Worst equipment of WW2

[WEISWEILER]

About the Me 262, it was far out the most advanced fighter plane of that time, but it was so fast en versatile that it was difficult to aim its machine guns.

Anyway it came too late into service to get a good image, or to adapt it.

[WEISWEILER]

The Carden-Loyd tankette might be one of the worst armoured vehicles used in the war. In the 1940 western campaign the BEF lost lots of these tanks, many of them knocked out by infantry men on bicycles with towed PAK guns. Still the British Army used them after the invasion of Normandy in 1944, in Villers-Bocage amongst others.

[LWD]

About the Me 262, it was far out the most advanced fighter plane of that time, but it was so fast en versatile that it was difficult to aim its machine guns.

It was hardly that much more advanced that the allied jets. The fact that it was difficult to aim or for that matter to fly is not a strong recomendation either.

Anyway it came too late into service to get a good image, or to adapt it.

Actualy it has an image that is too good IMO. One of the reasons is that it was put in service when it should have still been in development. An airplane that needs it's engines overhauled every 10 hours or so is not ready for operational service. Even once they got them up to over 20 it was still not ready.

[WEISWEILER]

I agree on your last note. It wasn't ready, not technically and not strategically, since there was dispute on wether it should be used for the offense or the defense.

[sunbury2]

I will add in the Italian Breda 30 Machine gun. A weapon dangerous to use by the gunner and prone to jamming on an epic scale.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_30

[WEISWEILER]

I will add in the Italian Breda 30 Machine gun. A weapon dangerous to use by the gunner and prone to jamming on an epic scale.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_30

It doesn't look very reliable either.

[RG]

I found a top 10 of 'worst airplanes' and Breda is on spot No 2. This Polish PZL.30 Zubr is on 3th place, and IMO the most ugly one. On their No 1 is the English Fairey Battle, who was famous for... losing battles.

well, including a Zubr into a list of most lousy war equipment is a little bit unfair. It was never used in combat since it was unsuccessful airplane, see what Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LWS-6_%C5%BBubr
In addition, I read somewhere that it was not used even for training by Polish Air Force, but for such a purpose it was quite useful since it was very easy in pilotage, there was an “urban story” that one plane was piloted by a mechanic and Germans appreciated and exploited this only merit of “a bomber to be”.

[Dwight Pruitt]

Add to it the Lee/Grant tank,

A tank which it's designers knew had limitations, and was never intended to be the main tank of the U.S.. It was intended as a stop-gap, get tanks produced, and in service, while its' successor was in the planning stage.

[LWD]

Add to it the Lee/Grant tank,

A tank which it's designers knew had limitations, and was never intended to be the main tank of the U.S.. It was intended as a stop-gap, get tanks produced, and in service, while its' successor was in the planning stage.

Not to mention is probably the best tank on the battlefield when it first shows up. The first tank to out class it is the T-34 which was on the same side.

[phylo_roadking]

I will add in the Italian Breda 30 Machine gun. A weapon dangerous to use by the gunner and prone to jamming on an epic scale

I remember a review of this in the old "Purnell's History of WWII" - to stop jams, the gummer's no.2 had to squirt oil onto the mags as they were inserted, and the rounds themselves in the mag had to be greased/oiled...

In a desert environment??? I know sand gets into every crevice, but....! :roll: They'd have saved a lot of time and effort just mixing it into the oil!

[phylo_roadking]

The Carden-Loyd tankette might be one of the worst armoured vehicles used in the war. In the 1940 western campaign the BEF lost lots of these tanks, many of them knocked out by infantry men on bicycles with towed PAK guns. Still the British Army used them after the invasion of Normandy in 1944, in Villers-Bocage amongst others.

Don't get them mixed up with the many and various different marks and models of Bren Gun Carrier and Universal Carrier

And what do we think of the Salatschüssel?

Depends what you think it's for Yes, the hot forged steel ones were far better than pressed steel ones when it came to resisting direct impact...but remember, that wide rim was mostly for protection from dropping sharnel, fragments, spent rounds, etc...

Yes, id didn't really get full service and was replaced by the Me-410 Hornisse, which was succesful.

Perhaps that should just be more successful When Eric Brown tested the 410 after the end of the war, he discovered - having already flown the 210 - that the 410 still possesed ALL the handling foibles of its predecessor! For what it was designed to be - a copy of the Mosquito - it wasn't a success.

[aipaul]

What about the PIAT? I read this was the worst anti tank weapon of the war. It was difficult to cock, inaccurate, and had too short a range.

[LWD]

But you could fire it from inside a bunker or house. In any given engagement you only had to cock it once I believe.

[LineDoggie]

Stengun does seem a good candidate.

And yet most Stenguns worked when trigger pulled which was why the UK stayed with the STEN until after Suez. 90% of stoppages with Submachineguns is due to Magazines.

The Sherman tank (aka as "Tommy Cooker") also has a reasonable claim to the title of worst equipment of WW2.

And yet again Sherman fires were due to early Ammo Stowage of the "Dry stowage" and the practice of carrying more ammo than designed for. A Hit sends white hot fragments into shell casings setting off the powder charges.

The first fix was applique armor panels over the hulls where ammo bins were. The Later "Wet Stowage" M4A3 had the ammo below the turret basket in glycol filled containers surrounding the ammo. When hit the gylcol would immerse the powder. The Sherman series was uber reliable mechanically unlike the British Tanks (up to the Comet), was available in vast numbers(49,234) and did as designed (infantry support). Its 75mm was adequate against the German mediums like the Pz IV something it wasnt designed for. Remember US doctrine was Tanks do infantry support and the M3 gun used the same ammo as the French 75 M1897 Gun. Tanks were NOT to fight tanks. Tank destroyers were to fight tanks.

In Korea the M4A3,76(W) in VVSS & HVSS versions were never defeated by the God like T-34/85 in battle.

[LineDoggie]

I'd agree on the Italian and Japanese machineguns that required oiled ammunition due to not being designed with primary extraction into the designs.

Reising M50 & M55 Submachineguns, cal. 45- an atrocious weapon with marginal performance which according to Lore Col. Edson had dumped into the Matinakau river rather than issue them.

M1903A4 Snipers rifle -made from M1903A3 rifles without any checking for better accuracy, and fitted with a substandard telescopic sight that was fragile and fogged up. worst of the WW2 Sniper weapons used.