[MoMo]

THE PANJANDRUM :

This is probably not the most uselessly dangerous piece of WW" kit invented by the Boffins from ideas submitted to them by the terminably imaginative, however, it has to come close!

It was designed to use rockets to propel itself up beaches or across fields and touch off mines as it rolled over them. Highly unstable, and prone to veer off to one side and wobble uncertainly as it gyrated to a stop while rockets exploded round the rims, it was liable to kill more of its operators than the enemy!

I've seen film of the tests, and they are comical!




What are your candidates for the worst, most useless, most dangerous pieces of WW2 kit? Afvs, planes?, weapons, etc.? It dosen't matter if it was put into production or not. We're just interested in those Looney Tunes ideas which were born of desperation and which looked good at the time, but flopped and stank the place out worse than Skunky in a bad mood!

[david cotton]

The rear gunner in the Bolton Paul Defient had a special flying suit.....with a built in parachute.

I read that if he ended up landing in the sea, the suit also kept him afloat..........with his head under water and his feet above it.

I think only 2 of these suits are still around.......both on display at Hawkinge.

[MoMo]

The rear gunner in the Bolton Paul Defient had a special flying suit.....with a built in parachute.

I read that if he ended up landing in the sea, the suit also kept him afloat..........with his head under water and his feet above it.

I think only 2 of these suits are still around.......both on display at Hawkinge.

NO LUCK!

STUCK IN A DEFIANT, AND WITH A SUIT LIKE THAT, IT HAD TO BE THE QUEEN OF SPADES FOR THOSE GUYS!

Good call, David!

[Folgore]

Not that the kit itself was bad per se, but if there's one place I wouldn't want to have been in WWII, it's inside a U-boat. Something like 66% to 75% personnel loss rates over the course of the war ... Not good survival odds!

[MoMo]

Not that the kit itself was bad per se, but if there's one place I wouldn't want to have been in WWII, it's inside a U-boat. Something like 66% to 75% personnel loss rates over the course of the war ... Not good survival odds!

Fair comment, Folgore. You are right to point out that the two main types of U-Boat were fit for the job, although a little cramped. They were well constructed, and could, in general, take a lot of pounding when they had to.

The first attempts at mounting a shnorkel were supposed to have been fraught with problems. The things sucked in water when they should not have, and this may be the most bothersome piece of kit for them. Problems were ironed out eventually though, and the shnorkel proved to be a good innovation.

One area which proved to be a great problem for all the navies( except the Japanese ) with subs was the question of torpedoes, and contact and magnetic fuses.

[jim]

Originally Posted by Folgore

Not that the kit itself was bad per se, but if there's one place I wouldn't want to have been in WWII, it's inside a U-boat. Something like 66% to 75% personnel loss rates over the course of the war ... Not good survival odds!

I wouldnt want to be in one of those in peace time, in a harbour or anywhere!!!!!!!!!!

[MoMo]

Originally Posted by Folgore


Not that the kit itself was bad per se, but if there's one place I wouldn't want to have been in WWII, it's inside a U-boat. Something like 66% to 75% personnel loss rates over the course of the war ... Not good survival odds!

I wouldnt want to be in one of those in peace time, in a harbour or anywhere!!!!!!!!!!
Jim

Not even if Skunky was about?

[Captain Eddie]

Originally Posted by jim

I wouldnt want to be in one of those in peace time, in a harbour or anywhere!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, Jim, but I've been through two WW II subs (while docked, of course). Very interesting. The first time was a number of years ago, when my "kids" were still children, and i was taking my time, pointing a few things about subs that I happened to know about, out to my kids. A couple came up behind us. I asked if I was holding them up, they stated no, they were enjoying the guided tour!

[jim]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, Jim, but I've been through two WW II subs (while docked, of course). Very interesting. The first time was a number of years ago, when my "kids" were still children, and i was taking my time, pointing a few things about subs that I happened to know about, out to my kids. A couple came up behind us. I asked if I was holding them up, they stated no, they were enjoying the guided tour!

Hi Captain, the reason I wouldnt want to be on one was because I had a tour around one and that was enough for me.
It was an old retired diesel Hunter Killer sub at Chatham dockyard near London.

The tour guide served on this boat and when both he and the boat retired he was given the job as a guide.
He (like you ) made the tour a fascinating experience, especially the part about how they stocked up the food in every nook and cranny of the boat including the walkways.
They then went to sea and proceeded to eat their way through the length of the boat so to speak. When they got to the other end of the boat they knew it was time to go home.
He also said that after a few days at sea everything smelled and tasted of diesel.

I said to him that it sounded dreadfull, I wouldnt have missed it for the world was his reply!!!!!!!!!
He went on to describe how they would go out to certain places "North", sit on the seabed and listen to the Russain subs passing nearby, he claimed the Ruskies didnt know they were there!!

I will stick with the wide blue yonder.

Ps , while I hate those Uboat men I have great respect for their courage.

[MoMo]

What about this piece of kit from Italy? Kaoschallenged's post on the History Channel's Forum refers to it as the worst ground attack plane in the war!

Kaoschallenged

Re: Worst Fighter Plane of the War

OK the Ba.65 From Italy . Some consider it the Worst ground attack plane in WWII. From an article that was written by Jon Guttman and originally published in World War II Magazine in November 1996: "During World War II, while some aircraft designs like the Supermarine Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Me-109 were good enough for improved versions to fight throughout the conflict, the Breda Ba.65 did not survive its first year. Ill-conceived from its very inception, the plane's brief combat career ensured it a dubious place in history as arguably the worst attack plane of World War II." -- Just remember that your weapon was built by the lowest bidder Breda Ba.65 Type Ground attack aircraft Manufacturer Ernesto Breda Maiden flight September 1935 Retired 1941 Primary user Regia Aeronautica Produced 1935-1939 Number built 218