Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Churchill

The 'Stuff You Wouldn't Want To Go To War In' GB

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, GrimReaper09 said:

 

But I'm enjoying seeing which models hold up to the 4 principles you stated in the first post.  

I think it's definitely a GB that's likely to prompt some interesting discussion, and we've seen that already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested in such a GB ! It would be an excuse to build something much less than ordinary and I have plenty of ideas concerning aviation subjects...

The Breda Ba.65 and Ba.88 (the latter deemed so dangerous to fly that was grounded after a very brief career), the He.177 with her habit of catching fire in the air, the Blackburn Roc, a few US types built only to keep the factories busy, all the German and Japanese last-ditch projects... and if prototypes are allows there's a lot more potential !

Please count me for this one !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

I would be interested in such a GB ! It would be an excuse to build something much less than ordinary and I have plenty of ideas concerning aviation subjects...

The Breda Ba.65 and Ba.88 (the latter deemed so dangerous to fly that was grounded after a very brief career), the He.177 with her habit of catching fire in the air, the Blackburn Roc, a few US types built only to keep the factories busy, all the German and Japanese last-ditch projects... and if prototypes are allows there's a lot more potential !

Please count me for this one !

Great to have you on board, Giorgio. It sounds like you have some interesting ideas there. Wikipedia says the Ba88 'represented, perhaps, the most remarkable failure of any operational aircraft to see service in World War II', but it was a good looking aircraft and would make a nice model. Some of those last ditch aircraft would certainly qualify, someone has already mentioned the Bachem Natter. The Natter was operational, and I certainly wouldn't want to land a plywood airplane with no propulsion and tiny stubby wings designed for the rocket powered phase of flight. The Germans proposed an aircraft with an armoured nose and armoured leading edges on wings and tail, which was supposed to be smashed through Allied bombers and survive the collision to come back and land - but I don't know if the idea got far enough that was even a design that one could build a reasonably accurate model of, which would rule it out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon we can include the Devastator and the LaGG-3 in this GB as well. The Devastator was of course slaughtered at Midway and the LaGG-3 was called the Guaranteed Varnished Coffin by it's crews!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Churchill said:

Great to have you on board, Giorgio. It sounds like you have some interesting ideas there. Wikipedia says the Ba88 'represented, perhaps, the most remarkable failure of any operational aircraft to see service in World War II', but it was a good looking aircraft and would make a nice model. Some of those last ditch aircraft would certainly qualify, someone has already mentioned the Bachem Natter. The Natter was operational, and I certainly wouldn't want to land a plywood airplane with no propulsion and tiny stubby wings designed for the rocket powered phase of flight. The Germans proposed an aircraft with an armoured nose and armoured leading edges on wings and tail, which was supposed to be smashed through Allied bombers and survive the collision to come back and land - but I don't know if the idea got far enough that was even a design that one could build a reasonably accurate model of, which would rule it out. 

I keep doing this. The Natter wasn't landed with those stubby wings, the pilot and the fuselage containing the rocket motors came down under parachutes, while the nose and cockpit crashed to earth. Still wouldn't want to go to war in it 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely one for me too Churchill, although I'm not sure what with yet (unfortunately, I've only just finished a Vought Cutlass!).

 

Just out of interest, how bad do subjects have to be :winkgrin:?  For example, would a German Starfighter be dangerous enough or a Meteor over Korea be suitably outclassed?

 

Cheers

Cliff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Natter launch tower on the way, still I have to dig out the Natter itself... but I'll have time to find it somewhere... if the Natter counts:

 

BRS72007a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of early Allied armour from World War 2 would fit the bill!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, CliffB said:

Definitely one for me too Churchill, although I'm not sure what with yet (unfortunately, I've only just finished a Vought Cutlass!).

 

Just out of interest, how bad do subjects have to be :winkgrin:?  For example, would a German Starfighter be dangerous enough or a Meteor over Korea be suitably outclassed?

 

Cheers

Cliff

If I recall correctly, at least one very senior air force officer declared the Starfighter unfit for service, which I'd say counts as 'wouldn't want to go to war in it'. Over a hundred luftwaffe pilots died in Starfighter accidents in peacetime, so it meets the dangerous to crew even without the enemy doing anything criterion. On the subject of the Meteor over Korea I know nothing - care to tell us some more? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Threadbear said:

Plenty of early Allied armour from World War 2 would fit the bill!!

not that alone, take a Polish TKS, a panzer 1, or even an early sherman (Tommycooker), a Betty bomber (one shot lighter) etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, CliffB said:

Just out of interest, how bad do subjects have to be :winkgrin:?  For example, would a German Starfighter be dangerous enough or a Meteor over Korea be suitably outclassed?

 

Cheers

Cliff

 

My opinion is if it earned the nickname 'Widowmaker' then it should be in. I think it ticks box 4; being it was a flawed purchase to use in hilly terrain that often has poor weather and flown by inexperienced crew. Add to that the mission profile of fighter-bomber was not what it was designed to do, causing fatigue problems with the wings. It was also called unfit for front line service by people like Eric Hartmann, who I reckon knew a thing or two about combat.

 

I don't think the Meteor over Korea would qualify though. It gave a pretty good account of itself, despite being slightly inferior to the MiG 15 (technically you could argue the Sabre was as well, at least in some aspects), the air to air kills were about even for and against 77 Squadron while it's record in ground attack was superb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Threadbear said:

Plenty of early Allied armour from World War 2 would fit the bill!!

Sadly true. An interesting thing about this GB is that it's not just the barking mad stuff like flying tanks, but common equipment that hundreds or thousands of servicemen and women did indeed have to go to war in, such as snatch landrovers.

 

For early Allied armour, none of it was up to much, so I think we'd have to ask you to pick what you think was the very worst, and explain your choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Churchill said:

If I recall correctly, at least one very senior air force officer declared the Starfighter unfit for service, which I'd say counts as 'wouldn't want to go to war in it'. Over a hundred luftwaffe pilots died in Starfighter accidents in peacetime, so it meets the dangerous to crew even without the enemy doing anything criterion. On the subject of the Meteor over Korea I know nothing - care to tell us some more? 

Terrifying as it is the Belgians lost a higher percentage of their Starfighter pilots 😮

 

I'll be up for this. As a fan of British AFVs I'm rather spoilt for choice however there was a proposal (actually trialled) to tow gutted useless Centaurs behind tanks to carry infantry to their objectives. Bouncing around inside a barely armoured box, enjoying the pungent effects of carbon monoxide, leaping into the thick of it with no situational awareness at all. Sounds perfect to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Silenoz said:

I have a Natter launch tower on the way, still I have to dig out the Natter itself... but I'll have time to find it somewhere... if the Natter counts:

 

BRS72007a.jpg

The Natter absolutely counts, and that is a very exciting kit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How about the Avia 199? The Israeli pilots that flew them 1948-49 had a lot to say about this aircraft - none of it good :)

Three-fourths were written off in accidents directly related to mechanical failure - the rest were immediately retired after the war's end... mainly because no pilot would fly the Mules.

Mule was the unflattering nickname given this aircraft by the Czech Air Force pilots

What do you say?

 

Cheers, Moggy

Edited by Moggy
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moggy said:

How about the Avia 199? The Israeli pilots that flew them 1948-49 had a lot to say about this aircraft - none of it good :)

Three-forths were written off in accidents directly related to mechanical failure - the rest were immediately retired after the war's end... mainly because no pilot would fly the Mules.

Mule was the unflattering nickname given this aircraft by the Czech Air Force pilots

What do you say?

 

Cheers, Moggy

 

Oh yeh, totally. The only time more than 3 were serviceable for action was on their first combat mission. Serviceability was so bad the Israeli's I believe asked for their money back! Almost all losses were written off during landing and take off accidents as the torque from the prop would cause the aircraft to swing violently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SleeperService said:

Terrifying as it is the Belgians lost a higher percentage of their Starfighter pilots 😮

 

I'll be up for this. As a fan of British AFVs I'm rather spoilt for choice however there was a proposal (actually trialled) to tow gutted useless Centaurs behind tanks to carry infantry to their objectives. Bouncing around inside a barely armoured box, enjoying the pungent effects of carbon monoxide, leaping into the thick of it with no situational awareness at all. Sounds perfect to me.

 

A modified Centaur and towing vehicle together would make an interesting project. It might only have been a proposal, but both vehicles existed. You have the green light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Moggy said:

How about the Avia 199? The Israeli pilots that flew them 1948-49 had a lot to say about this aircraft - none of it good :)

Three-forths were written off in accidents directly related to mechanical failure - the rest were immediately retired after the war's end... mainly because no pilot would fly the Mules.

Mule was the unflattering nickname given this aircraft by the Czech Air Force pilots

What do you say?

 

Cheers, Moggy

Not an aircraft I'm familiar with, but I'll be guided by Mr @Brad. There can't be many combat vehicles where the nation purchasing them asked for their money back.

You're in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Bradley Fighting Vehicle should be allowed. Just my opinion from experience 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whiskey said:

A Bradley Fighting Vehicle should be allowed. Just my opinion from experience 😉

Then Mr @whiskey, please do share your experience - the discussion about whether or not a vehicle deserves to be condemned as SYWWTGTWI is what makes this thread so interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really if we consider the Starfighter as a flawed and dangerous type. we should extend the same to most fighters of the era... the Starfighter had a high accident rate in a certain timeframe but this was comparable if not inferior to other types. The Lightning for example over its career had an even worse accident rate and the number of accidents due to mechanical failures in the Lightning was much worse than the F-104. The latter on the other hand suffered from a higher rate of accidents caused by pilot error, mostly when training for the strike role at very low levels, a kind of mission that is inherently dangerous.

We should keep in mind that problems not dissimilar to those of the Starfighter afflicted the F-16 in the first few years of service as the pilots found themselves flying an aircraft that introduced a new set of challenges. So much that the F-16 was known for a while as the Lawn Dart in the USAF... with proper training all these issues were resolved.

And if we have to talk of dangerous types, none in recent years has been more dangerous that the darling of many here, the Harrier ! Accident rate for the Harrier has been higher than all contemporary types, yet can we say it was a flawed type ? Don't think so.

 

 

2 hours ago, Brad said:

 

I don't think the Meteor over Korea would qualify though. It gave a pretty good account of itself, despite being slightly inferior to the MiG 15 (technically you could argue the Sabre was as well, at least in some aspects), the air to air kills were about even for and against 77 Squadron while it's record in ground attack was superb. 

 

Slightly inferior is a bit of understatement.. 77 Squadron suffered only little losses more thanks to the robustness of the Meteor than to its performance and the UN command quickly decided to move the unit to ground attack duties as it was clear that the Meteor could offer nothing useful as a fighter in theatre. The RAF was so worried that they arranged to get Sabres in service as soon as possible.

The problem with the Meteor in Korea is that this type was clearly obsolete against the more modern swept wing fighters, but of course it could still hold its own in other duties, as shown by the later use as a ground attack asset. Would this make the Meteor as one of the types fitting the GB ? Only the hosts would be able to decide on this, IMHO it would not as the same could be said of other types that served in similar roles during that war, like the F-84G or earlier the F-80. The Meteor in itself was not necessarily an obsolete type, what was wrong was just the idea held by some in Britain and Australia that the F.8 could compete with swept wing types as a fighter.

The same could be said for many other types that served when they were becoming surpassed by a new generation of fighters. Think for example of the Gladiator and the Italian CR.42, both were technically obsolete at the start of WW2 and yet both served well in certain theatres and roles. The CR.42 was sure obsolete in 1941 but the type was still being used succesfully as a night attack type well into 1944 ! If I had to choose between an early CR.42, an obsolete biplane with good flying qualities, and an early MC.200, a monoplane with the tendency to enter an unrecoverable spin in every sharp turn (problem later solved during production), I'd sure choose the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some good points there, Mr @Giorgio N. A quick search suggests that around fifteen pilots died in crashes involving the Lightning although I don't know how that compares when numbers in service is taken into account. To me, the condemnation of the F104 by Hartmann and others, as well as the successful action brought by widows of F104 pilots against the manufacturer, qualifies it for inclusion. 'Lawn Dart' was a nickname for the F104 before the F16.

 

All vehicles, even the best, eventually become obsolete and the reality is that many of them won't be withdrawn from service until that point is passed. But for the avoidance of doubt, category 1 applies to those vehicles that were already obsolete when they first entered service - Gloucester Gladiator, anyone? 

Edited by Churchill
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Churchill said:

Then Mr @whiskey, please do share your experience - the discussion about whether or not a vehicle deserves to be condemned as SYWWTGTWI is what makes this thread so interesting. 

Anything that has magnesium in it's armor is a deathtrap. Brad's burn to the ground very quickly and very easily. The armor is also very easy to penetrate, the engine and transmission constantly break down, the 25mm works wonderful (when it actually works), the turret wiring is so old and never gets replaced (3 separate units I was in and it was the same across the board) so your comms will consistently fail, if your crew manages to burn up the heater when starting it (happens A LOT) then you have no heat and becomes an icebox in the winter, VERY loud, exhaust emits a large black plume anytime you hit the accelerator or try to pivot steer (which gives your position away), and too high (which has both positive and negative effects). Shall I go on?

Edited by whiskey
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, whiskey said:

Anything that has magnesium in it's armor is a deathtrap. Brad's burn to the ground very quickly and very easily. The armor is also very easy to penetrate, the engine and transmission constantly break down, the 25mm works wonderful (when it actually works), the turret wiring is so old and never gets replaced (3 separate units I was in and it was the same across the board) so your comms will consistently fail, if your crew manages to burn up the heater when starting it (happens A LOT) then you have no heat and becomes an icebox in the winter, VERY loud, exhaust emits a large black plume anytime you hit the accelerator or try to pivot steer (which gives your position away), and too high (which has both positive and negative effects). Shall I go on?

Absolutely do go on - that is, if you're happy to share personal info about where and when you were in those Bradleys. 

 

I feel a certain extra latitude should be allowed for anyone suggesting a vehicle that they actually served in: after all, who am I to question someone's confidence about a vehicle which they either went to war in or which they would have been expected to go to war in? 

 

Assuming you could bring yourself to build one, did you have a kit in mind? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, SleeperService said:

Terrifying as it is the Belgians lost a higher percentage of their Starfighter pilots 😮

because they pulled off a lot off stunts too....

 

 

and this was one of the least dangerous stuff they did.... One time we had a retired pilot in our club, and the stories he told... nowadays, if they would pull the stunts they did then, they would be suspended or retired, but as he explained, it was the height of the cold war, so they had to go to the limit, and sometimes beyond...

Edited by Silenoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...