Admiral Halsey
Banned
Helldiver takes the cake IMO. While the others were bad at least they were better then the plane they were replacing.
Worst Ground Attack Aircraft Of WW2
- Thread starter oldironside
- Start date
Insider
Banned
I think Helldiver had serious handling issues. One has to keep in mind that landing can be worse enemy than fighters.
That was exactly the point I was making on the Worst Possible WW2 Carrier Fighter thread. Everything flows from servicability. If you haven't got that, you haven't got anything.
Curtiss helldiver was WRONG in so many ways.
First a Helldiver prototype lost its tail to flutter.
That forced dozens of minor changes during production.
Canadian Car and Foundry (Fort William, Ontario) lost so much money building Helldivers that they fired Elsie May Macdonald.
US Navy pilots reported that Helldivers were difficult to fly. They quickly handed some to Free French Forces ... something about not liking General Degaulle ... USN scrapped all their Helldivers at the end of WW2.
Handley Page Hampdens were even worse to fly. They had a peculiar characteristic know as "stabilized yaw" because their tiny tail fins were too small. Hampdens also suffered from narrow cockpits that made it difficult to switch out all by the tiniest pilot when he was exhausted or wounded.
Fairey Battles' biggest problem was obscelence. Ironically, many BCATP Battles had turrets installed so they could train aerial gunners. From a distance, they looked like Boulton-Paul Defiants.
First a Helldiver prototype lost its tail to flutter.
That forced dozens of minor changes during production.
Canadian Car and Foundry (Fort William, Ontario) lost so much money building Helldivers that they fired Elsie May Macdonald.
US Navy pilots reported that Helldivers were difficult to fly. They quickly handed some to Free French Forces ... something about not liking General Degaulle ... USN scrapped all their Helldivers at the end of WW2.
Handley Page Hampdens were even worse to fly. They had a peculiar characteristic know as "stabilized yaw" because their tiny tail fins were too small. Hampdens also suffered from narrow cockpits that made it difficult to switch out all by the tiniest pilot when he was exhausted or wounded.
Fairey Battles' biggest problem was obscelence. Ironically, many BCATP Battles had turrets installed so they could train aerial gunners. From a distance, they looked like Boulton-Paul Defiants.
I tend to disagree, the battle wasn't obsolete as such, it was only introduced in 1937 so was actually a fairly modern design. It was just a design born out of obsolete thinking. It was however outclassed in the theatre it was to fight in.
Insider
Banned
Light bombers were used in all fronts of the war. So it wasn't obsolete thinking. It's that when they went to battle unescorted, it always ended with slaughter.
I'll go out on a limb here and ask whether there were any other light bombers used that didn't have twin engines or the ability to dive? In particular were there any light bombers that didn't have twin engines or the ability to dive that were expected to operate in a (modern) fighter heavy environment?
Driftless
Donor
Wasn't the way the Battle was used in 1940 similar to the line of thinking in 1914-15 when the British & French Reconnaisance & light bombers got shot to peices? The Stukas wasn't a flying marvel, but the Germans had established local air superiority, and the allied AA wasn't as efficient as the Germans.
"There's forty shillings on the bar,
You're drunk Mr. Sharpe, so you are,
You stole his horse, now run today
Over the hills and far away..."
Admiral Beez
Banned
Japanese Battle - Mitsubishi Ki-30
Mitsubishi Ki-30. Less than a 1,000 lb bomb load, two mgs,
Mitsubishi Ki-30. Less than a 1,000 lb bomb load, two mgs,
Admiral Beez
Banned
The US had over 1,100 Generals in WW2. Like any other organization, there's lots of management.
marathag
Banned
If the Battle was such a failure, why not the Il-2?
What? some may exclaim.
Vast numbers of them were built, and the Germans shot down vast numbers for them
in 1943, 1 in 26 sorties was a loss. That's Fairey Battle over France territory.
Now the A-36, the little used ground attack version of the P-51, was 1 in 132.
The P-39 was 1 in 285.
Now, what do you really want to fly?
What? some may exclaim.
Vast numbers of them were built, and the Germans shot down vast numbers for them
in 1943, 1 in 26 sorties was a loss. That's Fairey Battle over France territory.
Now the A-36, the little used ground attack version of the P-51, was 1 in 132.
The P-39 was 1 in 285.
Now, what do you really want to fly?
But it's lower than 1943 Lancaster loss rates, which were around 1 loss in 22 sorties.
The SB2C managed to do the job, but given that the SBD was going out of production so that Douglas could concentrate on what became the AD Skyraider, the Navy had no choice but to continue with the program. The SB2C-1 (main initial production version) was a dog, but the SB2C-3, -4, and -5 were much better, having a four-bladed propeller, improved engine performance, and even Marc Mitscher (who commanded TF 38/58 for either Bull Halsey or Ray Spruance) felt that the plane was doing the job well enough. SB2Cs did not leave the active Navy inventory until 1949, btw. It was still a beast, still tough to handle, and got quite a few aircrews killed in accidents. But it got the job done for the last two years of the war. The French Navy flew SB2Cs in Indochina as late as 1954, and they got good results out of the airplane.
The A-24's problem was that its crews were largely inexperienced on type, and that they were sent into combat with little or no fighter escort. Granted, Navy SBDs often had no fighter cover (Midway, especially) but many of their crews had been flying on type for at least six months, if not more. The Army A-24 crews in the NEI and New Guinea were fresh out of flight school for the most part, and had hardly trained on type, let alone had any real tactical training, prior to going into combat. The AAF really wanted the A-25 (their SB2C version), but delays with the Helldiver, and finding out that the P-47 was a pretty decent fighter-bomber meant that the AAF got out of the dive-bomber business, though some A-25s flew ASW patrols in Florida and the Canal Zone.
My candidate for the worst ground attack aircraft of WW II? Fairey Battle.
As for the Il-2's loss rate? Those were losses the Russians felt they could afford. Build them cheap, build them rugged and reliable, and build a lot of them. Got the job done.
The A-24's problem was that its crews were largely inexperienced on type, and that they were sent into combat with little or no fighter escort. Granted, Navy SBDs often had no fighter cover (Midway, especially) but many of their crews had been flying on type for at least six months, if not more. The Army A-24 crews in the NEI and New Guinea were fresh out of flight school for the most part, and had hardly trained on type, let alone had any real tactical training, prior to going into combat. The AAF really wanted the A-25 (their SB2C version), but delays with the Helldiver, and finding out that the P-47 was a pretty decent fighter-bomber meant that the AAF got out of the dive-bomber business, though some A-25s flew ASW patrols in Florida and the Canal Zone.
My candidate for the worst ground attack aircraft of WW II? Fairey Battle.
As for the Il-2's loss rate? Those were losses the Russians felt they could afford. Build them cheap, build them rugged and reliable, and build a lot of them. Got the job done.
This is very true, but I would still rate the Breda 88 far below the Battle. At least Fairey's entry could fly reasonably well when fully equpped and bombed up. The Breda couldn't even do that.
Insider
Banned
One could just wonder how Breda 88 was ever build in such numbers. Why hasn't anybody in RA came with bright idea to test fly production version of the plane?? Most of the faults would become apparent once this mishappen bird flies. Or I would better say: IF it flies. That would save engines, duraluminum, fuel, ground crew's time by not building it. If italians wanted a mock plane that enemy airman could target, they should build them with coarse plywood.