Worst Ground Attack Aircraft Of WW2

Yes, it's another one of my "worst" threads. I feel that they are not only entertaining but they also uncover a lot of fascinating and useful bits of information I'd never heard of.

So, we are looking at the worst ground attack aircraft of the Second World War. It can be single engined or a twin. The only provisos are that it needed to have had a production run of at least 50 aircraft, to have been designed primarily for ground attack and to have actually seen combat.

The thread is for examining issues like lack of power, aerodynamic deficiencies, vulnerability to flak or fighters (or both) and inability to carry out its mission even in the face of limited opposition.

I'll start out with two suggestions.

breda_ba88_imam_mm4594_corsica_luglio_1040.jpg


The Breda 88. A world record breaker before the war, but by the time it was delivered to combat units the weight had grown so much that it became a liability. Desert sand filters were the final straw, and made it difficult for the aircraft to even turn, never mind fight.

They ended their short, inglorious career as decoys to fool Allied photo intelligence.

loire-nieuport-ln401_3.jpg


The Loire Nieuport LN401 series. Used by both the French Air Force and Navy, it was a dive bomber which was low, slow, unstable and underpowered. Its 690 HP Hispano Suiza V-12 tended to burn oil at an alarming rate if pushed. It was slower than a Ju87B, without having a gunner to guard the tail. They saw combat during the invasion of France, but most photos you'll see look like this.

ln_4111.bvdltjmq0xwkkkwcc4440gcs0.ejcuplo1l0oo0sk8c40s8osc4.th.jpeg

So, there are my suggestions. Knock yourselves out.
 

Driftless

Donor
A few remaining Curtis A-12 Shrikes were at Hickam field on Dec 7, 1941; but didn't participate and were shortly grounded thereafter. They were clearly obsolete by that point, and fortunately for the crews, the USAAC recognized the status.
Curtiss_A-12_Shrike(USAF).jpg
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That dive bomber with the cabin in the tail is one good one.


Another is the Me262 - sure, it was actually okay, but what the f*ck was going on making that a ground attack aircraft in the middle of the Combined Bomber Offensive? That's like making Spitbombers in August 1940.
 
Sorry lads, neither of those fit. The Shrike didn't fly any combat missions and the 262 was designed as a Zerstörer, and certainly not a ground attack aircraft.
 
The Douglas A-24 was considered worthless by the USAAF, despite the fact that, as the SBD Dauntless, the USN considered it an excellent dive bomber, even better than its presumed successor the Curtiss Helldiver. Actually the Helldiver might also qualify. Although thousands were built, they were generally hated by flight crews who much preferred the Dauntless.
 

Garrison

Donor
The Douglas A-24 was considered worthless by the USAAF, despite the fact that, as the SBD Dauntless, the USN considered it an excellent dive bomber, even better than its presumed successor the Curtiss Helldiver. Actually the Helldiver might also qualify. Although thousands were built, they were generally hated by flight crews who much preferred the Dauntless.

I think that's a strong point for the Helldiver as worst. Some of the other planes brought up here were't actually terrible per se but suffered from being obsolete by the time they saw combat.
 
I mean, if that's disallowed, so is the Hurribomber as that was a bomber variant of a fighter airframe.

Yep, that's what I put in the OP. It has to have been designed from the outset for ground attack.

However, you have given me another idea for a worst ever thread. Cheers.
IDShot_540x540.jpg
 
The Douglas A-24 was considered worthless by the USAAF, despite the fact that, as the SBD Dauntless, the USN considered it an excellent dive bomber, even better than its presumed successor the Curtiss Helldiver. Actually the Helldiver might also qualify. Although thousands were built, they were generally hated by flight crews who much preferred the Dauntless.

The SB2C was a real dog. No denying that.
 
Some possibilities:

the early US torpedo bomber..totally wiped out at midway without a hit. Replaced with the Avenger.

The first run of the Helldiver was so bad, pilots (and even Admiral Halsey) begged to keep the Dauntless instead.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Yep, that's what I put in the OP. It has to have been designed from the outset for ground attack.

However, you have given me another idea for a worst ever thread. Cheers.
IDShot_540x540.jpg
...that looks like some kind of lost Bernard Cornwell book. Sharpe's Brewery, the story of how he got drunk and stole Wellington's horse..



Anyway.
The Battle.
Horrific casualties, managed to make a Merlin struggle and obsolete when introduced.
 
Some possibilities:

the early US torpedo bomber..totally wiped out at midway without a hit. Replaced with the Avenger.

You mean the Douglas SBD Devastator.

douglas-tbd-devastator.jpg


She qualifies, but her biggest problem was obsolescence. A really good design when introduced, a dog when sent into combat.
 
...that looks like some kind of lost Bernard Cornwell book. Sharpe's Brewery, the story of how he got drunk and stole Wellington's horse..



Anyway.
The Battle.
Horrific casualties, managed to make a Merlin struggle and obsolete when introduced.

Doombar: I'm just draining one now.

Battle: Designed as a strategic bomber and obsolete by 1940 It's allowable, but there are worse designs I'm sure.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Doombar: I'm just draining one now.

Battle: Designed as a strategic bomber and obsolete by 1940 It's allowable, but there are worse designs I'm sure.
Obsolete when introduced, I'd argue. Fighters were already faster and her protection was awful.
 

Garrison

Donor
Some possibilities:

the early US torpedo bomber..totally wiped out at midway without a hit. Replaced with the Avenger.

Funnily enough that was an example I was thinking of for a plane that wasn't intrisically bad just obsolete. By the time of Midway it was due for replacement by the Avenger, in fact I believe that one of the carriers actually had the replacement aircraft available but there was no time to carry out the swap.

I think to qualify as worst the aricraft needs to be seen as terrible from the time it entered service, and the Helldiver gets bonus points for being seen as worse than its predecessor.
 
Obsolete when introduced, I'd argue. Fighters were already faster and her protection was awful.

Nonsensical when thought up. It was designed on the assumption that the next war would be a polite war with France (hence twin engined bombers being banned). That is rather akin to saying it was a pure boondoggle, Fairey Battle? Fairey Pacifist would have been a more accurate name.

I think the simple mind boggling mentality of the specification has to make it a strong contender no matter how badly other aircraft performed at least they were genuinely designed as war bombers.
 
The Mighty Vickers Wellesley also had the nifty rear cockpit, and did see "action". The mighty Fairey Battle saw action in a much more intensive theatre and proved its worth as a target tow and training aircraft soon after. The Westland Lysander, an army co-operation aircraft, was better at night dropping spies and delivering Sten guns. The Breda 88 followed the Breda 65, which shared with the Blackburn Skua in being called, amongst other things, a fighter. It wasn't, really. The mighty HP Hampden threw its hat into the ground attack ring, but was quickly withdrawn to safer games, dropping mines in the dark, over water. The incredible Blenheim lasted forever, thanks to the almost endless supply of fresh crew from the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, but one has to wonder. It was a Blenheim used by the RAF that determined the most effective fighter armament. It was inadvertantly used 19 times, as well, by the actual fighters, with the loss of 18 crews. It did look like a Ju-88, kinda. Were any of these the worst? No. Just quite poor.

1401873756.png
 
Top