What were the worst aircraft of WW2?
What were the worst aircraft of WW2?
Carson Robinson
Matthew Morgan
Brewster Buffalo, but I'd say the Devastator was worse.
MiG-3 and Lagg-3 were pretty shit too...
Jackson Johnson
In what ways? Some never flew
Matthew Taylor
Maybe the Caudron c.714? It was designed to be as cheap and easy to make as possible so the French air force could pad their numbers.
Josiah Bennett
Finns did good work with the Buffalo.
Isaiah Harris
The Me-163 was pretty bad even though it's cool as fuck.
Adrian Lee
Literally anything made by Russia
Robert Martinez
Mig3 and lagg3 were fine duckface, early lagg3s sucked dick when the factories were on wheels sure
Name 1 shit thing about the mig3
It was cancelled because the engines were made in the same plant as il2 engines. It could do most shit better than the bf109f2.
Shittiest plane was that English turret fighter or the hurricane which only had a respectable armament
Tyler Hill
The bombers in general were shit
Only reason b17s/lancs worked is because they shoaled them together so tight
Any situation with bombers flying in small numbers or alone, they had a bad time
Blenheims and wellingtons got fucking RAPED right at the start
Luis Foster
f*nns lost
Caleb Jenkins
they lost clay, but their kill ratio was impressive.
Ian Baker
the commie-made ones were pretty bad.
They did really good work with the lend lease stuff they got though.
Owen Rivera
Lagg 3 was slow due to its wooden construction and handled poorly, both high and low altitude.
MIg-3 was only useful as a high altitude interceptor , which didn't happen much on the Eastern Front. It was dogshit at low altitude and noted for its poor handling down low.
Christian Jenkins
Handled poorly when? Which series? What's wrong with wood construction? La7 and mosquito both use I'd to great sucess?
And you are also confirmed for not knowing fuckall because the mig3 is most useful at low to medium altitudes where it outmanuevers 109s at medium speeds, has excellent visability, adequate armament, and near parity in top speed and a higher combat speed. At high alt the mig3 oil pressure dropped too low for sustained flights
Did you learn from warthunder or shitty osprey books?
Gabriel Robinson
>Russ*n goals
>destruction of Finnish army
>Occupation and establishment of a puppet government
>goals achieved 0.
In in victory the Shitveits lose.
Owen Davis
Not that guy but Bf109 didn't fucking flat spin.
This was at a time when they were trying to train new pilots. Imagine it. Horrific way to die.
Jason Hill
definitively the worst one to pilot ITT
>fuel leaks
>pray for the plane to explode so your death will be quick instead of melting to death
Lucas Torres
You mean the firefly that no one even know exists?
Isaac Baker
Firefly doesn't have a turret. The Defiant does, however.
Dominic Reed
This is peak vatnik
Jacob Wood
>Mig3
>better than the bf109f2
Other than being a slower climber, slower overall and having terrible low altitude performance, sure.
Hunter Kelly
Daily reminder that a single Brewster Buffalo, BW-364, gained 42 and a half kills, more than every single fighter airframe ever had, making it the single highest scoring fighter aircraft in the history of aerial combat.
Josiah Evans
Yak-3 is among the best WW2 era fighters. French ace Marcel Albert flew for Vichy France, Free French, Royal Air Force, and Soviet Air Force. He considered the Yak-3 better than the P-51 and Spitfire he previously flew in.
Isaac Sanders
The Devastator was pretty terrible. A bad plane made all the worse by early-war American torpedoes that had an abysmal failure rate for many reasons. American torpedo bomber pilots at the start of the war had everything going against them.
Carter Bennett
>Name 1 shit thing about the mig3
torque that makes the airplane constantly want to capsize
Ryan Lewis
doing what shooting down soviet biplanes flown by an aerial penal battalion?
Alexander Bailey
Helldiver without question, they were so bad we sent a bunch to the french for Indochina
Jackson Taylor
Su-2, probably. I might say Me 163 but they get out of being called the worst because of cool factor.
Ryan Campbell
How many different planes did bubi use?
James Garcia
Hartmann? Like a dozen, I think. Either because they were damaged or because he would fly newer pilot's planes and let them use his so they wouldn't be bothered. He definitely didn't go his whole career in the same 109.
42.5 kills in one airframe is pretty impressive and I'd believe possibly the record.
Daniel Perez
>He considered the Yak-3 better than the P-51 and Spitfire he previously flew in.
ANd? The P-51 is undeniably superior to the yak3 in every way possible, especially the shit that really matters for high altitude fighters e.g. speed, ceiling, range and armament.
What's more, Albert never actually flew the P-51 in combat and scored almost all of his kills in the yak9. Worse, if you take out his spurious 'shared kills' which is 3/4 of his claimed kills, then he's one of the lowest scoring "aces" in the war.
Albert is literally just some nobody propaganda symbol.
Bentley Taylor
This was in the Continuation war, not the winter war.
Buffalos shot down I-16s, Lagg-3s, Yaks, P-40s, Hurricanes, and a list of different bombers and attack aircraft.
Jaxon Clark
Buffalos also shot down Spitfires. But then again, Soviet pilots were picked on random and put straight into the cockpit and off they go.
Levi Thompson
why can't mutts admit that their military hardware always was shit designed by babbies?
>muh speed muh guns
Colton Garcia
Not to mention Korea proved that even after war Soviet prop aircraft could barely touch B-29s and it wasn't until the MiG-15 that B-29s started to see any actual resistance at high altitude.
Leo Edwards
>French ace Marcel Albert flew for Vichy France, Free French, Royal Air Force, and Soviet Air Force
>flew for Vichy France
Traitor, opinion discarded.
Dylan Allen
Yak-3 is only better in the low altitude where he fought during the war. It's quite stupid to compare the planes like he did. The usual soviet fighters couldn't even dive faster than Zeros.
Even plenty of La-5s during 1943 and without much losses of their own. Many of the pilots in the squadron flying the Buffalos were Winter War veterans. They got their Bf 109Gs in early 1944.
Adam Butler
>Even plenty of La-5s during 1943 and without much losses of their own
source?
Blake Bailey
The Skua is the best bad plane
Carson Campbell
Right then, so if we manage to get close enough without getting spotted and have the height advantage for that extra boost of speed then we can just about manage to catch some of the enemy bombers. And then proceed to generally irritate them a bit since all we have is quad thirty cals.
Andrew Jackson
>Yak-3 gets discontinued by the soviets because it's useless.
>Stalin then dumps a bunch of them on a surrender monkey outfit with a bunch of other shit hardware they had lying around.
>A shit-tier french """"""ace""""" claims that it's a good plane despite getting almost no kills in it while Russians on the same front are racking dozens of kills in their la-5s.
>Claims that the spitfire, P51 and FW190 are all shit, despite the fact that they're widely recognized as being outstandingly good planes.
>Fast forward to 2018 and desperate vatniks hold said retard's opinion up as a reliable source.
Russians, not even once.
Easton Phillips
>fi.wikipedia.org
>axis source
discarded
Landon Long
>Claims that the spitfire, P51 and FW190 are all shit, despite the fact that they're widely recognized as being outstandingly good planes.
True and yaks and las were better
Juan Parker
[citation needed]
William Fisher
Id say the Roc was worse
Jose Taylor
A really shit bomber.
Battle.
Sebastian Foster
That is a big damn plane for how few bombs it could carry.
Brayden Carter
>doesn't even try to disprove it because he can't
Vatnik opinion discarded.
Connor Myers
Heres a complete list of BW-364's score. I'm not sure what is missing or why but that makes 35 kills. Spitfires were probably Yaks.
2 x SB-2
DB-3
6 x I-16
8 x I-153
8 x MiG-3
Hurricane
Pe-2
2 x Spitfire
P-40
2 x Yak
La-5
Christian Nelson
La-5s very probably did shoot down several B-239s. From Spring of 1943 there were two Guards regiments facing LeLv24 and both had a squadron of La-5s, that would later also inflict casualties on LeLv34 and 24's Bf 109s.
Joshua Ortiz
buffalo physically can't shoot down a la5 let alone interceptor like mig3
once again
>believing axis sources
Matthew Bailey
>k/d matters
Back to CoD bud.
Aaron Reyes
>buffalo physically can't shoot down a la5 let alone interceptor like mig3
How much vodka and borscht do you have to swill in one sitting to become this much of a delusional vatnik?
David Wood
Xavier Lopez
>Posting this every time Finland is mentioned
Please use the dolly to indicate where the wood mongols violated you.
Caleb Sanchez
Of course it can. I-153s shot down 109s(you must have heard about Nowotny's 3 days on a raft) and Hurricanes shot down Fw 190s
Position and tactics always beat raw performance.
Hunter Russell
>Buffalos also shot down Spitfires.
I am personally think those Spitfires being missidentification of the new Yak-9 that was coming to the finnish front at the time frame. Sure the Soviets did have Spitfires at the time but they where used in the southern front near Stalingrad. The first Spitfires that where anywhere near finnish frontlines arrived after the fighting was allready over.
Grayson Ortiz
>I am personally think those Spitfires being missidentification of the new Yak-9 that was coming to the finnish front at the time frame.
Most likely, yes.
Which only makes the vatniks even more butthurt.
Chase Hernandez
Polish PZL 11 was still in use. The main Belgian fighter was the Fairey Fox, which was a 1930s biplane. So yeah, worse than a devastator.
Alexander Price
Mitsubishi G4M gets atleast a special mention although its reputation as a flying zippo might be a bit exaggerated
Anthony Rodriguez
I think Spitfires first saw action in the Kuban peninsula in Spring and Summer of 1943, and indeed none are known to have fought in Finnish front
FiAF Bf 109s also claimed a P-38 that flew alone, but that must have been a captured Fw 189
Luis Johnson
most likely these spitfires didn't even existed
finnshits just looked at soviet air forces composition and made up kills like axis always do
Asher Young
In that list there is a Ju 188F shot down in 14.4.1944.
The Spitfire claims are from late 42 to early 43, so maybe Lagg-3s, Yak-1s or P-40s?
Then there are 3x Mustangs and a single Warhawk in summer 44, which are most likely Yak-9s.
Adam Myers
DESU all the Yaks are very difficult to ID from each other especially at distance and in mere seconds, and it doesnt help that both many Yak-1s and Yak-9 had similar bubble canopies. And Yak-7 has the long plexiglass.
Spitfires before Mk. IX have a unique large water radiator under right wing(and IX and later have one under both wings), if it was something the pilots looked for then I'm thinking they were actually P-40s as it has its large radiator cowling and landing retracted gear's bulges clearly visible from directly behind. Unlike Yak, LaGG, MiG and La that all have featureless wing lower surfaces.
Xavier Ward
Joshua Bennett
How is this more cancerous than a tank thread?
Isaac Green
It's not exaggerated. There are plenty of first hand Japanese accounts that corroborate it, not to mention accounts from both pilots and ground troops on the Allied side.
The G4M went up like a light faster than Wehraboos and Vatniks claim the Sherman did.
Non self-sealing fueltanks and incendiary ammunition will do that to a plane.
That being said, the G4M won't be the worst, due to it's massive range and the fact that it actually did work.
Luis Hall
Vatniks still buthurt over 70 years later at the mere mention of Finland.
Quite pathetic really.
Aiden Howard
daily reminder that finland lost winter and cont. war
Grayson King
Like clockwork.
Elijah Reyes
ITT: Vatnik butthurt
Angel Edwards
this pos
Caleb Brooks
It would almost be funny if it didn't derail every fucking thread...
Gavin Moore
Yeah, i can't really figure out how they thought that was a good idea, but i do believe that they did less horribly as night fighters.
Henry Wright
Thank you! I was starting to lose hope scrolling down the thread and fired up ctrl+f to see if people here knew their shit.
Blackburn Roc, what a miserable POS.
>"Hey, let's take the Skua and see just how much worse we can make it, chaps!"
>no improvement to bomb capacity
>all forward-firing armament moved to turret, pretty much useless against ground targets (not that four .303s would do much anyway)
>even slower than the Skua, can't outrun *anything*
Interestingly, the Brits were about to send a bunch of Rocs to Finland in early 1940, but the Winter War managed to end before they got them sent over. It would have been interesting to see what the Finns could have pulled off with those...
Jaxson Garcia
This is Fairey fulmar. A two seat carrier borne recon fighter. It was slow and unagile because it wasn't supposed to meet enemy fighters and it was quickly phased out when it did.
>It would have been interesting to see what the Finns could have pulled off with those...
Maybe removed the turret and used it as a bomber or recon.
Dylan Walker
Did a Finn fuck your girlfriend or something, Ivan?
Jackson Howard
Enjoy the dumbest fucking idea in the history of modern air warfare.
Hey guys lets make a daylight fighter, but give it a rear turret, and no forward armament.
In 1940.
It'll be great.
Christopher Barnes
bad plane?
Step aside
Ryan Martin
Tended to blow-up during flight
Levi Kelly
The final inline lavochkin effort, not a very well known plane
Nathaniel Parker
cope harder loser
Matthew Gutierrez
Brewster Buffalo
>Slow
>Only got couple of .50 cal.
>Got shot down by Japanese KI-43 who'd only couple of 7.7 machinegun
>Turbocharger got seized at medium altitude
Basically a FAT, USELESS,UNDERPOWED and PUNY FIREPOWER.
LIKE AMERICAN FAT WOMEN..
Austin Perry
en.wikipedia.org
I don't think so. The gladiator was a good design for it's time, but by 1939 it was just obsolete. I don't think a plane should be called bad just because it was old and technology advanced. For a plane to be bad it has to have been badly designed, or have a stupid design concept. A stupid design concept would be something like the defiant.
And to be honest the Gladiators did pretty well considering how out of date they were by 1940 and how outclassed they were by more modern designs.
Gavin Green
SB2C was not a bad aircraft
Benjamin Rodriguez
Again I think the buffalo was a reasonable design for it's time. By 1940 it was just old and out of date.
Brody Reed
Italy. Land of good bread and dubious planes. Behold the Caproni 310.
"Luigi? I have an idea."
"Si, Mario?"
"What if we made a plane, but used the worst guns and weakest engines we can find?
"But Mario, won't that killa our pilotas?"
"Haha Luigi, this is even better - we exporta it.... to France and England!"
"Highscore, Mario! Highscore!"
Lincoln Long
Neither France or England ever purchased the Ca. 310. What the fuck are you talking about you spastic?
Oliver Campbell
LMAO
go back to jerking off over war thunder
Jose Adams
No, but they ordered the 313 which was developed from the 310. How finicky do we have to get?
Evan Flores
>Hey guys lets make a daylight fighter, but give it a rear turret, and no forward armament.
>In 1940.
Except it was designed to meet specifications released in 1935, and made its first flight was in 1937. And it was intended as a bomber destroyer, not to duke it out with fighters. But true. it was woefully obsolete already at the start of the war and quick got torn a new asshole or three by Bf 109s once the surprise factor of its turret armament was gone.
Still, it fared reasonably well as a night fighter against bombers.
Mason Gutierrez
Helldiver wasn't great but it definitely wasn't one of the worst because it had a very good combat record despite aviators not liking it that much when compared to the SBD.
Hunter White
its called sekret gaijin dokuments u retard
Michael Phillips
>He considered the Yak-3 better than the P-51 and Spitfire he previously flew in.
It suited his style better because it only just had enough armament for a skilled shot to take down the enemy, in order to save weight. For an ace that's a good aircraft. But the average pilot is served better by a decent armament, and average pilots win wars.
Wyatt Garcia
How did these bastards continue to get contracts to make new planes for the military?
To be fair to the Defiant, this was designed in an era of emerging and completely untested combat theory. The same era that produced the idea of bombers so heavily armed that fighters could not survive against the,, twin engined heavy fighters, etc. NONE of those concepts worked in practice, however the turreted fighter is probably the silliest.
I heard the Defiant briefly enjoyed some success when German pilots mistook it for a hurricane and attempted to attack from above and behind.
Elijah Powell
Yak-3 didnt really do anything meaningful better than P-51 or late Spitfires. It was slower than La-5/7 and last Yak-9s.
Dunno why you think Yak's armament was light. Not a whole lot of ammo on board but its more heavily armed than most previous VVS fighters and the Bf 109.
Elijah Ross
Stubby Finnboi with a 26:1 victory ratio tends to disagree.
Earlier, lighter variant with better power to weight ratio, unneeded navy gear stripped to further reduce weight. Four .50 cals. Did pretty well against the opposition it faced. Granted, they didn't face Ivan's best in terms of aircraft or pilots, but still it's no small feat that such an old fighter could hold its own on more or less equal terms until 1943 or so,
Leo Anderson
Amusingly, Defiant type fighter would be far more useful for krauts than it ever was for brits.
>Approach lancaster formation from the low altitude
>match speed
>aim up
>keep firing
>brits can't fire back
Brandon Brown
it was a bit slower than the Navy variant though