The 10 worst Bombers of World War 2

The Bombers That Failed: Ten of WWII's Worst Aircraft

The Second World War was a crucible of innovation, but not all innovations were successful. Among the marvels of aerial warfare, a darker side existed: bombers that were, to put it mildly, profoundly flawed. These machines, often underpowered, unstable, poorly armed, or simply obsolete by the time they entered service, struggled to complete even the most basic of missions. More tragically, their design failures often made them as much a danger to their own crews as to the enemy. This list delves into ten of the worst bombers of the war, aircraft whose shortcomings became legendary.

10. Tupolev TB-3

When the Soviet Tupolev TB-3 first took to the skies on 22 December 1930, it was a remarkably modern design for its era. It boasted a self-supporting, or cantilever, wing, a feature uncommon in aircraft of the time and absent in all operational heavy bombers. This cleaner, stronger wing design promised reduced drag and foreshadowed future advancements in aviation. The TB-3 was also unusually large and uniquely powered by four engines. However, what was revolutionary in 1930 was dangerously outdated by 1941. Its vast, lumbering frame had a top speed of a mere 132 mph (212 km/h), making it an easy target for German fighters.

Official Soviet loss rates for the TB-3 are often vague and contradictory. However, documented incidents, such as a river crossing raid in June 1941 where multiple TB-3s were lost to enemy fighters, starkly illustrate the aircraft's vulnerability. The subsequent shift to night missions further hints at its perilous nature during daylight operations. Even when pressed into alternative roles such as transport, paratroop carrier, or "fighter mothership," the TB-3's performance remained dismal. Elite crews risked their lives on missions for which the aircraft was fundamentally unsuited. It truly had no place in a 1940s conflict and was finally retired in 1945, long after its official withdrawal from frontline service in 1939. Around 820 TB-3s were produced.

9. Blackburn Botha

The Blackburn company frequently appears on lists of problematic aircraft, and the Botha is no exception. First flying in 1938, it entered service shortly after the war began, just before Christmas in 1939. While often described as underpowered, it's worth comparing to the Beaufort, which didn't face the same condemnation. Despite having a theoretically better power-to-weight ratio, the Botha's draggy airframe and poor aerodynamics made it slower and less capable than the Beaufort. Its performance limitations meant it was never deployed in its intended role as a torpedo bomber.

The aircraft also suffered from poor lateral stability, leading to a slew of crashes, though this was not entirely uncommon for new aircraft types entering service in the late 1930s. Had these been its only failings, it would have been merely an obscure mediocrity. However, Blackburn also designed the cockpit in a way that severely restricted the pilot's visibility in all directions except directly ahead, due to the placement of the engines. This was an untenable flaw for an aircraft intended for reconnaissance, and the Botha was ultimately supplanted by the Avro Anson, an aircraft it was supposed to replace. Redirected to training units, the Botha's difficult handling characteristics, combined with its effective underpowering, led to a significant number of accidents. Astonishingly, 580 were built, and the type soldiered on until 1944, though it was sensibly relegated to second-line roles in its later service.

8. Breda Ba.88 Lince

The early promise of the Breda Ba.88 Lince was considerable. Emerging in 1937, the aircraft incorporated many advanced features, including a sleek, low-drag design and a retractable undercarriage. It even managed to break several world speed records. However, once adapted for its ground attack role, its weight increased, and its flaws became glaringly apparent. The Italian company Breda seemed to prove the adage "If it looks right, it'll fly right" entirely false. The Lince looked fast and purposeful, yet it was so overweight, draggy, and underpowered that it sometimes struggled to take off.

On the first day of the Italian offensive against British forces in Egypt, for instance, three Bredas were dispatched from Sicily. One failed to take off, and another was unable to turn after becoming airborne, forcing it to fly straight and level until it reached Sidi Rezegh airfield in Libya. Later, after sand filters were fitted to the engines, the Lince's top speed was capped at 155 mph (249 km/h), and there were instances where entire units were unable to take off. In a desperate attempt to make the aircraft viable, non-essential equipment was jettisoned, including the rear machine gun, one of the crew members (leaving the pilot to fly solo), and half the fuel and bomb load. These measures proved futile, and the Lince was eventually adapted to a role it performed admirably: being parked on airfields to draw enemy fire. A noble, if ignominious, task.

7. Douglas TBD Devastator

Hailed on its debut as the most advanced naval aircraft in the world, the Devastator became a stark reminder that manufacturer claims should be treated with extreme caution. Its chronic vulnerability became infamous. To deliver its torpedo, the aircraft was required to fly straight and level at a leisurely 115 mph (185 km/h), a speed that made it easily interceptable by aircraft from over 25 years prior. Furthermore, the TBD possessed woefully inadequate defensive armament and lacked manoeuvrability. Its problems extended to its primary weapon, the Mark 13 torpedo, which was plagued by reliability issues and frequently failed to detonate even after scoring a hit.

As a weapons system, the TBD–Mk 13 torpedo combination was arguably the least satisfactory of the entire air war. Alternatively, the TBD could carry 1200 lb (540 kg) of bombs, thus extending its inadequacy into a secondary role. Dick Best, who flew a Douglas SBD dive-bomber at the Battle of Midway, recalled the Devastator as a "nice-flying aeroplane." However, like the Fairey Battle, it was committed to combat in an era that had left it behind. Only 130 were ever built, a relatively small number for a US aircraft of its vintage, and coincidentally, only six more than the equally dismal Blackburn Roc – a match made in mediocre naval aviation history.

6. Fairey Battle

Despite being the first RAF aircraft to shoot down an enemy plane in the Second World War and the first to be fitted with the exceptional Merlin engine, the Battle was a dismal failure. It seemed that every major power involved in the Second World War went to great lengths to produce dreadful light and medium bombers, seemingly designed with the sole purpose of killing their own aircrews. The Battle, however, managed to plumb new depths of uselessness. Its shortcomings had been identified before the war, but the Battle possessed one overriding advantage: it was cheap. In late 1930s Britain, the decision was made that a large quantity of second-rate bombers was preferable to having none at all, particularly when presenting production figures to a hostile parliament and press.

The Battle was incapable of surviving encounters with modern fighter aircraft, and its loss rates during 1940 regularly exceeded 50%, reaching 100% on at least two occasions. It requires no advanced mathematics to understand that such attrition rates are unsustainable. It was, in essence, an anti-Mosquito: too slow to evade enemy fighters, yet too poorly armed to defend itself; too small to carry a significant bomb load, yet too large for a single-engined aircraft and burdened with an unnecessary extra crew member.

5. Brewster SB2A Buccaneer

Brewster's design promised a capable scout-bomber, but it devolved into an overweight, over-complicated liability. Every design modification added weight without improving performance. The aircraft emerged bloated, its capabilities crippled before it even left the drawing board. As we will see, it achieved a rare and ignominious distinction for a combat aircraft developed during a time when nations were desperately seeking air power. Pilots reported dismal handling characteristics: the Buccaneer wallowed through turns, responded sluggishly to control inputs, and struggled to maintain energy. Survival in combat often hinged on agility and climb performance; pilots found the aircraft felt dangerously "lazy." It was a bomber that could neither escape nor effectively attack – a terrible combination.

Brewster's factory was plagued by chronic dysfunction, marked by poor oversight and inconsistent workmanship. Parts frequently failed to meet tolerances, assemblies arrived misaligned, and aircraft required immediate rectification upon completion. Many Buccaneers were deemed unfit even for basic service, a damning indictment not only of the design but also of the company's collapsing industrial discipline. Air forces that received the type relegated it to training, target-towing, or storage. Crews distrusted it; commanders dismissed it. By the war's end, the Buccaneer had gained notoriety as a machine so flawed that it never saw combat – a rare and ignominious distinction.

4. Caproni Ca.135

A significant issue plaguing Italian combat aircraft in the Second World War, many of which were otherwise excellent designs, was the absence of powerful indigenous engines. However, the Ca.135 was not an excellent design, and even without engine limitations, it would have been a failure. On paper, it possessed a power-to-weight ratio similar to the successful Heinkel He 111. In reality, the Piaggio P.XI engines suffered from reliability issues and a significant drop in performance at altitude. Consequently, its "effective" power in combat could be considerably lower than theoretical figures. In practice, poor engine reliability, high wing loading, and inadequate aerodynamics made it feel underpowered, particularly for take-off, climb, and fully loaded combat missions in hot climates.

It also exhibited an alarming tendency to yaw to the right during take-off, suffered from poor lateral stability, and experienced an excessive number of oil and hydraulic leaks. Its combat debut in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War highlighted its difficulties taking off with a full bomb load and its poor high-altitude performance. Later, it was cut to pieces by British Hurricanes and Gladiators in the early stages of the Second World War. The Caproni Ca.135 proved disastrously ineffective in combat. Sluggish, underpowered, and burdened by high wing loading, it struggled with poor climb and speed, making it easy prey for enemy fighters. Fragile airframes, unreliable engines, and weak defensive armament further undermined its utility. Quickly outclassed by its contemporaries, it failed wherever it was deployed, earning a deservedly terrible reputation.

3. Handley Page Hampden

Among the British twin-engine medium bombers deployed early in the war – the Vickers Wellington, Armstrong Whitworth Whitley, and Handley Page Hampden – the latter was the fastest. With a top speed of 265 mph (426 km/h), it held a clear advantage over the Whitley (230 mph/370 km/h) and a moderate one over the Wellington (250 mph/402 km/h in its fastest variant). Aerodynamically, it was quite advanced for its design period, but speed was its only significant advantage, and even that soon proved insufficient. It had the shortest range, the smallest bomb load, and the weakest defensive armament of the three. Its ability to withstand enemy fire was also the poorest – a critically grave matter.

The Hampden proved disastrously fragile. In Norway, 8 out of 12 aircraft deployed on a single mission were lost. Early German raids suffered losses ranging from 20–58%, and Channel Dash attacks saw around 50% losses. Its light guns, minimal armour, cramped cockpits that were difficult to escape from, and vulnerability to fighters and flak made it exposed and fatally underarmed. Its high early-war loss rates were a direct consequence of its fragile structure, poor defensive armament, and cramped crew conditions. By 1942, it had been largely relegated to maritime patrol and training roles, as heavier, more survivable bombers like the Wellington and later Lancasters assumed frontline duties.

2. Avro Manchester

Of the 193 Avro Manchesters that entered service, a staggering 123 were lost. It was for good reason that assignment to the Manchester was viewed by many in Bomber Command as a death sentence; its reputation for danger was well-earned. Mournfully underpowered by two unreliable Vulture engines, the loss of power in one engine – an all too common occurrence – was often disastrous. Up to February 1942, the average number of serviceable Manchesters at any given time never exceeded 31. When not grounded or catching fire in flight, hydraulic fluid would occasionally spray into the cockpit.

Even without engine or other system failures, the unfortunate aircrews endured extreme cold, as there were initially no heating systems. The heated clothing intended to remedy this proved hazardous. Introduced in November 1940, the Manchester was sensibly retired in 1942 after a brief and troubled service life. Replacing the two troublesome Vulture engines with four Merlin engines revealed the true potential of the airframe, leading to a new designation: the Lancaster. This transformation demonstrated the design's inherent promise, establishing the Lancaster as one of the most effective bombers of the Second World War, a far cry from its ill-fated predecessor.

1. Heinkel He 177 Greif

It has been (somewhat facetiously) suggested that the He 177 was a war-winning weapon, but not for the side it was on. Thankfully for the Allied nations, Germany never managed to field a truly effective large heavy bomber force during the Second World War. However, they did manage to produce a staggeringly large total of 1169 of the abysmal He 177. It suffered from numerous issues, but the primary one was the two engines coupled into a complex, cramped pod on each wing, which had a propensity to catch fire. In an effort to fulfil their obsessive desire to reduce drag, Heinkel decided to employ cutting-edge technology for the aircraft's defensive weaponry, incorporating three remotely controlled turrets. These offered perceived advantages such as reduced vulnerability for the gunners and providing them with optimal fields of fire.

Unfortunately for the He 177 project, the development of the remote turrets lagged behind the airframe's progress. The aircraft had to be redesigned to accommodate manned gun positions, which required strengthening the airframe in those areas and led to further weight increases. The first production aircraft featured an improperly designed wing that began to fail after only 20 flights (assuming the engines hadn't caught fire by then). Extensive redesign and strengthening were undertaken, further increasing weight. Unreliable and prone to catastrophic fires, the infamous Heinkel He 177 also consumed vast amounts of valuable resources at a time when they were desperately needed for more effective aircraft.

Share :