niceguy2005
Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Many of the proposals were for obsolete bombers at the beginning of hostilities which was only used on a limited basis. If the field were limited to aircraft that had any extensive use as a front line bomber, I believe the field would be down to:
B-17
B-24
B-25
SM.79
Martin Maryland
Do-17
Do-217
The Maryland saw little use outside of the Western Desert.
Personally, if this were the field, I could cast my vote for the SM.79, though Italian camo schemes did help to improve the aesthetics to some degree. Italy was behind the curve in aircraft design for most of the war. They continued to use open cockpits on their fighhters long past when other powers had gone to fully enclosed cockpits. The SM.79 was a fabric covered, trimotor design, with external bracing when its contemporaries were mostly all metal (except the Wellington and Mosquito), 2 or 4 engines, and almost all had done away with all external bracing.
The Italians were handicapped with a poor engine industry. They didn't have any engines with output approaching contemporary levels until they started building Damiler Benz engines under license. The SM.79 would have been better off with a twin engine arrangement, but the Italians lacked any engines powerful enough to do the job. They did produce an under powered twin engine version for export. As far as I know, the only buyer was Iraq.
Most of the Allies badly neglected their militaries during the interwar period. Civilian aviation in many of these countries was where the money was and both racing and airliner business fueled development. When war came, these countries had a lot of out of date military equipment still on hand, and/or were stocked with stop gaps they had picked up from other countries. Because the expertise was there in the civilian sector in the US and Britain, these countries were able to turn their aircraft industry around and build excellent aircraft within a short time of entering the war. What was on hand at the beginning was a mix of state of the art and a lot of old junk.
The USSR had neglected their aviation industry for a different reason. Stalin had locked up or shot most of the aircraft designers. Though the survivors were let out of the gulag and designed some very good aircraft during the war. Even still, the USSR did have small numbers of some excellent aircraft at the start of the war. The MiG-3 was one of the best high altitude fighters around at the outbreak of the war. Though most were lost trying to stem the tide at low altitude where their advantages were negated. The Sturmovik and Pe-2 were also almost ready or available in small numbers when the war started.
Japan and Germany had a larger number of aesthetically pleasing aircraft at the beginning of the war because both had been building up their air arms with modern aircraft in the couple of years before they got into the conflict. They had a larger number of newer aircraft on hand, which tended to be more streamlined and used more modern design elements. Though there were plenty of old aircraft on hand too. The Hs-123 was a biplane ground attack bomber that served on the Eastern Front until the last of them were grounded due to lack of spares. Japan was flying the Claude and Nate in many units at the beginning of the war.
Italy went to war long before they were prepared. Their industry was not up to the demands of a major war and they failed to build enough out of date equipment for their military. They struggled to bring anything more modern ot the battlefield.
This thread is showing that aesthetics is, at least to some degree, in the eye of the beholder. I would not consider some of the bombers proposed ugly. To my eye, the Do-17 and B-25 have a certain grace to them. The B-17 and B-24 both have their ugly sides, but I wouldn't call them ugly. But then that's just my opinion.
Bill
I agree that some of these nominees are getting a bit far afield. Shouldn't the criteria be having flown a mission during WWII? That let's in a lot of the French AC...ok, maybe they didn't all get off the ground  but a least they were present.
I also agree that beauty is certainly subjective, but I don't think either the b-17 or b-24 come close to qualifying as the "ugliest bomber".
_____________________________
 Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
|
Printable Version
RE: Ugliest Bomber of WWII - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread