the Swordfish (not to mention the F4F and SBD). It should also be noted that the TBF-1, the first version of the what was probably the world's best and most versitile torpedo bomber, suffered 5 destroyed and 1 damaged out of 6 available. The TBD was an old aircraft, but it was the drop requirements of the Mk XIII torpedo, and the lack of fighter escort, that doomed it at Midway, not any horrendous design flaws in the plane. In fact, when it entered service in 1936, the TBD was the most modern carrier bomber in any navy. The US Navy was already planning to replace it in mid-1942. The unique circumstances of the Battle of Midway just happened to catch it at tail end of service life. The TBD wasn't a great plane by any means, but it certainly was not the worst.

No601_prangster
04-09-2006, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:


He-177. Perhaps best thought of as a German equivalant to the Manchester. Redevelopment with 4 engines of known reliability and performance might have turned it into a rather more useful machine...

He177 looked like a great idea but had a terrible service history. I don't think its worst though, not in the same catergory as the Defiant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least the Defiants engine didn't spontaneously combust in flight like the He117 and it also claimed 38 109€s shoot down in it€s first encounter with the Luftwaffe over Dunkirk.

Bremspropeller
04-09-2006, 03:32 AM
The Ju-87 had the same task as the Typhoon and the P-47 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Mondo, you gotta be joking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


The 87 was designed as a tactical dive-bomber that operates unter total aerial superriority - not as a frontline tank-buster. You'd better describe it as "artillery with wings" than anything else.
And in that role it was VERY good - which doesn't mean that it was pretty versatile, wich it actually wasn't.

It was also a psychological weapon with it's siren.


Not the best plane ? Hell, yes - but the worst ? No !

F6_Ace
04-09-2006, 03:44 AM
Might also be worth comparing the [i]accuracy[\i] of ordnance dropped from a Ju87 and Tempest/P47. I suspect the former will come out on top.

WOLFMondo
04-09-2006, 03:48 AM
Bah! Tempest wasn't a ground pounder :P try not to get the Typhoon and Tempest mixed up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The Ju-87 had the same task as the Typhoon and the P-47 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Mondo, you gotta be joking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


Apart from the initial invasion of Europe and Barbarrosa, I don't think the Luftwaffe ever had total air superiority, only in small areas for limited time. In that case the Ju87 was a pretty flawed design, using it on the defensive meant going into dangerous airspace, it required allot of fighter support and after its one dive bomb it was useless until it went out on another sortie.

Granted it is credited with allot of destruction but what would have been the outcome if all Stuka production was switched to FW190F's or a more modern ground attack platform with fighter like performance, like the western allies had?

The medium of getting there and delivering the ordanance might be different but they all attempted to get the same outcome e.g. blowing stuff up on the ground. Ultimately IMHO the Typhoon and P47 were allot better at.

HotelBushranger
04-09-2006, 03:54 AM
Might also be worth comparing the [i]accuracy[\i] of ordnance dropped from a Ju87 and Tempest/P47. I suspect the former will come out on top.

Could land an egg on a ants nest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Bremspropeller
04-09-2006, 04:04 AM
Sure, you're right, but you can't make the plane responsible for the flaws of the Luftwaffe command.
The 190F was the better overall plane and it should have been produced in numbers in '42 - but well, it wasn't - blame the OKL.

The OKL was pretty hot on dive-bombers...remember, they required every bomber to have a dive-attack capability. Needless to say, they porked a lot of planes by that decisions.

Kurfurst__
04-09-2006, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by No601_prangster:

At least the Defiants engine didn't spontaneously combust in flight like the He117 and it also claimed 38 109€s shoot down in it€s first encounter with the Luftwaffe over Dunkirk.

Claimed seems to be the keyword here... the figure is pretty close to the total 109 losses over dunkirk, so either the Defiant was terribly better than Spits and Hurris chopping up the enemy, or... As for the He 177, it had it's share of problems initially but those are far exaggrevated - at least the actual trials in Germany's Rechlin test center which I own don't show such a dire, man-eater picture. Oterwise, the He 177 was a rather advanced and high performance heavy bomber.

Bremspropeller
04-09-2006, 04:35 AM
...which was dubbed "Reichsfeuerzeug" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

(Reich-lighter)

Ruy Horta
04-09-2006, 06:13 AM
First you need to make sure we are all using the same definition.

Ruy Horta
04-09-2006, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
...which was dubbed "Reichsfeuerzeug" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

(Reich-lighter)

The Sherman tank was dubbed "The Ronson", not only for its profile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Even good designs can get a nasty nickname.

Ensign Eliminator anyone?

panther3485
04-09-2006, 06:20 AM
Hi there, Ruy Horta

Quote:
"The Sherman tank was dubbed "The Ronson", not only for its profile"

'Tommy Cooker' is another grim nickname said to have been applied to the Sherman.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Ruy Horta
04-09-2006, 07:47 AM
Had forgot about the "Tommy Cooker", that's even nastier!

Well the Sherman certainly wasn't the only tank prone to lighting up.

panther3485
04-09-2006, 07:57 AM
Hi, Ruy Horta

Quote:
"Well the Sherman certainly wasn't the only tank prone to lighting up."

No, it sure wasn't. To a greater or lesser degree depending on type and circumstance, this was an occupational hazard for tank crews in general!


Best regards,
panther3485

OldMan____
04-09-2006, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
My list of worst planes:
- Ju87G; heavy, slow, weak defensive armament, I have a lot of respect for Hans Ulrich Rudel who flew that brick for a long time in 43/44


It's operational record would prove it to be one of the most effective ground attack planes of the war. H.U.R. wasn't the only pilot to have great success with it.

It's a popular misconception that the Stuka was "obsolete" by the start of the war. It got that rep mainly because Goering terribly mis-used it during the BoB. People say: "Well, it couldn't fight off Spits and Hurris." Not much that wasn't a fighter could. I always liken that to saying that the A-10 is obsolete because it can't fight off MiG-29s or Su-27s. Nobody would say that if they understand the role of the Warthog.

Like an A-10 it was best used while the LW had air superiority. And in the operational/tactical role. Not the tactical/strategic role that Goering attempted to press it into. And even when the skies were being handily contested they were still very effective in the East and Med/N. Africa.

I believe they still rank as the highest scoring a/c type in destroying armor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were only effective when there was no fighters attacking them, they were dead meat otherwise. Compare it to the RAF or USAAF equivilent...the Typhoon and the P47. Drastic contrast of capability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P47 and Typhoon had not the precision of Stuka attacks. And they were also MUCH more expensive, and that is something you must take into account. P47 was used between the roles of tatical bomber and CAS. Stuka was pure CAS.



Also , how many battleships P47 sunk wiht single bomb? :P


At end of war stucka was outclassed. Not by P47, but by tank busting versiosn of Yak 9 (one of, if not the best anti tank plane in war) and the IL2.

luftluuver
04-09-2006, 11:07 AM
Stukas lost their dive brakes in 1943 and had to drop their bombs in the same way the P-47/Typhoon did. Btw, The Spit could dive at a 60 degree angle in the FB role.

WOLFMondo
04-09-2006, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No601_prangster:

At least the Defiants engine didn't spontaneously combust in flight like the He117 and it also claimed 38 109€s shoot down in it€s first encounter with the Luftwaffe over Dunkirk.

Claimed seems to be the keyword here... the figure is pretty close to the total 109 losses over dunkirk, so either the Defiant was terribly better than Spits and Hurris chopping up the enemy, or... As for the He 177, it had it's share of problems initially but those are far exaggrevated - at least the actual trials in Germany's Rechlin test center which I own don't show such a dire, man-eater picture. Oterwise, the He 177 was a rather advanced and high performance heavy bomber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't 6 of the 8 prototypes crash and most of the 30+ pre production models have in flight fires or crash on take off?

Nice idea, if they didn't have the dive bombing requirement and Georing allowed the 4 engine version it might have been a good plane.

WOLFMondo
04-09-2006, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:

P47 and Typhoon had not the precision of Stuka attacks. And they were also MUCH more expensive, and that is something you must take into account. P47 was used between the roles of tatical bomber and CAS. Stuka was pure CAS.



Also , how many battleships P47 sunk wiht single bomb? :P


Single bomb? The P47 had .50's. They could destory entire planets. Didn't you know the deathstar had one in starwars?

How much cheaper was the Stuka? While it might have been cheaper, it had two crew, which for Germany was expensive in a war of attrition. Not to mention it needed fighter escort, fighters that could have been used elsewhere.

Ruy Horta
04-09-2006, 11:32 AM
By 1943/44 the traditional Ju 87's role had shifted towards specialist ground attack, best illustrated by the dedicated Tank Killers.

The Fw 190F had taken its place as the mainstay ground attack a/c.

If the circumstances were right, the ol' Ju 87 could still be devastatingly effective and the specialist (Like Rudel) were constantly called upon to attack armored spearheads.

The fact that the Ju 87 remained in service for so long after the Fw 190F made its debut should be proof enough that it was a specialist a/c that continued to serve a purpose.

IMHO it is much like the A-10, extremely effective as long as it can operate under relative air superiority.

VF-17_Jolly
04-09-2006, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

P47 and Typhoon had not the precision of Stuka attacks. And they were also MUCH more expensive, and that is something you must take into account. P47 was used between the roles of tatical bomber and CAS. Stuka was pure CAS.



Also , how many battleships P47 sunk wiht single bomb? :P


Single bomb? The P47 had .50's. They could destory entire planets. Didn't you know the deathstar had one in starwars?

How much cheaper was the Stuka? While it might have been cheaper, it had two crew, which for Germany was expensive in a war of attrition. Not to mention it needed fighter escort, fighters that could have been used elsewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which begs the question if the Ju87 was designed for use as airbourne artillery and in a secure air enviroment why have gunner/observer onboard at all
The only use of the gunner in the battle of britain was to be the first one killed.
They could have got rid of him and had the same weight in armour plate

luftluuver
04-09-2006, 12:24 PM
Ju 87 production was terminated around Oct 1944.

There was only 2-300 of the G model produced.

This compares to 917 Ds in 1942 and another 1,844 in 1943. Total production was 63-6400.

This compares to ~5500 190F/Gs from Nov 42 to wars end.

Up to 1941 only 476. Production tapered off but was brought back because of the failure of the 210.

raisen
04-09-2006, 06:34 PM
>>I'm thinking you mean the Douglass TBD-1 Devestator.<< - from Nimits

Sorry, what the heck was I thinking. You're spot on. I do mean the devastator. As my post indicates, a good modern design in '39,'40, maybe '41 at the outside. Then a horrible mistake as anti-aitcraft artillery and fighter tech make a leap. I'm aware that the Avenger was designed to fill both the bomber and torpedo bomber roles, but from my reading, torpedo bombers (for use against surface vessels at least, homing ASW torpedoes gave them a second lease on life) were definitely on borrowed time after the end of about '43.

Raisen

Beaufort-RAF
04-09-2006, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
The Fairey Albacore was pretty dreadfull, it was design to replace the Swordfish but was obsolete before it left the factory. it was so bad in service that they replaced it with the Swordfish again until the Tarpon/Avenger arrived

The Albacore wasn€t €˜pretty dreadful€ and wasn€t €˜replaced by the Swordfish again€˜.

Swordfish sometimes had to be embarked when there was a shortage of Albacores, not because the Albacore €˜was so bad in service€˜.

Stringbags outlived Albacores in carrier service equipped for a specialized anti-sub role, not as a TBR aircraft.

It was a real improvement on the Swordfish. Better performance, a much improved forward view for the pilot and an enclosed cockpit. With Stringbags open to the elements conditions could be very harsh for the crew.

Operationally they gave very important service.

The Battle of Cape Matapan.

As a bomber during Torch.

Vital anti shipping ops from Malta.

Distinguished service in the desert (before, during & after Alamein) as pathfinders for RAF bombers (and their own attacks on the axis troops).

Later the RCAF/RAF flew them on anti-Eboat ops, were in action during D-Day/Normandy and stayed in service until 45€.

Unfortunately the Applecore has always been overshadowed by the Swordfish & ridiculed for being outlived by the aircraft it was supposed to replace.

Treetop64
04-09-2006, 09:37 PM
Certainly one of the worst planes serving in world war II is the Brewster Bucconeer.

...

...Come to think of it, anything designed by Brewster, that came out of the Brewster factories, was among the worst aircraft in WWII.

LilHorse
04-10-2006, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
My list of worst planes:
- Ju87G; heavy, slow, weak defensive armament, I have a lot of respect for Hans Ulrich Rudel who flew that brick for a long time in 43/44


It's operational record would prove it to be one of the most effective ground attack planes of the war. H.U.R. wasn't the only pilot to have great success with it.

It's a popular misconception that the Stuka was "obsolete" by the start of the war. It got that rep mainly because Goering terribly mis-used it during the BoB. People say: "Well, it couldn't fight off Spits and Hurris." Not much that wasn't a fighter could. I always liken that to saying that the A-10 is obsolete because it can't fight off MiG-29s or Su-27s. Nobody would say that if they understand the role of the Warthog.

Like an A-10 it was best used while the LW had air superiority. And in the operational/tactical role. Not the tactical/strategic role that Goering attempted to press it into. And even when the skies were being handily contested they were still very effective in the East and Med/N. Africa.

I believe they still rank as the highest scoring a/c type in destroying armor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were only effective when there was no fighters attacking them, they were dead meat otherwise. Compare it to the RAF or USAAF equivilent...the Typhoon and the P47. Drastic contrast of capability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My guess is that you just responded to my post without actually reading the whole thing. I mentioned exactly what you said about fighters. Try re-reading it.

Also, notice how the issue of it being, again as a type, the highest scoring killer of tanks in history gets tip-toed around.

That means more than Jugs or Tiffies or Sturmoviks or A-10s.

Hardly the obsolete a/c it's usually touted as.

Ruy Horta
04-10-2006, 12:03 PM
That's the main problem with this thread, 'how do we judge the design? Do we use a common benchmark?

WORST planes of WW2, hardly realistic to include the Zero design, even if it didn't compete in the last two years of the war.

Xiolablu3
04-10-2006, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Had forgot about the "Tommy Cooker", that's even nastier!

Well the Sherman certainly wasn't the only tank prone to lighting up.

It was one of the worst because it used Petrol.

Most other tanks used Deisel, including all German types.

Texan...
04-10-2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Had forgot about the "Tommy Cooker", that's even nastier!

Well the Sherman certainly wasn't the only tank prone to lighting up.

It was one of the worst because it used Petrol.

Most other tanks used Deisel, including all German types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've been watching Patton too much.

I don't know of a single WW2 tank that went into production/battle with a diesel engine. Certainly not any German tanks. They all had petrol engines.

The Sherman tank's problems stemmed from, obsolete geometrical design, poor ammo storage, thin armor and a gun not up to the task of anti-tank duties.

Automotively, the Sherman was superior to most German types. It could easily be sent on 100 mile road marches and be ready to fight. Conversely, a 100 mile trek with Panthers and Tigers meant breakdowns and considerable stops for maintenance to even make it that far. That's why heavier german tanks were sent by rail whenever possible. Tiger Is came with two sets of tracks: A narrow set for travel in the narrow streets and rail tunnels in Europe and a wide set for battle.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/tiger1/tiger_tracks.jpg

In the end they only built around 1,500 Tigers while something like 50,000 Shermans were built. That's what the US geared up for and was prepared to build in large numbers. Like the 109, we danced with what we brung and improved it the best we could.

Two of my favorite improved Shermies:

The Firefly, which COULD knock holes in Tigers.
http://www.around.ntl.sympatico.ca/~toby/sherman.jpg

and the M51 Isherman of the IDF. With an uber long French 105mm, the Sherman tank had a longer servcie life than any other tank in history.

http://www.davidpride.com/Israeli_Armor/images/IL_Armor_04_215.jpg

Ruy Horta
04-10-2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was one of the worst because it used Petrol.

Most other tanks used Diesel, including all German types.

IIRC there were plenty of petrol tanks in WW2, certainly the first half.

Ruy Horta
04-10-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Conversely, a 100 mile trek with Panthers and Tigers meant breakdowns and considerable stops for maintenance to even make it that far.

IIRC the main problem was transmission and too light an engine for these heavies (incl. the medium Panther). Urgency being such that prodcution was more important than fixing these teething problems and/or replacing these parts with improved / more powerfull substitutes.

The Sherman was a good tank, few will really argue that point. Was it a great tank, perhaps not...

WOLFMondo
04-10-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:


My guess is that you just responded to my post without actually reading the whole thing. I mentioned exactly what you said about fighters. Try re-reading it.


No, I somehow quoted the wrong post. OOps.

Grendel-B
04-10-2006, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
It's a popular misconception that the Stuka was "obsolete" by the start of the war. It got that rep mainly because Goering terribly mis-used it during the BoB.


They were only effective when there was no fighters attacking them, they were dead meat otherwise. Compare it to the RAF or USAAF equivilent...the Typhoon and the P47. Drastic contrast of capability.[/QUOTE]

The usual urban myth. If you would read about Stuka unit histories and books written by Stuka pilots, you'd quickly notice that the survivability of Stukas was much higher than the usual "Stukas were dead meat" myth quoters.

Stuka units constantly flew without fighter escort, surviving runnign battles against fighters, and especially from 43-45 some of the Stukas flew without bombs, acting as escort fighters to the rest of the Ju-87s, fighting off the attacking fighters.

Grendel-B
04-10-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Stukas lost their dive brakes in 1943 and had to drop their bombs in the same way the P-47/Typhoon did.

Incorrect. Stukas certainly did have their dive brakers and did bomb on 90 degree angle during 43, 44 and 45. You perhaps confuse the Ju-87G to the rest of the Ju-87 production line. The G equipped with 2 x 37 mm AT cannon did not have dive brakes. Other models did have, and did use them.

Texan...
04-10-2006, 03:38 PM
Ruy Horta,

NO production diesel tanks during WW2.

As for the automotive troubles for German heavies, it was more an issue of the final drive units than the tranny. In other instances, German equipment was simply overly complex. Classic example:

Sdkfz 251 German Halftrack series vs US M3 Halftracks.

Focusing on the track itself, the 251 had numerous different track designs over its service life and each type featured a hinge point with needle type bearings. After relatively short distances in a dirty environment the bearings had to be serviced and the oil reservoir topped off on each link!

http://militaryphotogallery.com/Pics/Sdkfz/_Sdkfz251_17.jpg

The US M3 halftrack used a large rubber band track molded around a metal skeleton. It required NO maintenance and the time to change one out was probably less than 30 minutes.

The US M3 had a quieter, better ride on paved roads and also had better off road performance than the 251 due to having front wheel drive in addition to the tracks.

http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/voertuig/TRACK.jpg

To me, this tiny microcosm sums up much of German/Allied engineering philosophy during WW2. I've gotten way OT with this but I enjoy discussing WW2 engineering oddities and advances.

faustnik
04-10-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:I don't know of a single WW2 tank that went into production/battle with a diesel engine.

T-34s, KVs, JS2, in fact most Soviet types, all used diesel, so did the M4A2.

tedinaz
04-11-2006, 05:29 AM
One of the worst planes in WWII must be the Hellcat, it can't outrun, outdive, or outroll a zero, when you pull the trigger, it yaws, and it doesn't even carry it's full load of ammo.

luftluuver
04-11-2006, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:I don't know of a single WW2 tank that went into production/battle with a diesel engine.

T-34s, KVs, JS2, in fact most Soviet types, all used diesel, so did the M4A2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Even 1 model of the Sherman http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif had a diesel engine. The M4A2 used a GM6046 (dual 6-71s). Some 8000 being produced and being used by the British and the Russians - no US useage.

The GM 6046 diesel was also used in the M3A3.

luftluuver
04-11-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Grendel-B:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Stukas lost their dive brakes in 1943 and had to drop their bombs in the same way the P-47/Typhoon did.

Incorrect. Stukas certainly did have their dive brakers and did bomb on 90 degree angle during 43, 44 and 45. You perhaps confuse the Ju-87G to the rest of the Ju-87 production line. The G equipped with 2 x 37 mm AT cannon did not have dive brakes. Other models did have, and did use them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No Grendal, no confusion but possibly reached an incorrect conclusion since dive bombing was officially abandoned on Oct 5 1943. The Stukageschwaders being renamed Schlachtgeschwaders.

Irish_Rogues
04-11-2006, 06:23 AM
The GM 6046 diesel was also used in the M3A3.

You are correct Sir, it was used as a training mount state-side. The US army had toyed with the idea to go all diesel back then, but decided it would be a nightmare to switch in the middle of the conflict.

panther3485
04-11-2006, 06:29 AM
Hi guys!

Let's get this straight, OK?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Xiolablu3 -
Quote:
"It (Sherman) was one of the worst because it used Petrol. Most other tanks used Deisel, including all German types."

(Sorry mate, but you walked into this one!)

(1) None of the principal serving German tank types in WW2 used a diesel engine. They were all petrol.

(2) Petrol did involve a somewhat higher risk compared to diesel, but this was not the major reason for the Sherman's propensity to catch fire. The main problem was found to be ammunition stowage, remedied by 'wet jacket' stowage used in later models.



Texan... -
Quote:
"I don't know of a single WW2 tank that went into production/battle with a diesel engine. Certainly not any German tanks. They all had petrol engines.
The Sherman tank's problems stemmed from, obsolete geometrical design, poor ammo storage, thin armor and a gun not up to the task of anti-tank duties.
Automotively, the Sherman was superior to most German types. It could easily be sent on 100 mile road marches and be ready to fight. Conversely, a 100 mile trek with Panthers and Tigers meant breakdowns and considerable stops for maintenance to even make it that far. That's why heavier german tanks were sent by rail whenever possible. Tiger Is came with two sets of tracks: A narrow set for travel in the narrow streets and rail tunnels in Europe and a wide set for battle.

(3) A good number of the principal serving WW2 tank types employed diesel engines but you are right to say the German ones didn't.

(4) You are very close to the mark about the Sherman's principal weaknesses. One might also add that, associated with the 'obsolete geometrical design' was too high a profile for its size (though admittedly, this was an improvement over the Lee/Grant!). As for the gun, it was quite competitive when the Sherman first saw action against German tanks (in British hands) in late 1942. In fact, it was greeted with considerable enthusiasm by British tankers, many of whom had experienced the frustration of trying to knock out some of the (then) newer and better armoured Axis tanks with a 2 pdr gun! Such was the pace of change, however, that the standard 75mm gun was well below par by 1944. Improvements in gun power could have been made earlier but this was resisted within the US military, due in no small part to flawed doctrine, which held that destruction of enemy tanks was the principal task of 'Tank Destroyers', not tanks!!!!!. When US Shermans were eventually equipped with a more potent gun, their relative effectiveness on the battlefield was considerably enhanced.

(5) You sure got it right about the automotive aspects! Relative to the majority of tanks produced by other nations, American tanks were renown for their mechanical reliability and exceptional automotive stamina.

(6) The Sherman did have a very long service life with post-WW2 employment, but it is arguably out-done in this department by one design only - the T-34, which was still serving as front line equipment in some armies as late as the 1990's!


Ruy Horta -
Quote:
"IIRC the main problem was transmission and too light an engine for these heavies (incl. the medium Panther). Urgency being such that prodcution was more important than fixing these teething problems and/or replacing these parts with improved / more powerfull substitutes.
The Sherman was a good tank, few will really argue that point. Was it a great tank, perhaps not..."

(7) You're heading in the right direction about the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger. They had some other issues, but transmissions and final drives in particular could be troublesome. The Panther especially suffered from being rushed into service before it was ready and it was best part of a year after its combat debut (which had been in July 1943) before it reached half reasonable levels of serviceability. Unit histories from Normandy in July\August 1944 show averages around 71 percent serviceable, which doesn't sound all that great but it was a vast improvement on the abysmal levels of the previous year!
The earlier principal German types, PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV, were considerably more reliable in general and had greater stamina. Indeed, they approached levels of serviceability that would have rivalled American units in many cases. Certainly, they were better than the earlier versions of the Soviet T-34 and KV series and way better than most British types.

(8) I would argue that in some important ways at least, the Sherman was one of the great tanks of WW2 and has received a somewhat unbalanced press in today's world. Just my opinion, though.


faustnik -
Quote:
"T-34s, KVs, JS2, in fact most Soviet types, all used diesel, so did the M4A2."

(9) Thanks for mentioning those. In addition to the three most famous WW2 Soviet tank types, which all employed diesels as you have mentioned:

(a) Three major US types - M3 Light Tank ('Stuart'), M3 Medium ('Lee'/'Grant') and M4 Medium ('Sherman') were all built in substantial quantities in diesel versions [though the principal variants were petrol]. Enough diesel versions were built to ship good numbers to Allies via Lend-lease but with the major exception of the US Marines, the Americans themselves did not use the diesels in action very much, due primarily to logistic considerations.

(b) Twin AEC or Leyland 6 cylinder diesels were also used in the British Matilda II tank, which for a short time enjoyed prominence over most enemy designs. It was one of the more reliable tanks by WW2 British standards (much better than, say for example, the Crusader), but very slow.

(c) It is a lesser know fact also, that the Italians (example - M13/40, M14/41 series), Japanese (Types 89 medium, 95 light, 97 medium) and Poles (7TP light/medium) used diesels in their tanks as well.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

In other words, guys, just about everyone - to a greater or lesser extent - was into diesels except the Germans!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Best regards, guys!
panther3485


Edit: PS - Thanks luftluuver and Irish_Rogues for your contributions also.

luftluuver - the US Marines used a few diesel Shermans in the Pacific (M4A2) - it was logistically feasible for them as they used diesel for other applications as well. [Ref: 'Armour of the Pacific War' (Osprey) and 'Tank Battles of the Pacific War 1941-1945' (Concord).]

Cheers,
panther

luftluuver
04-11-2006, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The GM 6046 diesel was also used in the M3A3.

You are correct Sir, it was used as a training mount state-side. The US army had toyed with the idea to go all diesel back then, but decided it would be a nightmare to switch in the middle of the conflict. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes I should have said 'used in combat'.

The US was not even at war when in late 41 when they started work on a diesel Sherman and barely at war when the 1st A2 came of the line in Apr 42. From what I understand, the diesel was used because of a shortage of gas engines.

The 8000 (actually 8053) number I statred previously was for 75mm gunned Shermans. Another 2915 76mm gunned Shermans were built.

Friendly_flyer
04-11-2006, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
The Albacore wasn€t €˜pretty dreadful€

Actually, the Albacore does deserve a ranking on the list of bad aeroplanes. It was not a very innovative design, not fast, could not take a big load, nor very manoeuvrable. Also, it had very bad tendencies to leak fuel into the cockpit. Several crews where lost that way.

Being an old-fashion design is not bad by default (the Hurricane springs to mind), because "old style" designs are often based on well tried, robust technology and can be very reliable. Unfortunately the Albacore suffered the indignity of being "old style" without the benefits.

As for the Albacores war efforts, it speaks more about the bravery and dedication of the crew than of the ingenuity of the design.

HotelBushranger
04-11-2006, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by tedinaz:
One of the worst planes in WWII must be the Hellcat, it can't outrun, outdive, or outroll a zero, when you pull the trigger, it yaws, and it doesn't even carry it's full load of ammo.

Mate, we're talking about in real life, not PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A Hellcat COULD outrun, outdive AND outsurvive a Zero.

panther3485
04-11-2006, 07:12 AM
Thanks HotelBushranger

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I would have said that but I've been kinda half busy with this tank stuff!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Cheers and best regards,
panther3485

Beaufort-RAF
04-11-2006, 08:28 AM
Actually, the Albacore does deserve a ranking on the list of bad aeroplanes. It was not a very innovative design, not fast, could not take a big load, nor very manoeuvrable.

Hi, I'm not claiming it was a great aircraft, just that it wasn't one of the 'worst planes of WW2.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Besides the criticisms of the original poster weren't true. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


could not take a big load, nor very manoeuvrable.

It carried a decent load for it's era and was manoeuvrable.


As for the Albacores war efforts, it speaks more about the bravery and dedication of the crew than of the ingenuity of the design.


I quite agree the crews deserve the credit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but that's also a reason why aircraft with real achievements shouldn't be dismissed.

There are aircraft (like the Albacore) which were nothing special technically but actually had important war records.

However because they are judged on 'paper' (speed etc) they are mere footnotes in history, brushed aside as 'poor' or whatever in short aircraft profiles that appear in WW2 books.

Thus their operational records are ignored and the brave crews forgotten. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

So if for example someone mentions the Fulmar, I'll take to the ramparts again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

dadada1
04-11-2006, 09:50 AM
Got to agree panther3485 with you about the T 34, I'd have thought that was the obvious chioce for tank longevity over the Sherman. It's a good idea to look further than you're own shores.

Bremspropeller
04-11-2006, 10:33 AM
But it couldn't outfly a Zero - granted teh Zero hadn't been hit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Texan...
04-11-2006, 01:10 PM
Thanks Panther,

Can always count you in on a good tank discussion. I have had my head in these damned aeroplanes for too long now and my Panzer facts have begun leaving my mind.

Now I do recall the limited use of diesel engines, but use nonetheless. I still maintain the Shermie had a longer and more varied service life than the T34. It's good company though, since the T34 suspension was an American design anyway.

One of these days let's start a thread about the Famo and drive everyone nuts!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

panther3485
04-12-2006, 05:45 AM
Thanks Texan...

As for the service longevity of the Sherman and the T-34:

We might argue 'more varied' for the Sherman (debatable), but longer would still have to go to the T-34 AFAIK, unless you can show examples of Shermans in service as gun tanks with any of the Worlds armies after the T-34 which, incidentally, began its service life earlier.

T-34 First in service: August/September 1940.

Sherman First in service: February/March 1942.

According to 'T-34-85 Medium Tank' by Steven Zaloga, Jim Kinnear & Peter Sarson (Osprey), the T-34 was still in service with the following 27 countries as of 1996:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Bulgaria
China (PRC)
Congo
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Korea (DPRK)
Lebanon
Libya
Mali
Mongolia
Mozambique
Romania
Serbia and Montenegro
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Togo
Vietnam
Yemen (PDRY)
Zimbabwe

This gives the T-34 a service span of at least 56 years!

It is quite possible that some of these countries are still running a few T-34's as we write but even if we assume their service ceased on 31 December 1996 in all 27 countries (highly unlikely), we would need to see M4's still in service as gun tanks in some of the World's armies through 1998 and later, for the Sherman to have had a longer service life!

Production figures are another barometer, with the total for the T-34 (including post-war production) exceeding 84,000 gun tanks, with an additional 13,000+ assault guns and tank destroyers on the same chassis, for a grand total exceeding 97,000.

This makes the T-34 the most populous tank to emerge from WW2 and the second most widely produced tank ever (after the T-54/55 series).

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

Ruy Horta
04-12-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
after the T-54/55 series


Now there's a classic tank I am partially biased to http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Nimits
04-12-2006, 12:47 PM
Aww, the worst fighter is without a doubt the B-P Defiant. What genius in the Air Minstery dreamed up a fighter with no forward firine armament?

Friendly_flyer
04-12-2006, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
Hi, I'm not claiming it was a great aircraft, just that it wasn't one of the 'worst planes of WW2.


This is perhaps an academic point, but what constitutes €œa bad plane€?

The traits are about as easily identified as those that make a good plane. Looking over this forum and seeing the threads devoted to discussion of the virtues of the various designs, wee see that €œgood€ (and presumably €œbad€) is a rather subjective matter.

Before going back to the Albacore, I would like to say a few words on what I find define a good design, so that you see what standard I€m using.

Spitfire, FW 190 and P-51 where all good designs. The Spitfire just came off well. The idea behind it was well conceived, or perhaps it was a matter of luck. Anyhow, the Spitfire designs went straight from the drawing board to become possibly the best fighter of the WWII. Compared to the well crafted, but somewhat less successful Hurricane, the virtues of the Spitfire design clearly shows. The FW 190 was the result of thorough operational analysis and competent craftsmanship. It was possibly the most well constructed fighter of WWII. The P-51 was more a result of luck. It started out as a mediocre design, but a stroke of luck and the application of the right engine made it a good escort fighter, ground ponder and all-round aircraft. Its developmental history is comparable to that of the Lancaster (staring its life as the Lanchester), a bad design that came around and ended up as a very good aircraft.

Now, for the Albacore. The design was monumentally obsolete when it was put down on the drawing board. The plane, though workable, was not operationally outstanding in any way. Unlike the Hurricane (to which it can be compared), it lacked the robustness and all-round capabilities that signify a good design. Good planes can do more than just what they are designed for. Unlike the Albacore, the Swordfish had that magical ability to adapt to new roles, and ended up staying longer in service!

There are other plane that was certainly worse than the Albacore (some German B&V designs and certain early British planes spring to mind), but the Albacore must at least be on the list of most uninspired designs. If not bad, it was at least monumentally mediocre.

panther3485
04-13-2006, 03:47 AM
Hi there, Friendly_flyer

Not saying I agree (or necessarily disagree) but....


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


I wish I'd heard that one before this thread because...

That phrase you just used, 'monumentally mediocre', is f***ing beautiful, mate! I've committed it to memory and I intend to use it myself some day (when appropriate).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Boandlgramer
04-13-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
There are other plane that was certainly worse than the Albacore (some German B&V designs

Which Blohm & Voss Designs did you mean ?

Friendly_flyer
04-13-2006, 05:00 AM
You're welcome, Panther!


Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
Which Blohm & Voss Designs did you mean ?

Several, actually. One can say a lot of things about the Blohm and Voss designers, but their planes was certainly inspired. They weren't overly succesessfull, though. Here's a few examples of good ideas that did not quite live up to their expectations:

http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/rys/rys134.jpg

http://www.vztlak.cz/obrazek/blohm_und_voss.jpg

http://www.volga.ru/~TRAMP/bv/bvp170/bvp170-0.jpg

panther3485
04-13-2006, 06:26 AM
Is that second one the BV 141? I think I remember building the Airfix kit of that plane in the late 1960's.


panther3485

Beaufort-RAF
04-13-2006, 09:12 AM
we see that €œgood€ (and presumably €œbad€) is a rather subjective matter.


Fair enough.

I judge less well known aircraft on their operational life/achievements rather than the design and technical merits.

I can't divorce the nuts & bolts from the crews/operations.

It's just a different way of looking at things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Good planes can do more than just what they are designed for. Unlike the Albacore, the Swordfish had that magical ability to adapt to new roles, and ended up staying longer in service!


Well not really, the only thing the Swordfish did that the Albacore didn't was carry rockets to attack U-boats.

Albacores acting as pathfinders for RAF bombers was far more unusual than a TBR aircraft attacking submarines.

But their lies our difference I think.

You would argue that dropping flares was hardly a virtue of impressive design whereas to me it's a fascinating & admirable contribution and the fact that the Applecore did it means it deserves credit regardless of the fact it was an anachronistic TBR biplane.

But when I say 'it' deserves credit I mean the plane/crews/squadrons, not just the machine.


Lancaster (staring its life as the Lanchester),

Manchester. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/gallery/albacore640.jpg

Boandlgramer
04-13-2006, 10:11 AM
hmm this thread is about the worst planes of WW2.
but i see no reason to call ,for example, the BV 141 a worse airplane.

Kurfurst__
04-13-2006, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was one of the worst because it used Petrol.

Most other tanks used Diesel, including all German types.

IIRC there were plenty of petrol tanks in WW2, certainly the first half. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Most WW2 tanks used petrol, it was predominant. Diesel Shermans are fine, expect the vast majority of the production run on various petrol engines, ranging from the poor, overcomplicated Chrysler Multibank (effectively 6 smaller engines bolted together, a maintaince nightmare - six of everything to service!) to the fair and dependable V-8 Ford. 90% of the Shermas were petrol powered. The British ditto, I am sure there are exceptions, but again in their case diesel was a rare exception.

The Soviets are often quoted as a prime example of smartly using Diesel engines (which, as the popular myths goes, were "impossible to be copied by the Germans because of their aluminium engine blocks"), forgetting the little part that those Soviet tank diesels like most Soviet engines of the time, were actually copies of French airship engines. And, the largest pool of the Soviet tank park still used petrols (the numerous T-38, T-40, T-60, T-70 series and so on), and these were predominant in 1941, 1942 and 1943, and still around in thousends in the last two years. The SU-76 tank destroyer, based on the T-70 chassis is less known, but it was the second most produced tank after the T-34, and like its basis T-70, used petrol.

As far as the Germans go, their tanks certainly not used diesels, but there was a fairly logical reason for that. First of all, they had developed pretty good and compact purpose-designed tank engines with good characteristics for themselves on petrol base, and were fairly happy with them. Second, as Germany had to rely on synthetic fuel, petrol was the only real option, as Diesel could not be produced that way. Uboots and the Navy were also requiring diesel oil. Even if they could, running some types of tanks on petrol, others on diesel does not sound good for logistics, not to mention that back in WW2, diesels were not yet inherently superior to petrol engines, consider just the difficulties diesel engines have when are worn out, or operating in great cold.

ploughman
04-13-2006, 11:32 AM
Interesting. Thanks Kurfy. On the subject of synthetic fuels, was bio-diesel an option back then? Or is this a much more recent development?

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
The FW 190 was the result of thorough operational analysis.

I'm curious on how you came to this conclusion.

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 11:47 AM
It isn't a "worst plane", but I'd like to mention the Me 309. Instead of supplying a replacement fighter for the Bf 109, by the time it flew it couldn't even outperform the current models of the a/c it was supposed to replace...

All that energy and effort for zero return.

OTOH the potentially interesting Me 209A was cancelled in favor of the Ta 152.

IMHO the Me 309 debacle was worse than the Me 210 one.

Friendly_flyer
04-13-2006, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Beaufort-RAF:
You would argue that dropping flares was hardly a virtue of impressive design

No I would not, but I would claim that doing so in the rampantly anachronistic Albacore was an act of incredible bravery. I might consider doing that in a Mosquito, I would not dare contemplating doing that in an Albacore, never!

However, there was certainly worse design than the Albacore. What about the Boulton Paul Defiant, a good idea that never worked according to plan, or the Northrop N3-PB, ordered for the Norwegian air force during the war, but replaced by Catalina BPYs, a design almost 10 years older!




Manchester. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Dang, I was thinking of the sub-machinegun (a sort of heavy Sten-gun). Manchester, horrible design, but eventually ended up as the Lancaster, a splendid design. It only goes to show that the line between good and bad may not be that long.

Friendly_flyer
04-13-2006, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
I'm curious on how you came to this conclusion.

The Germans wanted a fighter capable of doing what the 109n did not, yet still be a capable fighter. I admit a "thorough operational analysis" was a bit over the top, but it was as good an analysis as the Germans could come up with in the late 1930ies, based on experience from a range of nations. The Germans knew what they wanted, and they put a very capable construction team (led by Tank) to make it. It paid off, the 190 turned out a very capable fighter.

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 12:16 PM
My advice, get the following book:

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A
Die ersten Baureihen
Dieter Hermann, Ulrich Leverenz and Eberhard Weber
Aviatic Verlag

or its English translation by Schiffer

Focke-Wulf FW 190a: An Illustrated History of the Luftwaffes Legendary Fighter Aircraft

VF-17_Jolly
04-13-2006, 12:19 PM
Im sorry i retract my thoughtless statement about the Fairey Albacore.

The worst plane seems to be a case of When it was designed, what role it was designed for and where it was used.

Had the Swordfish been used against aircraft carriers with aircover like the TBD was im sure it would have suffered the same fate
How would the TBD had faired against the Tirpitz or the Italian fleet at Taranto?

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 12:19 PM
The Manchester wasn't a horrible design.

It combined a poor engine with a bad operational requirement.

The fact alone that it formed the basis of the Lancaster (just as well Manchester II) should proof that much of its design was sound and even very good.

panther3485
04-13-2006, 12:19 PM
Hiya Kurfurst!

Nice of you to join us!

You are generally correct to say that petrol engines were predominant in WW2, but I'd be a little careful, if I were you, on some of the other details.

For instance, you quote the Chrysler Multibank as being 'effectively 6 smaller engines bolted together' and then go on to make a comment about 'six of everything to service!'. In fact, it was five (5 x 6 cylinder Chrysler automobile engines).

British tank types were predominantly petrol engined but diesels were very far from being 'rare exceptions'. The Matilda II (the only British tank type to serve for the whole war) was exclusively diesel, as were all but one principal Mark of the Valentine, of which over 8,000 were built (comparable in quantity to the PzKpfw IV, the most produced German tank of WW2).

As for the Soviets, yes their older tank fleet and their light tanks were petrol engined. However, their most famous and effective main combat tanks (T-34, KV-1 and IS-2 + all the SP guns and tank destroyers based upon them) were diesels.

Other nations vary. The French in 1940 used an entirely petrol driven tank fleet. On the opposite side of the coin, the Japanese had gone to diesel very early compared to most other countries and when WW2 began, their tanks were predominantly diesel*. The principal Polish* light/medium 7TP tank series was diesel powered. The Italians favoured diesels in their medium tanks but most of the light tanks were petrol driven!

[*Note: This post has been edited in relation to Polish tanks, due to an error in a book which I failed to cross-check. My fault for answering in haste! For further details, see my later post.]


Best regards,
panther3485

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
How would the TBD had faired against the Tirpitz or the Italian fleet at Taranto?

BRAVO!!

If the FAA had used Devestators, Vindicators and Helldivers (SBC!!) between 1939-42 in their theatre of operaion they would have had a more modern and capable inventory than they in fact had operated with relative impunity. Add the F2A, and they would even had a "first class" carrier fighter.

OTOH even an F3F might have been sufficient...

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 12:24 PM
Panther,

Did some US tanks in fact have radial engines?

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 12:25 PM
BTW - a candidate for really worst plane...

The Spruce Goose!!

VF-17_Jolly
04-13-2006, 12:26 PM
How about the Ugliest plane of WWII?

I give you the Fairey Barracuda.......

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/1959L.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Ruy Horta
04-13-2006, 12:35 PM
hehe, this one is even uglier than the regular production type - what is it exactly?

Boandlgramer
04-13-2006, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
BTW - a candidate for really worst plane...

The Spruce Goose!!

Ruy, there was a nice article in "Flugzeug Classic" ( 3/2006) about howard hughes "baby".
at least he has flown the plane for about 1500 meters.
many people claimed the plane was not able to take off and fly.
but the plane was still a loser.

panther3485
04-13-2006, 12:42 PM
Hi there, Ruy Horta

Yes, large numbers of Shermans were built with radial engines!

The principal Sherman types and their usual engines were:

M4 - Wright R-975-C1 9-cylinder air-cooled radial

M4A1 - As above

M4A2 - GM Twin Diesel

M4A3 - Ford GAA V-8

M4A4 - Chrysler A57 Multibank

(there were a few oddities but that covers the main variants)

The incorporation of a radial engine, together with the height of the drive shaft, was a major factor that contributed to the high profile of the Sherman.

A similar pattern of variation in engine types, that included radials, had already been set by the M3 Lee/Grant medium series.

Both petrol and diesel radials were also used in the M3 Stuart light tank series.


Best regards,
panther3485

Texan...
04-13-2006, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
How about the Ugliest plane of WWII?

I give you the Fairey Barracuda.......

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/1959L.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Oh no, that's actually kind of a cool looking weirdo mobile.

Here's your ugly duck.

http://www.ams.vr.it/Documents/Sm.79%20draw&pro/profiles/Sm.79_photo-profiles_22.jpg


Savoia Marchetti must hold the record for aircraft with humble faces.

VF-17_Jolly
04-13-2006, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
hehe, this one is even uglier than the regular production type - what is it exactly?

It`s a late prototype fitted with a Giffon engine

VF-17_Jolly
04-13-2006, 01:18 PM
Here's your ugly duck.

http://www.ams.vr.it/Documents/Sm.79%20draw&pro/profiles/Sm.79_photo-profiles_22.jpg


Savoia Marchetti must hold the record for aircraft with humble faces.[/QUOTE]

It`s fine at the front(sort of) but it looks like they couldn`t be bothered finishing the tail off properly
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Beaufort-RAF
04-13-2006, 01:32 PM
Im sorry i retract my thoughtless statement about the Fairey Albacore.

The comments you made were perfectly understandable though as the myth of the Albacore being inferior to the Swordfih is widespread.

I only know different because i'm interested in the Fleet Air Arm.

Xiolablu3
04-13-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Had forgot about the "Tommy Cooker", that's even nastier!

Well the Sherman certainly wasn't the only tank prone to lighting up.

It was one of the worst because it used Petrol.

Most other tanks used Deisel, including all German types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've been watching Patton too much.

I don't know of a single WW2 tank that went into production/battle with a diesel engine. Certainly not any German tanks. They all had petrol engines.

The Sherman tank's problems stemmed from, obsolete geometrical design, poor ammo storage, thin armor and a gun not up to the task of anti-tank duties.

Automotively, the Sherman was superior to most German types. It could easily be sent on 100 mile road marches and be ready to fight. Conversely, a 100 mile trek with Panthers and Tigers meant breakdowns and considerable stops for maintenance to even make it that far. That's why heavier german tanks were sent by rail whenever possible. Tiger Is came with two sets of tracks: A narrow set for travel in the narrow streets and rail tunnels in Europe and a wide set for battle.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/tiger1/tiger_tracks.jpg

In the end they only built around 1,500 Tigers while something like 50,000 Shermans were built. That's what the US geared up for and was prepared to build in large numbers. Like the 109, we danced with what we brung and improved it the best we could.

Two of my favorite improved Shermies:

The Firefly, which COULD knock holes in Tigers.
http://www.around.ntl.sympatico.ca/~toby/sherman.jpg

and the M51 Isherman of the IDF. With an uber long French 105mm, the Sherman tank had a longer servcie life than any other tank in history.

http://www.davidpride.com/Israeli_Armor/images/IL_Armor_04_215.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you learn something new every day, I nearly didnt check back on this topic becasue I was so sure I was right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sorry for the misinformation.

Teach me to believe the History Channel, they were saying primarily that the Sherman was so bad BECAUSE it had a petrol engine, I therefore assumed (always a bad thing to do) that it was unusual becasue of this.

Oooops, thanks for putting me straight. (Runs off to hide in the corner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif)

Texan...
04-13-2006, 05:01 PM
Np, and I have since been set straight as well. All this damned aeroplane talk has clouded my panzer facts. There were diesel tanks but not for the Germans...which hollywood usually gets wrong. Also, the Sherman did not end up with the longest service history. Darn T34s mucked up my post.

Xiolablu3
04-13-2006, 05:09 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Another reason I thought the Germans used Deisel tanks was because (I think) the Leopard used deisel.

I saw a program about its development (It started as a joint effort between the US and the Germans) and it said how the Germans always used Deisel engines for tanks and how much they liked the deisel.

I assumed (must stop doing that) 'always' meant back to WW2, when it must have in fact meant much later.


The US gave up on the project as it was too costly (not surprising considering hte Gemrans were working in Millimetres and the US in inches on the same Tank!) and developed their own M1 Abrams with a Turbine engine.

ploughman
04-13-2006, 05:20 PM
M1A1 = German gun, British armour, American engine, Canadian computer thingy that makes the thing that comes out of the barrel hit the thing you want it to hit.

In 1982 I stood in on a gun range near Hohne, Germany and marvelled at at the speed and silence of the new American tanks. I'd just spent a day surrounded by Chieftains and their thundering diesels and I was stood about thirty yards from an Abrams that moved away at speed...and I didn't notice. Their mobility was scarey at the time. If they'd ever been used against a competent anti tank screen they'd've been toast, they almost begged to be driven like cavalry at the enemy.

panther3485
04-14-2006, 12:06 AM
Hi guys!

Don't want to spend too much time OT on this thread (even though it's tempting and I love tanks), however I have to advise of a correction to one of my earlier posts.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

In reference to the use of diesel engines in Polish tanks, I quoted both the 7TP light/medium and the TK tankettes as having diesel engines. This was correct in the former case but wrong in the latter. I allowed myself to be led astray by a faulty reference.

'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World's Tanks and Fighting Vehicles', by C. F. Foss and R. M. Ogorkiewicz (Salamander Publications 1977), states the following for the TK:

Engine: Ford Model A four-cylinder water-cooled diesel developing 40hp.

Had I taken the time to cross-reference with other sources, I would have picked up this error because both the Ford engine used in earlier models and the 'Polski-Fiat' engine used in later TK's were petrol driven.

This is my fault entirely, I do not blame the book (even the best books can have a few errors in them). I should have checked more thoroughly. Also, I'm kicking myself here because I should have remembered that the Ford engine was a petrol job and/or should have remembered from my earlier studies that the TK series were not diesels.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Be that as it may, it does not change the overall picture and the general situation with diesels in tanks remains as stated in my posts. Statements are always made in good faith and AFAIK, all other posted details were OK.

I just think it's important to be precise and correct about these things and I'm usually very careful.


Apologies and best regards to all,
panther3485

Yog_Shoggoth
04-14-2006, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
This is my list:
-I16(were still flying until '43!)

:O
Have at Ye!

panther3485
04-14-2006, 12:23 AM
Hi Kurfurst

I know I've probably said enough already but there was one other statement you made that was incorrect and could be misleading to readers:

Quote:
"Diesel Shermans are fine, expect the vast majority of the production run on various petrol engines..... 90% of the Shermas were petrol powered.

Total production of Sherman gun tanks for WW2 was 53,362. Of these, 11,283 were M4A2 diesels (either 75mm or 76mm armed). This means slightly more than 21 percent - more than one in every five - was a diesel. This gives us slightly less than 79 percent petrol powered.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sorry, but I'd forgotten to correct this before and it didn't look as if anyone else was going to.


Best regards,
panther3485

VF-17_Jolly
04-14-2006, 01:39 AM
I think i have found away to combine the two sujects in this topic ie

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Ju86-1.jpg
Diesel engine aircraft

And possibly the worst plane of WWII?
A flying tank and designed by

Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Konstantinovich Antonov
http://unrealaircraft.com/roadable/images/antonovkt.jpeg

panther3485
04-14-2006, 01:53 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Good one, VF-17_Jolly!


Best regards,
panther3485

Aaron_GT
04-14-2006, 02:47 AM
the Sherman tank had a longer servcie life than any other tank in history.

The Centurion must be up there too - first examples 1945, and I think the IDF only recently scrapped its last examples.

panther3485
04-14-2006, 02:55 AM
Yes, the Centurion is definitely 'up there' as a contender, keeping the T-34 and the Sherman good company, Aaron.

For the final verdict, it would need to remain in service more than 5 years after the last T-34 and more than 3 years after the last Sherman. If it qualifies on both counts, you may have the eventual winner!


Best regards,
panther3485

HotelBushranger
04-14-2006, 03:04 AM
The SM 79 certainly isnt the ugliest plane, no way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Boandlgramer
04-14-2006, 03:46 AM
turned into an tank thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

why were some tanks so long in servive ?
maybe they were cheap for some custumer countries or nothing else was available for them to buy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

GR142-Pipper
04-14-2006, 03:56 AM
My vote goes to the Budd Conestoga. It's "Budd-ugly". LOL

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/c-93.jpg

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2325.jpg

GR142-Pipper

Friendly_flyer
04-14-2006, 04:07 AM
That's certainly one ugly mother! Do you have any more info on the Pipper?

panther3485
04-14-2006, 05:25 AM
Hi there, Boandlgramer

Quote:
"why were some tanks so long in servive ?
maybe they were cheap for some custumer countries or nothing else was available for them to buy."

Each of the reasons you mention have applied in certain instances. Additional reasons might include:

Manufactured in large quantities
Sound basic design
Proven track record
Adaptable to modification and upgrade
Logistic suitability
Relative ease of maintenance and repair
Simple to operate
Reliability
Relationship with nation of manufacture

Of course, each case is somewhat different and the above reasons do not all apply every time. If enough reasons apply, a tank design will generally be kept in service longer by somebody, somewhere.


Best regards,
panther3485

Aaron_GT
04-14-2006, 08:23 AM
Some of the experimental Westland bi wing designs of WW2 must qualify as some of the ugliest WW2 planes. Apparently they were efficient designs, but definitely odd.

Aaron_GT
04-14-2006, 08:37 AM
Sorry - OT (tanks again...)

Apparently the Israeli Centurions were withdrawn in the late 1990s but South Africa still operates a heavily remanufactured version, although whether that still counts as a Centurion is another matter.

panther3485
04-14-2006, 11:21 AM
Yep, Aaron.

The South African Centurion is known as the Olifant (Elephant) and later versions have the following major mods:

New and upgraded powerpack
New suspension
New hull armour
New turret armour

It is a fairly extensive re-vamp of the original design, as you say. Wait for five years after the last T-34's go out of service and then we can debate the nitty-gritty of it, if the 'Olifant' is still in service by then!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

Ruy Horta
04-14-2006, 11:41 AM
Panther,

OT, but what's your take on the general Merkava design?

Kocur_
04-14-2006, 11:51 AM
Since we are at Israeli tankshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif A number of their upgraded Shermans were sold (http://(http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/rch.htm)) to a Chile in the 1970s and 80s - are those withdrawn? If not the T-34/Sherman contest is on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
04-14-2006, 12:20 PM
Hi there, Ruy Horta

IMHO, the latest version of the Merkava is one of the best tanks in the World today. I would place it up near the top with later versions of Leopard II, Challenger 2 and Abrams - without necessarily being either 'better' or 'not as good' (rather, just a 'different' tank designed to a somewhat different rationale).

The unique design with its shift of priorities [extra emphasis on protection and crew survivability] is simply a reflection of Israel's relatively intense defence requirements, for a small country with a small population.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
04-14-2006, 12:37 PM
Hi Kocur_

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For all I know, the 'T-34 vs Sherman longevity contest' might still be on, as I cannot state with absolute certainty that there are no Shermans left in service anywhere . It's just that if there are any, I don't know of it one way or another. It does seem to me, however, that if any serving Shermans are left they could easily be somewhere in South America!

Remember, to 'win' the contest, the last serving Shermans need to be still going past about a year-and-a-half after the last serving T-34's!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And as Aaron_GT has rightly pointed out, perhaps we shouldn't write off the Centurion either!


Best regards
panther3485

P.S. My library on tanks is very extensive but I do not have the latest updates of data for the current World inventory. (In relation to modern tanks, my last book purchase was about five years ago, I'm ashamed to say!) Over the last several years, all my new book purchases have been on tanks from WW1 to the Vietnam era.

GR142-Pipper
04-14-2006, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
That's certainly one ugly mother! Do you have any more info on the Pipper? This plane was actually pretty interesting for a couple of reasons. They were stainless steel in construction and I believe 17 were built for the USN. The company that built them (the Edward G. Budd Corporation) was well known for their self-propelled railway cars of the 30's and 40's. The Conestogas were never used operationally by the Navy and were declared surplus as WWII was ending. Another point of interest, however, is that these planes were the initial equipment of Flying Tiger Airlines. They weren't in service very long and got replaced by C-47s and other transport types that were in plentiful and inexpensive supply.

GR142-Pipper

Rammjaeger
04-18-2006, 02:00 PM
Some French aircraft of those times were butt-ugly indeed:

Amiot-143:

http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/3739/amiot1432xt.th.jpg (http://img421.imageshack.us/my.php?image=amiot1432xt.jpg)

http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/3231/am1435jc.th.jpg (http://img421.imageshack.us/my.php?image=am1435jc.jpg)

Its combat record in 1940 is beyond dismal. It was actually used until 1944 by the Free French for transport, mostly. It was one of the worst, if not the worst bomber of WW2.

SE.100:
http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/9761/sudestse1002ps.th.jpg (http://img421.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sudestse1002ps.jpg)

AFAIK this dud also saw service in WW2.

The Poles also came up with mediocre designs. The LWS-6 Zubr twin-engined medium bomber was particularly dismal. Work on the prototype started in 1936, but the design sucked so much the Poles limited its role to that of a trainer.

Ob.Emann
04-18-2006, 05:36 PM
I simply cannot beleive this one hasn't been posted yet.

1932 Caproni Stipa, experimental turbofan-powered aircraft. An Italian beauty.

http://www.seqair.com/Hangar/Zuccoli/Legends/OrgStipa1.jpg

http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/ThingsWings/stipa_title.jpg

The monster still lives today!

http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/ThingsWings/stipa_rep_takeoff.jpg

MLudner
04-18-2006, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi, Beaufort-RAF

Quote 1:
"The Vengeance was a good aircraft, not even on the radar for worst of WW2.
For various reasons it had an unfortunate relationship with the USAAF, but was used successfully by the RAF & IAF over Burma and the Aussies (albeit somewhat briefly) in the SWP."


Quote 2:
"Described by one USAAF General in 1943 as "a shining example of the waste of material, manpower and time", the Vengeance - as can perhaps be gathered - had an indifferent combat career despite being built in quite large numbers....
The bulk of production was for the RAF but despite developing a generally poor reputation in Europe enjoyed some brief success with four squadrons in Burma. The RAF ordered 700 Vultee V-72s in 1940 as the Vengeance and the prototype first flew in July 1941. Supplied under Lend-Lease, deliveries to the RAF began in late 1942....
US designations were A-31 (covering the RAF's Mks I, IA, II and III); A-35A (for the USAAF) and A-35B (Mk. IV).
Total RAF procurement was 1562 of which Australia received 342 in 1942-44, five RAAF squadrons operating them in New Guinea until their basic unsuitability was realized. After that they were used for communications and target tug duties, a fate which also befell most British aircraft.
The USAAF received 99 A-35As and 243 of the 300 Vengeance IIs were diverted from the British order and operated by the USAAF under the manufacturer's designation V-72. Almost all the US aircraft also found themselves operating as target tugs."


That second quote was from 'Aircraft of WWII' by Stewart Wilson, Aerospace Publications.

I might add that I personally know a number of WW2 Australian veterans. None of them has much in the way of a good word to say for the Vengeance.

OK, not the outright worst plane of WW2 perhaps, but clearly towards the bottom of the heap!

And as for whether or not it was 'one of the worst' or 'not even on the radar for worst', with respect I suggest that opinion might play some part in this! Each of us is entitled to his own, right?


Best regards,
panther3485

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I recognized that quote as I was reading it.

Kraayy
04-18-2006, 07:52 PM
1932 Caproni Stipa, experimental turbofan-powered aircraft.


Tell me if I'm wrong, but that thing has neither a turbine nor a proper fan.

Ob.Emann
04-18-2006, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Kraayy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
1932 Caproni Stipa, experimental turbofan-powered aircraft.


Tell me if I'm wrong, but that thing has neither a turbine nor a proper fan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right. Its a shrouded propellor, not a fan. Sorry about that. Many sources call it a ducted fan, but I think that is erroneous.

Snow_Wolf_
04-18-2006, 11:25 PM
http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/q1wpic.gif

another thing about the tanks didn't the Panzer Mk IV was in the Six Day war...."Small numbers of Panzer IV were supplied by Germany to its allies. Bulgaria received 88 vehicles and used them against Germans in late 1944. Finland bought 15 Panzer IV Ausf Js, which arrived too late to fight against the Soviets the Continuation War (1941-44) or against German troops in the following Lapland War (1944-45) and served as training vehicles until 1962. Small numbers were also given to Hungary, Romania, Spain and Yugoslavia (Chetniks). In 1950s/1960s Syria bought several dozens of Panzer IVs from USSR, France, Czechoslovakia and Spain and employed them in the 1965 conflict over Jordan headwaters (often referred to as Water War) and in the Six Days War (1967)."

panther3485
04-19-2006, 04:14 AM
Hi there, Snow_Wolf_

Yes, the PzKpfw IV did have a short and somewhat inglorious post-war career!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The Syrian Panzer 4's fought from fixed emplacements on the slopes of the Golan Heights above Dikkeh, where they fired down on Israeli settlements below. The first 'Water War' engagement with Israeli Centurions was inconclusive, due mainly to visibility problems and ended by UN intervention.

Some days later, the Panzer 4's opened fire again but this time many were silenced by counter-fire from the Israeli Centurions, who had been honing their gunnery skills during the interval.

Those Panzer 4's that survived the 1965 Water War remained in their pits on the heights until the Six-Day War of 1967. Most were captured by vigorous Israeli infantry action, but some sources state that the last PzKpfw IV to be knocked out went down to the long French 75mm gun of an M50 'Super Sherman'. Ironically, this gun was based on a German design!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

jeanba2
04-19-2006, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
Some French aircraft of those times were butt-ugly indeed:

Amiot-143:


Its combat record in 1940 is beyond dismal. It was actually used until 1944 by the Free French for transport, mostly. It was one of the worst, if not the worst bomber of WW2.

SE.100:

The SE100 did not see combat.
As to the Amiot 143, its record is not much worse than a lot of other bombers during the battle of France : actually, only 7 aircraft were lost, the loss/mission figures is similar or lower than more modern aircraft such as the breguet 693, the Leo45 or the Battle (though indeed, the figures must be anlysed with care).
It should also be said that it was not used very much : in most combat diaries, the name Amiot stands for both the 143 and the 370, as if the british said "hawker" for both the hurricane and the tempest.

MrOblongo
04-19-2006, 07:36 AM
Breda 65 was a piece of ****... even a third world country like Chile (my country:P) got rid of them...

Rammjaeger
04-20-2006, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by jeanba2:
As to the Amiot 143, its record is not much worse than a lot of other bombers during the battle of France : actually, only 7 aircraft were lost, the loss/mission figures is similar or lower than more modern aircraft such as the breguet 693, the Leo45 or the Battle (though indeed, the figures must be anlysed with care).
It should also be said that it was not used very much : in most combat diaries, the name Amiot stands for both the 143 and the 370, as if the british said "hawker" for both the hurricane and the tempest.

"The most significant action involving the Amiot 143M was a daring daylight raid on German bridgeheads near Sedan took place on May 14, 1940. A force of thirteen planes from GBs I/34, II/34, and II/38 led by Commandant de Laubier encountered German Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters en route. Twelve bombers were destroyed."

http://www.answers.com/topic/amiot-143?method=22

92% loss ratio. This is more than pathetic.

jeanba2
04-20-2006, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jeanba2:
As to the Amiot 143, its record is not much worse than a lot of other bombers during the battle of France : actually, only 7 aircraft were lost, the loss/mission figures is similar or lower than more modern aircraft such as the breguet 693, the Leo45 or the Battle (though indeed, the figures must be anlysed with care).
It should also be said that it was not used very much : in most combat diaries, the name Amiot stands for both the 143 and the 370, as if the british said "hawker" for both the hurricane and the tempest.

"The most significant action involving the Amiot 143M was a daring daylight raid on German bridgeheads near Sedan took place on May 14, 1940. A force of thirteen planes from GBs I/34, II/34, and II/38 led by Commandant de Laubier encountered German Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters en route. Twelve bombers were destroyed."

http://www.answers.com/topic/amiot-143?method=22

92% loss ratio. This is more than pathetic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This story is wrong : actually, only 2 were lost (number 85 and 69, shot down by a 110), a french author said :
"It was called the Sedan disaster, it should have been named "The Sedan Miracle" ".
Actually, more LeO45 were lost.
Indeed, we had a discussion on a french forum, and by crossing sources the Amiot 143 performed more than 400 missions for 7 aircraft lost.