Worst Bomber of WW2.

[zoomar]

OK, inspired by the "best bomber" thread, vote for your "worst" bomber in the following categories:

Ground Attack/Close Support
Light Bomber
Medium Bomber
Heavy Bomber

To be considered, the planes have to have been in widespread production and operational. No failed prototypes, etc allowed. "Overrated" planes can be considered.

 

[Sir Scott]

OK, inspired by the "best bomber" thread, vote for your "worst" bomber in the following categories:

Ground Attack/Close Support
Light Bomber
Medium Bomber
Heavy Bomber

To be considered, the planes have to have been in widespread production and operational. No failed prototypes, etc allowed. "Overrated" planes can be considered.

lol , i feel some daggers flying.

Ok , heres my two cents ,contravertial Im sure.

Ground Attack/Close support: Ju 87 "Stuka". Now dont get me wrong , in its chosen niche (dive bombing) the Stuka was King. However , it was found in every engagement , that the Stuka simply could not defend itself against other aircraft or Ground fire. Unlike contemporary fighter-bombers , or the aircraft that was hoped to replace it (The Fw 190) , it had a very low airspeed (only 187mph) and was as manouverable as a lead brick. In the hands of a capable pilot , it was a tank killing machine. In the hands of a novice , like most pilots were towards the end of the war , it was a flying coffin.

Heavy Bomber: B-24 & He 177. Both of these aircraft were famous for being difficult to fly , and explode without warning. The B-24 had a tendency to flip over on its back of the Pilot wasnt in total controll of the aircraft (destroying wingmates on numerous occasions) , and the Heinkel had a tendancy to catch fire when the fuel lines dripped onto the exhaust , which by a stroke of idiocy was directly underneath.

 

[rip89]

Light bomber - would probably have to be the Fairey Battle, an absolute deathtrap for the men who flew it over France in 40, slow, unagile carries 1 machine gun for defence, no wonder the RAFs first 2 VCs went to battle crews!

Ground attack- Cant remember the name but there was an italian dive bomber that I read about that usualy hit the ground ahead of the Bombs it had dropped, This was replaced by the stuka in 42, which says it all.

Heavy Bomber- Italian Piaggio P108, nicknamed the flying feebleness by its crews.

Medium Bomber - not sure probably a Japanese one , Fragile and under gunned, or something like the brit hampden.

 

[Kevin Renner]

Ground Attack/Close Support;

This going to cause some commotion but IMO it is the the P51/A36. Any Close Support A/C is going to get shot at a lot. The vulnerbility of the Mustang's cooling system to ground fire is the reason

Light Bomber:

The B-18 Bolo. Sure it is a pre-war design but most of the A/C that fought in WWII were pre-war to some degree

Medium Bomber:

This is tougher. A lot of well serving journeyman A/C. Not too many dogs really got into production. OK the DO-17. Just how many were in service post BOB?

Heavy Bomber:

Two really stand out (or fall flat as it were). The Short Sterling and Heinkel 177. Both were compromised by design shortfalls. The Sterling by it requirement to fit existing RAF hangers and the Heinkel for its compound engines. A third that is disqualified for its low numbers is the B-32 Dominator

 

[Matt Wiser]

Light bomber: I'd go along with the Battle. The B-18 hardly saw combat as a bomber, but did ASW work in the Carribbean (and even killed a couple of U-boats!).

Ground Attack/CAS: The A-36 variant of the Mustang, along with the SM-89 (the Italian dive bomber that was replaced by the Stuka).

Medium bomber: Do-17, along with the Japanese Army's Ki-21 Sally and Ki-48 Lilly.

Heavy: He-177 and Italian P108.

I'd add two other categories: Carrier-based dive bomber-the Skua, and Carrier-based Torpedo bomber-TBD Devastator. Both shared one common attribute: when faced with first-class fighter opposition, they were shot to pieces.

 

[aktarian]

lol , i feel some daggers flying.

Ok , heres my two cents ,contravertial Im sure.

Ground Attack/Close support: Ju 87 "Stuka". Now dont get me wrong , in its chosen niche (dive bombing) the Stuka was King. However , it was found in every engagement , that the Stuka simply could not defend itself against other aircraft or Ground fire. Unlike contemporary fighter-bombers , or the aircraft that was hoped to replace it (The Fw 190) , it had a very low airspeed (only 187mph) and was as manouverable as a lead brick. In the hands of a capable pilot , it was a tank killing machine. In the hands of a novice , like most pilots were towards the end of the war , it was a flying coffin.

the biggest problem with stuka was that it was obsolete/obsolescent by 1939. This fact was somewhat hidden by the fact that Germany had air superiority in early period and it's vulnerability wasn't that obvious. But any time it faced serious opposition (as BoB showed) it was a massacre (and not inflicted by but inflicted upon them). It soldiered on after a fashion because it could do the job if conditions were right.

 

[zoomar]

Interesting.

I think it is too easy to jump on the Stuka, but unfair. It was a fine plane, actually pretty maneuverable. It should never have been in the BoB, that's all. My votes would be

Ground Attack/Close Support. Has to be the Fairey Battle (although it is perhaps better placed in the light bomber category).

Light Bomber Also the Battle. The Blenheim was also nearly useless. The Ki-48 was also pretty lousy.

Medium Bomber I'd go with just about anything with a meatball on it except the Ki-67. For grins, I'll choose the Ki-49, which was a completely lousy replacement for the Ki-21.

Heavy Bomber Can there really be any question? The He-177 was clearly the worst heavy bomber...if not the worst (most disappointing) major combat aircraft of all time. The Short Stirling was a paragon of excellence in comparison, as was the B-24 Liberator - which I actually do not believe was anywhere near the worst heavy bomber. The B-32 might come close, but as was pointed out it was barely operational.

 

[zoomar]

I'd add two other categories: Carrier-based dive bomber-the Skua, and Carrier-based Torpedo bomber-TBD Devastator. Both shared one common attribute: when faced with first-class fighter opposition, they were shot to pieces.

Actually, most torpedo bombers were shot to pieces when faced by first-class fighter opposition - of effective AA. Planes that must fly straight, slow, and low on their attack runs tend to be shot to pieces, as were good planes like TBFs and B5Ns when they faced these conditions.

 

[CalBear]

Ground attack: Ba.65. Looked odd, flew worse.

Light Bomber: Tupolev SB. Obsolete the day it first rolled off the production line. That was bad; the fact that the Soviets built 6,500 of the damned things is WAY worse. Dishonorable mention to the Breda BA.88, terrific aircraft until you tried to actually use it.

Medium bomber: Yokosura P1Y. Meant to be the replacement for the G4M Betty. Did everything worse except catch fire, where it was an equal of the flying cigar. Worst part is that the Japanese built over 1,000 of them. Dishonorable mention to the Farman F.220; the fact that the French actually sent men into combat in 1940 in this POS is almost enough to make you say the country DESERVED to lose to the Reich.

Heavy bomber: Mitsubishi Ki-20. Supposed to be the super secret war winning bomber (so secret it was kept a total secret until the war began). POS in actual use. Dishonorable mention to the Ki-67 and the Petlyakov Pe-8, the only WW II bomber equipped (AFAIK) with diesel engines.

Dive bomber: Blackburn Suka. It's a bomber, it's a fighter. No, its a piece of crap.

Torpedo Bomber: Fairly Albacore. Wait, you INTENTIONALLY built a biplane bomber in 1940, one that was less effective than the obsolectent plane it was supposed to replace? Dishonorable mention to the TBD, great advance in 1936, death on a stick in 1942. Made worse by the fact that 1) everybody KNEW it was obsolete AND 2) Sent into combat with a torpedo that was, in 1942, worse than useless.

 

[Matt Wiser]

First time I've ever heard anyone give the term "dishonorable mention" to the TBD. Wasn't there someone on the board a while back who was actually a fan of that death trap? Btw, VT-8 missed getting Avengers to make the Hornet's deployment to Midway by a day. Six went to Midway, and five never returned-the sixth was shot up so badly it never flew again, and the pilot actually got two Navy Crosses for the mission: the first one was for the attack on Kido Butai, and the second was for bringing the plane back-the pilot and radioman were both wounded, and the gunner killed.

 

[galveston bay]

Ground attack: Ba.65. Looked odd, flew worse.

Light Bomber: Tupolev SB. Obsolete the day it first rolled off the production line. That was bad; the fact that the Soviets built 6,500 of the damned things is WAY worse. Dishonorable mention to the Breda BA.88, terrific aircraft until you tried to actually use it.

Medium bomber: Yokosura P1Y. Meant to be the replacement for the G4M Betty. Did everything worse except catch fire, where it was an equal of the flying cigar. Worst part is that the Japanese built over 1,000 of them. Dishonorable mention to the Farman F.220; the fact that the French actually sent men into combat in 1940 in this POS is almost enough to make you say the country DESERVED to lose to the Reich.

Heavy bomber: Mitsubishi Ki-20. Supposed to be the super secret war winning bomber (so secret it was kept a total secret until the war began). POS in actual use. Dishonorable mention to the Ki-67 and the Petlyakov Pe-8, the only WW II bomber equipped (AFAIK) with diesel engines.

Dive bomber: Blackburn Suka. It's a bomber, it's a fighter. No, its a piece of crap.

Torpedo Bomber: Fairly Albacore. Wait, you INTENTIONALLY built a biplane bomber in 1940, one that was less effective than the obsolectent plane it was supposed to replace? Dishonorable mention to the TBD, great advance in 1936, death on a stick in 1942. Made worse by the fact that 1) everybody KNEW it was obsolete AND 2) Sent into combat with a torpedo that was, in 1942, worse than useless.

you have my complete agreement with everyone of these

for those who dislike the B24, it and its variants (PB4Y) where the best patrol bomber of World War II... and the B24 did have a bigger payload and better range then the B17. It wasn't a pretty aircraft though by any means. The Manchester was pretty awful too, but thankfully it gained two engines and became the Lancaster

 

[jacobus]

For worst bomber, the Mitsubishi G4M "Betty" wins hands down. A huge, lumbering target, with vulnerable, easily-ignited fuel tanks, the Allied fliers who downed this turkey in droves didn't call it "the flying Zippo" for nothing. The unfortunate Japanese aviators assigned to serve in it did so unenthusiastically, as I understand; they were aware of its shortcomings, and that each mission was likely to be a death sentence. I have a hard time thinking of any WW2 combat plane, built by any combatant nation on either side, that I'd feel more trepidition about having to fly in, and that includes even the biplanes, and the Luftwaffe's 1945 desperate gambles, some of which didn't even look like airplanes, that were sent into battle as soon as pilots crazy enough to fly them could be found. The G4M Betty tops them all.
After Nagasaki, a Japanese surrender delegation flew a pair of these to meet the Allied commanders. I guess at that point, they no longer cared if they lived or died. Later, captured Betties were flown by the French and Indonesians in the conflicts which followed the Japanese surrender. They must have been terribly desperate, and willing to take anything that would fly.

 

[Markus]

Regarding the Battle, Blenheim, Tupolev SB, Ju87 and TBD I´d like to remember you that the survival of any bomber largely depends on a fighter escort or the absence of enemy fighters.

The Battles were butchered in May 1940 because they were send in piecemeal with a small or without a fighter escort, same happened to Tupolev SB in mid-41 and to B-26 and TBF at Midway, while the TBD did exceptionally well at Coral Sea because they attacked in perfect coordination with fighters and dive bombers.

Dive bombers were vulnerable for two reasons. First they were small, single engine aircraft you can shoot down with rifle caliber machine guns and second the sharp pull out meant they had to fly slow and low after they dropped their bombs. That was the price to pay for the accuracy. The USN just got lucky because the IJN never fielded a 37/40mm AA-gun.

My "worst anythings" are japanese warplanes, because the Japanese just refused to incorporate tactical and technical lessons other learned a loooong time ago.

 

[Paul Spring]

you have my complete agreement with everyone of these

for those who dislike the B24, it and its variants (PB4Y) where the best patrol bomber of World War II... and the B24 did have a bigger payload and better range then the B17. It wasn't a pretty aircraft though by any means. ....

I remember reading that the B24 had a fairly good payload and was exceptionally resistant to damage, but that it was a pain in the a** to fly - clumsy and unresponsive. B24 pilots in Europe tended to envy their B17 counterparts, because the B17 by contrast was much smoother and easier to handle, even though in other respects it wasn't as good as the B24.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

Personally I like the 24s. Larger payload and better range than the Forts. Reliable, if leaky. Steady, if hard to handle (air crews joked you could spot a Lib pilot my his oversized left arm). Not as damage-prone as commonly stated (just seemed that way compared to the Forts!), though the wings were vulnerable, particularly to 30mm rounds, go figure .

There were also a number of small things that were great about the Libs. The roll-up bomb bay was superior in many ways to the standard hinged doors and the retractable ball turret was markedly better than the Forts', frex.

The Libs had their flaws and eccentricities (as do most airframes) but overall they were a very good airframe, IMO. There's a reason we built over 10,000 of them.

I still prefer the grace and romance of the Forts, though.

 

[esl]

Stuka was a fine dive bomber and as pointed out survival of any such bomber mostly depends on escorts, not the plane itself.

You measure DB in terms of accuracy. Stuka was said to be 50-100m CEP and 30m in the hands of an experten. Are their any compariable figures for other DB out there.

BTW from what I've seen on Stuka loses in BoB, they lost 67 over two months from a force of 350, which is <10% per month. That doesn't sound so bad to me?

 

[Astrodragon]

Stuka was a fine dive bomber and as pointed out survival of any such bomber mostly depends on escorts, not the plane itself.

You measure DB in terms of accuracy. Stuka was said to be 50-100m CEP and 30m in the hands of an experten. Are their any compariable figures for other DB out there.

BTW from what I've seen on Stuka loses in BoB, they lost 67 over two months from a force of 350, which is <10% per month. That doesn't sound so bad to me?

IIRC, the losses in the BoB are that low because they withdrew them soon after trying them on ground targets in the UK (the radar stations, I believe...)
The first 4-5 weeks of the BoB was fairly low intensity, I think they lost most of the Stukas attacking the coastal convoys.

However the losses of a Dive Bomber are a bit dependant on how accurate it is. If its accurate, then you can accept losses in exchance for low cost, low crew DB's that dont have to keep going back. Its tough on the crews, but a DB is a LOT cheaper in resources than a B-17, for example.

 

[esl]

IIRC, the losses in the BoB are that low because they withdrew them soon after trying them on ground targets in the UK (the radar stations, I believe...)
The first 4-5 weeks of the BoB was fairly low intensity, I think they lost most of the Stukas attacking the coastal convoys.

However the losses of a Dive Bomber are a bit dependant on how accurate it is. If its accurate, then you can accept losses in exchance for low cost, low crew DB's that dont have to keep going back. Its tough on the crews, but a DB is a LOT cheaper in resources than a B-17, for example.

Yes I understand they withdrew them to ensure their were sufficent numbers stockpiled for Sealion. Without drop tanks its range was too limited to hit much even over sothern England.

 

[CanadianGoose]

Light Bomber: Tupolev SB. Obsolete the day it first rolled off the production line. That was bad; the fact that the Soviets built 6,500 of the damned things is WAY worse.

What R U smoking? It was Moskito of late 1930s. Yes, it became obsolete by 1941, but what plane design of 1933 didn't?

If you want some Soviet designs mentioned here, Su-2 and Yak BB were pretty lousy for different reasons, and TB-3 outlived it's intended lifespan by at least 5 years.

 

[galveston bay]

What R U smoking? It was Moskito of late 1930s. Yes, it became obsolete by 1941, but what plane design of 1933 didn't?

If you want some Soviet designs mentioned here, Su-2 and Yak BB were pretty lousy for different reasons, and TB-3 outlived it's intended lifespan by at least 5 years.

I agree, the Soviets made plenty of bad aircraft without tarring the Tupolev designs, which generally were pretty decent aircraft for their day