# Most overated bomber



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2008)

OK, same as the similar fighter poll. Which bomber do you think is the most highly over-rated machine in current public opinion? Which one do you wish people would just quit bragging about because it really wasn't all that good?

I will try to leave the options open only to bombers I DO actually hear people bragging about, but if I'm missing something serious, then some admin may feel free to add another one if enough people complain about it not being on there. I will also be putting an "other" option in case you know of one I didn't think of.


----------



## Juha (Jul 27, 2008)

Hello
not many seem to be willing to take the challange and no wonder, very difficult question. I still had not made my mind between

Wellington, a good bomber but obsolate in 44-45 and was kept in production because the factories that made it would have been difficult to convert to produce other types other than those which also used geodetic construction and it planned successor, Warvick, run into difficulties.

Sunderland, it also was agood plane but its fame as "flying porcupine" was created by the claims of its gunners not by real losses they inflicted to enemy, even if the plane had a good defensive armament. Also IIRC Pegasus engined versions had propellers which could not be feathered in case of engine failure, a bad thing in a LR Maritime patrol plane. And plane was not so lomg ranged than one might think, IIRC twin engined PBY Catalina had longer range.

Mosquito, while an excellent a/c it was not so unvulnerable in daytime bomber raids than its fame had made it.

Swordfish, a/c with excellent war record but still obsolate design when itroduced in service and partly served so long because its successor, Albacore, was such an uninspirate design.

Il-2, while a good realization of armoured ground attack plane concept, not a wonder weapon some seems to think. On the other hand not a piece of scrap than some others seems to think.

Hudson and FW 200C Condor, both were militarized civil passanger planes with all the limitations that followed from that.

Juha

Ps, I chose Sunderland in the end.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 27, 2008)

I say Stuka, good plane. It was great at the Beggining of the War, but when it ment tough opponents it was very vulnerable. It was blown out of the Sky by Hurricanes and Spitfires.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> I say Stuka, good plane. It was great at the Beggining of the War, but when it ment tough opponents it was very vulnerable. It was blown out of the Sky by Hurricanes and Spitfires.



It was no different than any dive bomber. It needed to have air cover. If the Ju 87 is overated for the reasons that you have stated, then all dive bombers were overated.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It was no different than any dive bomber. It needed to have air cover. If the Ju 87 is overated for the reasons that you have stated, then all dive bombers were overated.



Weren't they? There must be a reason why the fighterbombers took over.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 27, 2008)

Some strange votes in this poll. 

B-17, B-25 and SBD overated?  

TO


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> Some strange votes in this poll.
> 
> B-17, B-25 and SBD overated?
> 
> TO



I didn't vote for it, but I do think the B-25 was overrated. The B-26 and A-26 were better planes, but the B-25 was available and it got the glory. Some would say it is better-looking plane than the other two, adding to its popularity. The A-20 could even deliver a similar bombload at a higher speed, and with half the crew.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 27, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> Some strange votes in this poll.
> 
> B-17, B-25 and SBD overated?
> 
> TO



B-17 was a magnificent aircraft at the right place and right time. I only say it's "over rated" because it's legend has eclipsed almost every other bomber in the minds of the mainstream.

It was in so many movies and movietone press reels that, along with the Mustang became an aerial darlings that saved democracy. Great aircraft but IMO it does not measure up to its world beating, allegorical status. I think the Lancaster was better and the B-24 was ALMOST equal.





.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 27, 2008)

Oreo said:


> I didn't vote for it, but I do think the B-25 was overrated. The B-26 and A-26 were better planes, but the B-25 was available and it got the glory. Some would say it is better-looking plane than the other two, adding to its popularity. The A-20 could even deliver a similar bombload at a higher speed, and with half the crew.



The Doolittle raid gave the B-25 and emotional edge.
.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 27, 2008)

Oreo said:


> I didn't vote for it, but I do think the B-25 was overrated. The B-26 and A-26 were better planes, but the B-25 was available and it got the glory. Some would say it is better-looking plane than the other two, adding to its popularity. The A-20 could even deliver a similar bombload at a higher speed, and with half the crew.



The B-26 and A-26 probably were better mediums, but that doesn't mean the Mitchell was overated.

TO


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 27, 2008)

Wasn't the B-24 the better aircraft of the two....(B-17 being the other)?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 27, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> B-17 was a magnificent aircraft at the right place and right time. I only say it's "over rated" because it's legend has eclipsed almost every other bomber in the minds of the mainstream.



Legendary....yes. But it's hard to overrate an aircraft that brought so many aircrew home after suffering such severe battle damage (that plus it's my favorite aircraft of all time  ).

TO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Weren't they? There must be a reason why the fighterbombers took over.



That is a good point. Great new siggy by the way!


----------



## Marcel (Jul 27, 2008)

Thanks, made it a few weeks ago and wanted to try it.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 27, 2008)

I chose Lancaster-- again-- one of the "Big 3" darlings of the Brits-- the famous Spitfire, Lancaster, Mosquito trio. I know the Lancaster was good, but I believe the late model Halifaxes were a better aircraft. These radial engine ones with the extended wingspan had a much better combat record than the earlier Halifaxes, but historians lump the two types together. Also, I think the Halifax took more of a beating early on because it got into combat before the Lanc when the Brits were still ironing out the problems with night bombing, and attrition percentage was higher then.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 28, 2008)

Probably going to tick off a bunch of the brits on the board but I went with the Lancaster. 

Before the feathers fly on this one, I want to say it was a great bomber. Great range, great bomb load. Good cruise speed and decent ceiling. My reason for voting against it was it took nearly 25% of the British war output to make it and, in the end, the campaign it was involved in was questionable in terms of it's success. German industrial output increased even as the towns were being burned down. 

In terms of how it was used, it is somewhat overrated. It did enormous damage to Germany. But was that crucial in winning the war and deserving of the reputation it carries? Tend to think not.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 28, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Probably going to tick off a bunch of the brits on the board but I went with the Lancaster.
> 
> Before the feathers fly on this one, I want to say it was a great bomber. Great range, great bomb load. Good cruise speed and decent ceiling. My reason for voting against it was it took nearly 25% of the British war output to make it and, in the end, the campaign it was involved in was questionable in terms of it's success. German industrial output increased even as the towns were being burned down.
> 
> In terms of how it was used, it is somewhat overrated. It did enormous damage to Germany. But was that crucial in winning the war and deserving of the reputation it carries? Tend to think not.



Same counts for the B17 I believe, so the B.17 and the B.24 are in the same category as the Lanc then, being overrated. Of course the bombing of the fuel plants were effective, but so was the bombing of the dams by Lancs.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

Yes, well again, there are two sides of the over-rated equation. The first side is, how good was the plane, and the second side is, how good does everyone think it was? Any plane, good or bad could be over-rated, under-rated, or properly rated.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 28, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Same counts for the B17 I believe, so the B.17 and the B.24 are in the same category as the Lanc then, being overrated. Of course the bombing of the fuel plants were effective, but so was the bombing of the dams by Lancs.



Actually, I agree with you that the B17 was overrated. It was an older design than the Lanc and it showed by being just on the edge of obsolecence while being used. Too slow, not a large enough payload to do what it had to do. If I had to compare it to the Lanc in terms of being a airplane to haul bombs, I would go with the Lanc. About the only things it had over the Lanc were service ceiling and resilence. 

Where the B17 (and B24) beat the Lanc was in mission focus. The Lanc went after cities at it's introduction and never really changed. The 17 and 24 went after several targets before finally focusing on oil/petrol. That created havoc for the Germans. In the end, the Germans ran out of men and fuel. 

The Lanc's problem is not the aircraft, it was the way it was used. Night bombing could be effective. But it was not a war winning event that Harris said it would be. That's why I call it over rated. 

It wasn't the Lanc's fault, it was the mission.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 28, 2008)

I totally agree about the night missions.
I would like to point out other Lancaster missions. Think about the U-boat bunkers, bombed by Lancasters. It pulled out the teeth of the German Atlantic fleet. It was precision bombing and it confirms your statement that the Lancaster could have been much more useful when applied correctly.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 28, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Actually, I agree with you that the B17 was overrated. It was an older design than the Lanc and it showed by being just on the edge of obsolecence while being used. Too slow, not a large enough payload to do what it had to do. If I had to compare it to the Lanc in terms of being a airplane to haul bombs, I would go with the Lanc. About the only things it had over the Lanc were service ceiling and resilence.
> 
> Where the B17 (and B24) beat the Lanc was in mission focus. The Lanc went after cities at it's introduction and never really changed. The 17 and 24 went after several targets before finally focusing on oil/petrol. That created havoc for the Germans. In the end, the Germans ran out of men and fuel.
> 
> ...


you are almost 100% correct but made one small error Bomber Command tried hard to hit the oil production faclities and it was one of the top priorities but they were unable to do it with any precision either in day or night up until 44


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

I also think if the Lancaster and/or Halifax had been fitted with six-sided heavy machine gun defensive armament, as the B17 and B-24 had, they could have been used in daylight as the others were. Imagine if the British had sent 1,000 heavies over at the same time the USA sent over 1,000 heavies-- totally overwhelm the Luftwaffe!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2008)

A big advantage of the B-17 to contemporaries was the service ceiling. (Making it less vulnerable to flak and more difficult to intercept)


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Now in reality from August 44 onwards also BC attacked oil targets and during late 44 - early 45 could hit them as accurately as 8th AF, the European winter weather took care of that and the fact that BC was more profilic in blind bombing with radar than USAAF. And according to Speer heavier British bombs made more mess in oil refineries than lighter US bombs and so the refineries hit by BC were more difficult to repair.

Juha


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 28, 2008)

Juha said:


> Now in reality from August 44 onwards also BC attacked oil targets and during late 44 - early 45 could hit them as accurately as 8th AF, the European winter weather took care of that and the fact that BC was more profilic in blind bombing with radar than USAAF. And according to Speer heavier British bombs made more mess in oil refineries than lighter US bombs and so the refineries hit by BC were more difficult to repair.
> 
> Juha


provided that the radar could discriminate the target which was a major problem but BC had since 1938 identified as its 3 top proirities in war with Germany 
1) The attack on the German Air Force and aircraft industry WA1

2) Attacks on the german army rail ,canal, and road communications to impede the advance of the German Army in the Low Countries and France WA4
3) Attacks on German war industryespecially in the Ruhr and German oil supplies WA5
The Ruhr was an optimum target as most of German industry was located there and accuracy was not as important
Overall attacks on oil accounted for 26% of BC total tonnage as opposed to 37% on area bombing
.7% on specific industries


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Hello Pbfoot
during winter 44-45 also USAAF had often bomb through overcast and so rely on radar.

Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2008)

I'm not one to pick "other" but I think the He 111 should of been on there but I did choose the B-17 for reasons mentioned - Marcel, great siggy!!!!

In many cases the B-24 and especially the Lanc were better bombardment platforms.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 28, 2008)

I'll say the B-17, also. Great bird, great crews, it got the job done. But if Clark Gable and others had been flying in B-24s or -25's or -26's, then the newsreels would've been focused that way and the popularity would've swung that direction also. Each and every bomber listed had its purpose, and for hte most part performed them admirably. I just don't think the -17s deserved the awe and adulation heaped upon it by the drooling masses.....er.....civilians. I can't imagine a group of B-17's bombing Ploesti at low levels, and managing to bring back as many ships as they did with as much damage as they did.


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Hello RabidAlien
"I can't imagine a group of B-17's bombing Ploesti at low levels"

IIRC B-17 didn't have enough range to do Aug 43 attack but again IIRC B-17 was clearly easier to fly in formation at high altitude, that's one reason why it was prefered bomber in 8th AF. Also crew oppinion was that B-17 could take more damage and survive but IIRC that cannot be proven statistically. Navigator's position was worse in B-24. B-24 B-24 had greater range so it was preferred in Pacific. 

Juha


----------



## timshatz (Jul 29, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> you are almost 100% correct but made one small error Bomber Command tried hard to hit the oil production faclities and it was one of the top priorities but they were unable to do it with any precision either in day or night up until 44



They did join the USAAF on those raids in later 44 but it was a case of coming in kicking and screaming. And the reason for that was exclusively Harris. He was dedicated to the concept of "de-housing" the German populace and using that as a method of winning the war. Figured if he dropped enough bombs, they'd quit (experience of the British during "the Blitz" was ignored).

He was rock in '42 when the Brits had nothing to hit Nazi Germany, Bomber Command being the only game in town but by '44, he had not adapted to the changes that came to the war on a strategic level. Something similar happened with Halsey, though not to the same degree. I believe his determination in '42 became intransigence in '44. Portal probably should've replaced him and brought in somebody that was more of a team player or a more adaptive personality.


----------



## Juha (Jul 29, 2008)

Quote: "Portal probably should've replaced him and brought in somebody that was more of a team player or a more adaptive personality."

Timshatz. I agree with that. maybe 5th Group CO, Cochrane?, would have been a good successor.

Juha


----------



## timshatz (Jul 29, 2008)

Juha said:


> Timshatz. I agree with that. maybe 5th Group CO, Cochrane?, would have been a good successor.
> 
> Juha



Man, that's a very good question. Problem with arm chair generaling is you are limited in what you know about the personalities and situations existing. What little I know is of the little that is written about the subordinate commanders of BC. Harris has plenty written about him, the others have considerable less. 

Probably comes down to Bennett vs Cochrane. Neither were nice people (Bomber Command seemed to have more than it's fair share of abrasive personalities). Just from results, I guess I would go with Cochrane. He did a tremendous job with 5 Group. He was a good 15 years older than Bennet and seemed closer to a Leigh-Mallory type in terms of his character.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 29, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Man, that's a very good question. Problem with arm chair generaling is you are limited in what you know about the personalities and situations existing. What little I know is of the little that is written about the subordinate commanders of BC. Harris has plenty written about him, the others have considerable less.
> 
> Probably comes down to Bennett vs Cochrane. Neither were nice people (Bomber Command seemed to have more than it's fair share of abrasive personalities). Just from results, I guess I would go with Cochrane. He did a tremendous job with 5 Group. He was a good 15 years older than Bennet and seemed closer to a Leigh-Mallory type in terms of his character.


It would have never been Bennett he was Austrailian and that would not fly in that period. Bennett being a colonial and all . I'm trying to recall the Name of the first colonial RCAF,RAAF,RNZAF that was given command of something larger then a squadron and it didn't occur until mid 42


----------



## timshatz (Jul 29, 2008)

Yeah, Bennett was the only one of the Bomber Group Commanders that didn't get Knighted after the war. 

Speaks volumes.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> A big advantage of the B-17 to contemporaries was the service ceiling. (Making it less vulnerable to flak and more difficult to intercept)



The higher you go, the less accurate you are.

There were more than a few times when 8th and 15th AF bombers had to do repeat visits to a target simply because they kept missing it.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 29, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Yeah, Bennett was the only one of the Bomber Group Commanders that didn't get Knighted after the war.
> 
> Speaks volumes.


I don't believe anyone from 6 group did either but I'm not sure if or if not Canadians could recieve honours or titles at that period of time . I know they can't now


----------



## timshatz (Jul 30, 2008)

Not suprised if the put to the Canadians. That's the problem with being a colonial. Always of the wrong side of the blood line. 

Quick question about Canada during the war. It is my understanding that Canadian citizens didn't have to leave the country during the war if they didn't want to. All the guys overseas were volunteers. While you could be drafted, you couldn't be shipped overseas without your permission. 

Is that accurate?

Apologies in advance for the major thread drift.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 30, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Not suprised if the put to the Canadians. That's the problem with being a colonial. Always of the wrong side of the blood line.
> 
> Quick question about Canada during the war. It is my understanding that Canadian citizens didn't have to leave the country during the war if they didn't want to. All the guys overseas were volunteers. While you could be drafted, you couldn't be shipped overseas without your permission.
> 
> ...


yes thats correct but I believe in late 44 45 they stated the process to use the draftees as replacements only 2500 went overseas and 80 kia


----------



## Hop (Jul 30, 2008)

> Yeah, Bennett was the only one of the Bomber Group Commanders that didn't get Knighted after the war.
> 
> Speaks volumes.



There's a page on Bomber Command Group commanders at RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

It looks like 13 got knighthoods, 30 didn't. All of those who got knighthoods had higher level jobs than commanders of BC groups.



> It would have never been Bennett he was Austrailian and that would not fly in that period. Bennett being a colonial and all . I'm trying to recall the Name of the first colonial RCAF,RAAF,RNZAF that was given command of something larger then a squadron and it didn't occur until mid 42



Bennett was in the RAF, not one of the dominion forces. Keith Park was in a similar situation, he was an Air Vice Marshall by early 1940.

I think the barrier to dominion force officers achieving high rank early in the war was both the smaller size of the dominion forces pre war, and the semi independence from the RAF.


----------



## solo (Jul 30, 2008)

I would votes for B-17 but.......I prefer PBY.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 30, 2008)

Joining in this discussion late, but voting for the B-17.


----------



## ONE_HELLCAT (Jul 31, 2008)

I love the B-17, and it certainly is a wonderful plane, but I think you see more people talking about it than most other bombers.


----------



## Negative Creep (Aug 1, 2008)

Ju-87. Slow, outmoded and vulnerable and shown up as soon as air superiority wasn't certain. Best impact was a psychological one but in terms of light bombing I'd rather have a squadron of 109's any day


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 1, 2008)

But is the Ju 87 really the most overrate in current popular oppinion?


----------



## Oreo (Aug 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But is the Ju 87 really the most overrate in current popular oppinion?



Good question! I think in popular opinion nowadays the Ju 87 is actually under-rated. In D and G forms it soldiered on late into the war, socking it to the Russians, in a dogged, determined way. And then there's Rudel to consider-- perhaps the best, or most accomplished combat pilot of all time, and a 7-victory fighter ace while flying Stukas! Yet everyone today seems to think the Stuka was just death-trap. Not my choice to fly into combat with, but Mr. Rudel thought otherwise! (Or was it Rugel? Y'all know who I mean! 11,000 lifetime comabt sorties? Ringing a bell, anyone?)


----------



## 109ROAMING (Aug 22, 2008)

> Joining in this discussion late, but voting for the B-17.



same here


----------



## eddie_brunette (Aug 22, 2008)

Wow, what a difficult question, so I'll go for the shocker and vote for the B29.
Although this was probably the best bomber of the war, it was only "tested" in the PTO and was never challenged by Luftwaffe (IMHO had much better A/C than Japanese) also the magic of the '29 was quickly extinguished 5 years later in Korea

edd


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 22, 2008)

Il-2, especially of the early modifications.

ALthough I'm not quite sure if it can be called a "bomber".

Of the "pure" bombers I dunno - maybe Wellington.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Aug 22, 2008)

> Good question! I think in popular opinion nowadays the Ju 87 is actually under-rated. In D and G forms it soldiered on late into the war, socking it to the Russians, in a dogged, determined way. And then there's Rudel to consider-- perhaps the best, or most accomplished combat pilot of all time, and a 7-victory fighter ace while flying Stukas! Yet everyone today seems to think the Stuka was just death-trap. Not my choice to fly into combat with, but Mr. Rudel thought otherwise! (Or was it Rugel? Y'all know who I mean! 11,000 lifetime comabt sorties? Ringing a bell, anyone?)



Oreo are you talking about Hans-Ulrich Rudel?

Hans-Ulrich Rudel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It shows you just needed to fly one right


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 23, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> Il-2, especially of the early modifications.



Agreed; IIRC, Mr. Hartmann racked up quite a few kills on the Il-2; his technique was to approach from the rear below, and take out the ventral oil cooler with a well-placed burst of 30mm.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 23, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Agreed; IIRC, Mr. Hartmann racked up quite a few kills on the Il-2; his technique was to approach from the rear below, and take out the ventral oil cooler with a well-placed burst of 30mm.



I would say it was a overrated not because of its poor air combat performance - it was enough for a single engine strike a/c. As a fighter pilot you'll find a weak spot on any plane type sooner or later, it's question of time.
It was overrated because of its air-to-ground and most of all because of its antitank performance. At the early stages of the war before PTABs were introduced it was horrendous. The Vya-23 cannon had problems even at penetrating Pz-III and Pz-IV armour. I have some interesting reports of its combat performance and if I overcome my laziness I'll post here some translated parts  .


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 23, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Agreed; IIRC, Mr. Hartmann racked up quite a few kills on the Il-2; his technique was to approach from the rear below, and take out the ventral oil cooler with a well-placed burst of 30mm.



With the 30mm you they wouldn't need to aim for the radiator...

Now with the 20mm (or 15mm in a few cases) and MG's only the radiator was a prime target. (although with the 20mm a good deal of structural tamage could be dealt as well)


----------



## Oreo (Aug 26, 2008)

109ROAMING said:


> Oreo are you talking about Hans-Ulrich Rudel?
> 
> Hans-Ulrich Rudel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It shows you just needed to fly one right



Yes, I was grossly off on my sortie numbers, of course. Here's what wiki says:

According to official Luftwaffe figures, Rudel flew some 2,530 combat missions (a world record)[5], during which he destroyed almost 2,000 ground targets (among them 519 tanks, 70 assault craft/landing boats, 150 self-propelled guns, 4 armored trains, and 800 other vehicles; as well as 9 planes (2 Il-2's and 7 fighters). He also sank a battleship, two cruisers and a destroyer. He was shot down or forced to land 32 times (several times behind enemy lines), but always managed to escape capture despite a 100,000 ruble bounty placed on his head by Stalin himself. He was also wounded five times and rescued six stranded aircrew from enemy territory. The vast majority of his missions were spent piloting the various models of the Junkers Ju 87, though by the end of the war he flew the ground-attack variant of the Fw 190.

Since he started his combat flying in May of 41 that's an average of about 1.67 sorties per day, not even taking into account combat leave, sick days in the hospital after being wounded, and so on, which no doubt gave him a solid average of 2 sorties or more per day that he actually was flying. Pretty incredible, and almost all of it on Stukas.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 27, 2008)

Negative Creep said:


> Ju-87. Slow, outmoded and vulnerable and shown up as soon as air superiority wasn't certain. Best impact was a psychological one but in terms of light bombing I'd rather have a squadron of 109's any day


The 109 couldn't even carry half the bomb load let alone be as precise as the Ju 87. And loaded with a 500 kg bomb (which wasn't even possible until F or G version iirc) it was a sitting duck. Of all the possible choices for a fighter-bomber the 109 is probably among the worst. It could've never replaced the Ju 87.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 27, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> With the 30mm you they wouldn't need to aim for the radiator...
> 
> Now with the 20mm (or 15mm in a few cases) and MG's only the radiator was a prime target. (although with the 20mm a good deal of structural tamage could be dealt as well)



I thought the ventral radiators were armored, too? I'll check my copy of _The Blond Knight Of Germany_ when I get home; it has copies of the Luftwaffe recognition charts (or whatever they're called in German) for each potential aerial adversary an Me 109 pilot on the Eastern Front was likely to encounter, even P-51's. It's got a good diagram of the armor plating on an Il-2.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 27, 2008)

Well even so, the point stands that 30mm mine shells (the standard ammo for the MK 108 ) would still tear up the Il-2.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 28, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> The 109 couldn't even carry half the bomb load let alone be as precise as the Ju 87. And loaded with a 500 kg bomb (which wasn't even possible until F or G version iirc) it was a sitting duck. Of all the possible choices for a fighter-bomber the 109 is probably among the worst. It could've never replaced the Ju 87.



True, I think. Bf 109 seems less than ideal, same as Spitfire. Ju 87, like SBD, or Il-2, was tailored to the precision air-to-surface roll. The Il-2 may have been more able to survive without fighter escort, but the Ju 87 and SBD, when properly escorted, were very useful combat a/c.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Well even so, the point stands that 30mm mine shells (the standard ammo for the MK 108 ) would still tear up the Il-2.



probably. I'm sure I wouldn't want to find out, from the Il-2 cockpit. . . .


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Well even so, the point stands that 30mm mine shells (the standard ammo for the MK 108 ) would still tear up the Il-2.



...and pretty all other a/c types as well.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 28, 2008)

eddie_brunette said:


> Wow, what a difficult question, so I'll go for the shocker and vote for the B29.
> Although this was probably the best bomber of the war, it was only "tested" in the PTO and was never challenged by Luftwaffe (IMHO had much better A/C than Japanese) also the magic of the '29 was quickly extinguished 5 years later in Korea
> 
> edd



Even though the B29 flew faster, further, had a higher payload, had a more varied payload and the most sophisticated avionics (of its day) as compared to others?

Did I also mention it could also carry an atomic bomb and the others couldnt?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 28, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> ...and pretty all other a/c types as well.



Yes, quite true, I wasn't trying to make the Il-2 out as weak.  (hence my previous comment on how difficult it would be with the lighter armaments and why the oil cooler would be a favorable target)

My point was that a burst of 30mm shells were sufficient to do major structural damage to the Il-2, so aiming for the oil cooler was not necessary.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 28, 2008)

I believe most pilots would be fairly estatic just to get a few hits on anything they flew against aiming for a specific area would be for the top 1%


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 28, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I believe most pilots would be fairly estatic just to get a few hits on anything they flew against aiming for a specific area would be for the top 1%



I quite agree; I believe the statistics show that the average pilot of WWII only scored hits with about 1-2% of his ammunition fired (I'll dig my source up tonight); the pilots who eventually became aces were able to score hits with a much higher percentage of their ammunition (Marseille was a good example of this). So actually being able to target a particular part of an a/c was only for the best pilots (of course, Hartmann got so close that he couldn't miss; he nearly killed himself several times with flying debris from his victims).


----------



## Yerger (Jun 12, 2009)

B-17 overrated ? Not hardly


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2009)

Yerger said:


> B-17 overrated ? Not hardly




Why?


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 12, 2009)

Stuka...It was affective early in the war but not later in the war....It also didn't take much to shoot one down.



Yerger said:


> B-17 overrated ? Not hardly


The B-17 was definitely overrated.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 12, 2009)

I got a a minor problem with the description "overated" with regard to the B-17 (full disclosure, the B-17 is my favorite warbird). Maybe it's just semantics. The B-17 was the most well known, most popular, most photogenic, most written about, most viewed, and probably the subject of the most documentaries etc. And it's stablemate, the B-24, was every bit it's equal, and then some. But the combat record of the "Fort" is admirable, and it's ability to bring her crews home, probably unequaled.

Simple analogy to sports. An "overated" athlete is a famous player that doesn't produce. The B-17 certainly was famous, but the production was surely there. 

She did grab most of the headlines but "most famous" is a better description than "most overated", IMHO. 

TO


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2009)

TO, the USSBS surveys after the war showed that the performance of the B17 was less than spectacular.

Low accuracy at 30K feet and a small payload definatly cuts into the glamour of the plane.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 12, 2009)

I don't think anyone here is calling the B-17 a bad airplane, it was an excellent plane. But I think its fame makes people think it was outstanding and better than most other bombers out there, when there were certainly better ones in production at the time.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 12, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> I don't think anyone here is calling the B-17 a bad airplane, it was an excellent plane. But I think its fame makes people think it was outstanding and better than most other bombers out there, when there were certainly better ones in production at the time.


Exactly.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 12, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> TO, the USSBS surveys after the war showed that the performance of the B17 was less than spectacular.
> 
> Low accuracy at 30K feet and a small payload definatly cuts into the glamour of the plane.



sys, 

Two things. First, I'm not sure any heavy's performance was "spectacular" in the ETO. Second, I realize the payload problem, but what would make the accuracy of a B-24 at 30K feet better than a B-17 at 30K feet?

TO


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2009)

I don't believe the B24 did much bombing from 30000 feet. It did not have the high altitude performance of the B17. According to " Aircraft of WW2" by Munson, the B24J had a sevice ceiling of 28000 feet, the B17G a service ceiling of 35000 feet. That probably was not with a full load of bombs, fuel and ammo. I doubt that many bombs were dropped from 30000 feet by either B24 or B17.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2009)

B-17's often dropped bombs from 30,000 ft Renrich, and we've even got a veteran radio operator on the forum mentioning this 

But the B-24 was usually flying at around 23,000 ft, some 7,000 ft lower, making it a juicy target for German Flak.


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2009)

Maybe so, but I would bet that most B17 missions were flown at altitudes less than 30000 feet. Most of the books I have read on the subject mention altitudes in the high 20s for the Forts and low 20s for the Libs. Aside from the difficulties for the airplanes operating at 30000 feet, it was really hard on the crews.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 12, 2009)

Some how when you have 1,000 plane bomber sorte, individual plance accuracy does not seem to matter IMHO.

I had to vote for the Il-2.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2009)

The USSBS surveys indicated that bomb accuracy was often times poor. And the higher you go, the lower the accuracy.

So what we have with the B17 is a plane that had magnificent high altitude capabilities at the expense of putting bombs on the target. And bombers are supposed to destroy things they are aiming at.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Some how when you have 1,000 plane bomber sorte, individual plance accuracy does not seem to matter IMHO.
> 
> I had to vote for the Il-2.



I dont recall seeing a AAF "1000" aircraft raid on a single mass attack on an individual target. usually it was multiple 100 plane attacks on a variety of targets. There were some exceptions, but they were quite infrequent. My source is the 8th AF War Diary.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2009)

Sys makes the important point. If the bombs don't hit the target, there is not much use in going. It would seem that the altitude used to bomb from would depend on aircraft and crew capabilities and accuracy. Obviously, if a bomber could be just as accurate from very high and the crew could operate well at that altitude and the aircraft could carry the load and operate very high without fuel considerations, all missions would have been flown very high, taking into account weather and cloud considerations.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2009)

renrich said:


> Sys makes the important point. If the bombs don't hit the target, there is not much use in going. It would seem that the altitude used to bomb from would depend on aircraft and crew capabilities and accuracy. Obviously, if a bomber could be just as accurate from very high and the crew could operate well at that altitude and the aircraft could carry the load and operate very high without fuel considerations, all missions would have been flown very high, taking into account weather and cloud considerations.



Both B17 and B24 crews were good at their jobs. So just by statistics, the higher flying B17's were going to miss their targets by wider margins. And the B24 had the more spacious bomb bays to carry more bombs. But both the B17 and B24 suffered from not being able to carry the 4000 pound bombs like the Lancaster that the USSBS indicated was the minimum size bomb to do permanent damage to the target.

And then we have the range issue in the Pacific with the B17.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 13, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Both B17 and B24 crews were good at their jobs. So just by statistics, the higher flying B17's were going to miss their targets by wider margins. And the B24 had the more spacious bomb bays to carry more bombs. But both the B17 and B24 suffered from not being able to carry the 4000 pound bombs like the Lancaster that the USSBS indicated was the minimum size bomb to do permanent damage to the target.
> 
> And then we have the range issue in the Pacific with the B17.



Any high flying heavy in WW II was not going to be very accurate. The B-29 became an effective weapon over Japan when LeMay changed tactics and ordered missions to be flown at 8,000 to 12,000 feet.

As far as the range issue is concerned, the B-17 wasn't designed with long range missions in the PTO in mind.

TO


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> Any high flying heavy in WW II was not going to be very accurate. The B-29 became an effective weapon over Japan when LeMay changed tactics and ordered missions to be flown at 8,000 to 12,000 feet.
> 
> As far as the range issue is concerned, the B-17 wasn't designed with long range missions in the PTO in mind.
> 
> TO



It was designed before the thought of the 2nd world war was going to happen. Still the B17 was replaced in the Pacific for a reason.

The B29 inaccuracies over Japan had a lot to do with having to bomb through 200mph jet streams. But considering its avioncs suites, it was going to be as accurate if not more, than the RAF Lancs used in Europe.


----------



## Sweb (Jun 13, 2009)

My Pop flew the 17 with the 8th and then became an instructor. Anyone know what a blivit is? That's what he called it.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2009)

I believe there were more B17s in the PI than any other place in the world on December 7, 1941. The reason for that was that the high command in the US had convinced themselves that heavy bombers could somehow keep the enemy from invading. That was part and parcel of the Billy Mitchell deal of bombing old German BBs and the B17s going out and finding the Bremen(I think) in the middle of the Atlantic. Anyway, during the war it was discovered that high altitude bombing had little effect on naval operations even though for awhile the AAF convinced everyone that they had won the Battle of Midway. I personally believe that the role that strategic bombing played in the final outcome of WW2 is way overrated. In the ETO, I really believe that Tac Air played as big a role in the defeat of Germany as strategic bombing and both were far behind the ground and naval forces in importance.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 13, 2009)

renrich said:


> I believe there were more B17s in the PI than any other place in the world on December 7, 1941. The reason for that was that the high command in the US had convinced themselves that heavy bombers could somehow keep the enemy from invading. That was part and parcel of the Billy Mitchell deal of bombing old German BBs and the B17s going out and finding the Bremen(I think) in the middle of the Atlantic. Anyway, during the war it was discovered that high altitude bombing had little effect on naval operations even though for awhile the AAF convinced everyone that they had won the Battle of Midway. I personally believe that the role that strategic bombing in the final outcome of WW2 is way overrated. In the ETO, I really believe that Tac Air played as big a role in the defeat of Germany as strategic bombing and both were far behind the ground and naval forces in importance.



I agree ren. The only strategic bombing that truly determined an outcome, IMO, were the atomic raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

TO


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 13, 2009)

Renrich and Tough Hombre ought to go back and read stats on German oil production from, say, June, 1944, to January of 1945, and ask themselves why all of Hitler's armed forces by January were fairly well immobilized. They ought to examine figures on German rail movement of troops and supplies for that same period. It wasn't tactical bombs that closed the ersatz refineries and jammed the railways, it was done largely by strategic bombers.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2009)

Even Japan was pretty much on it's knees primarily because of submarine interdiction of supply routes although the A bombs hastened the end of the war which was probably advantageous for all. I don't deny that strategic bombing played a big role in the defeat, just not to the extent that is popularly believed. The sacrifises of the air men over Europe were extremely noteworthy. Think about this though. If the British Navy had not pretty much denied the use of the Med to the Germans, and if the Soviets had not stopped the Wehrmacht before they got to Baku, Germany might have had all the oil it needed and the bombing of the synthetic oil facilities and the facilities at Ploesti would not have been decisive.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 13, 2009)

If the atomic bombs weren't dropped, Operation Downfall would have had to go forward and the war would have gone on for many months. It took only nine days for the Japanese to surrender after the Hiroshima bomb.

TO


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 13, 2009)

I guess we can agree that everybody in all the alllied forces contributed hugely to the final victory but the decisive act was by the guy who put ink in the emperor's pen. This can get pretty silly, don't you think?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2009)

The bombing of the German refineries was the decisive factor in limiting the power of its industrial potential.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2009)

This could become a silly argument; I don't believe you can use alternate histories to remove the importance of any real actions during the war. 

The strategic bombing did not end the war on it's own; it's always the infantryman that takes the last stronghold but as has been mentioned the strategic bombing campaign (especially the oil campaign, intesified in '44) did cause a great hinderance to the German war machine, depriving it of fuel - which runs any squadron, division or fleet. 
And despite Germany's increased production throughout the war (until '45), imagine the production numbers without a bombing campaign!

As for the most overrated bomber of the war; it's the B-17, not because of it's defiencies but because the large part of the public sees it as the one and only bomber of the war (in Britain it's the Lancaster then the B-17) and all other bombers including the B-24 (which dropped the most tonnage) are often forgotten.


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 13, 2009)

Plan D: Most of what you say is true, except for the overrated bomber bit. Talk to the crewmen who flew in both 17s and 24s. Any crewman is going to support the type of plane he flew in, generally speaking, if it brought him back to base safely. If he downgraded the plane he flew in it would disparage in a way his role in the war. It's like the old argument among boys about Fords and Chevys. If one were to say his own family car was a clunker it would announce to the world that his parents had used poor judgment in buying it.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2009)

I got to help pull though the props on a B17 last Spring before they started the engines. Standing right in front when they started those engines one by one and watching him taxi out made me feel more than a little emotional so it is hard for me to say that the B17 was overrated.


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 13, 2009)

Right, renrich. My own pilot once told me that a B-17 flew like it wanted to fly. He said he could fly a B-17, but had to drive a B-24.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 13, 2009)

flakhappy said:


> Right, renrich. My own pilot once told me that a B-17 flew like it wanted to fly. He said he could fly a B-17, but had to drive a B-24.


I seem to remember Robert Morgan saying something similar in his book.


Wheelsup


----------



## Butters (Jun 13, 2009)

Considering the cost in blood and treasure in relation to the actual results, I think the Lanc is the most overrated. Not because of any inherent design flaws in the AC itself, but because of the doctrine that prescribed how they were used.

The horrendous losses in aircrew and massively expensive planes were not justified by the end result. That's what happens when you have a callous and fanatical zealot like Butcher Harris running the show.

JL


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2009)

Both Flak and Reinrich, your comments prove my point. There's nothing special about the B-17; the crews of the B-17 were no better off than those of the B-24; the B-17 was not the saving grace of the USAAF strategic bombing campaign...

...the B-17 is just famous; the B-24 is not. The B-17 was in no way far superior to the B-24, yet it's managed to become infamous far and above the B-24 which dropped more tonnage than any other bomber in the war...making the B-17 overrated.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2009)

Butters said:


> Considering the cost in blood and treasure in relation to the actual results, I think the Lanc is the most overrated. Not because of any inherent design flaws in the AC itself, but because of the doctrine that prescribed how they were used.
> 
> The horrendous losses in aircrew and massively expensive planes were not justified by the end result. That's what happens when you have a callous and fanatical zealot like Butcher Harris running the show.
> 
> JL




The USSBS survey said otherwise. The superior bomber of the ETO was the Lanc. In that case, its the B17 and B24 which were over rated.


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 15, 2009)

IMO The B-17 (and P-51) are overrated simply because they are the most iconic. no machine could live up to the expectations. They are the aircraft that are the closets to the general public's consciousness thanks to media and marketing saturation.

... I hate the part in Saving Private Ryan when the P-51s swoop in and the Germans start retreating to moment they show up and A GI says "P-51's.... tank busters!"

WTF?!?!? 

crap like that and unfounded hyperbole on "documentaries" make the general consumer think that The B-17 and P-51 saved democracy...

It's fun to have heros... and the B-17 bares a heavy burden ... It has profound symbolism for many people. it's not just a bomber, it is representative of a time in history along with men and women that built, flew and maintained her.

The B-17 was a great machine but it cannot stand up to it's near allegorical status.

.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 15, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> IMO The B-17 (and P-51) are overrated simply because they are the most iconic. no machine could live up to the expectations. They are the aircraft that are the closets to the general public's consciousness thanks to media and marketing saturation.
> 
> 
> It's fun to have heros... and the B-17 bares a heavy burden ... It has profound symbolism for many people. it's not just a bomber, it is representative of a time in history along with men and women that built, flew and maintained her.
> ...



All true - but when Smithsonian asked Spaatz for his opinion on which aircraft to do a full scale painting (by Keith Ferris) - he simply said the B-17 won the Battle of Germany and was the most important strategic weapon in Europe.

All said - that doesn't make it so but it does reflect the importance the US Chief of Strategic Air Force in Europe placed on the aircraft.

I think the B-17 when ranked against RAF and other USAAF heavy (and very heavy) bombers is short on several comparisons like bomb load or top speed at certain altitudes - but I would never rank it as 'most over rated' simply because (along with Mustang) it did the job in the ETO that it was assigned to do. Ditto B-24 and Lanc


----------



## Butters (Jun 15, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The USSBS survey said otherwise. The superior bomber of the ETO was the Lanc. In that case, its the B17 and B24 which were over rated.



I beg to differ. The Lanc was designed in accordance with a clearly defined doctrine. Central to that doctrine was the assertion that an unescorted bomber force could destroy the strategic war-making capability of the enemy. The bloody failure of that doctrine led to another- to dehouse and demoralize the enemy to such a degree that they would sue for peace. That also failed...because the a/c was not up to the task.

It can be fairly argued that no a/c was up to the task given the state of the art, but that does not alter the fact that the Lanc could not fulfill its raison d'etre. Out of a total production of 7377 extremely expensive a/c, 4137 were lost (Not counting those lost in heavy conversion units and OTU's). Worse, approx 55,000 aircrew were lost by Bomber Command. IOW, approx 45-60% (depending on the source) of those who flew bomber missions. Of course, many of those aircrew were lost in other types, but the numerical dominance of the Lanc over Germany in the last two years of the war ensures that the majority of those lost were Lanc crews.

The Lanc best performed its original design mission towards the end of the war, where it did yeoman work in daylight precision attacks on German industrial and military targets. It could do so because the Luftwaffe had been swept from the skies by the bombers and fighters of the US 8th AF...

If the Lanc was not held up as such an icon, my judgement of it would not be so harsh. But it IS an icon- widely believed to be a 'war-winner' in the battle against Nazism, and because it is rated so highly, despite its well-documented failures, I consider it to be the most over-rated bomber of the war.

JL


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2009)

Butters said:


> I beg to differ. .....



The USSBS specifically mentioned that only bombs over 4000 lbs were causing irrepairable damage to the German industrial targets.

And after the war ended, it was discovered that the RAF had more bombs on target than the AAF.

I would say the Lancs contribution was understated.

See the various threads that underscores this matter.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 16, 2009)

I think the USAAF daylight bomber raids did have the effect of wearing down the Luftwaffe's strength. Gradually, their top pilots and aces began to be killed off by the gunners and escort fighters. As their force started to dwindle, they were uneffective in attacking the Allied infantry, there wasn't enough fighters on hand to try and stop D-Day. Germany constantly under attack had little time to think about making their own long range bombers to attack England, all their aircraft production went mainly into fighters to counter the bombers, which left them only the V-1 rockets to attack long range.

The daylight raids helped the Allies gain air superiority, and that was one of the biggest effects it had on the war effort, besides destroying many Axis factories along the way. It came at a great cost and the price was high, but in the end it worked. Could it have been handled better? Yes, for one making sure the bombers always had fighters along to decrease losses.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 16, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I think the B-17 when ranked against RAF and other USAAF heavy (and very heavy) bombers is short on several comparisons like bomb load or top speed at certain altitudes - but I would never rank it as 'most over rated' simply because (along with Mustang) it did the job in the ETO that it was assigned to do. Ditto B-24 and Lanc



My sentiments exactly!

TO


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 16, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I think the B-17 when ranked against RAF and other USAAF heavy (and very heavy) bombers is short on several comparisons like bomb load or top speed at certain altitudes - but I would never rank it as 'most over rated' simply because (along with Mustang) it did the job in the ETO that it was assigned to do. Ditto B-24 and Lanc



I agree... it's just silly semantics.

It also depends on who's doing the "rating" when we say "overrated" where do they live?

If you showed 10 million Americans photos of a B-17 and the Lanc, it's a safe bet that many more have heard of the B-17 and dont know anything about the Lanc.

Thats what i mean about overrated... The B-17 was far ahead of it's time and soldiered on through the war with style... Awesome machine. But for too many people it was the ONLY bomber.

To me that means overrated.

.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 16, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> I agree... it's just silly semantics.
> 
> It also depends on who's doing the "rating" when we say "over rated" and where do they live?
> 
> ...



I agree your viewpoint and comments. I largely stay out of the 'over rated' discussions simply because they are too subjective.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2009)

comiso's post is exactly what I was getting at; to call the B-17 overrated is in no way belittling it's abilities as a bomber. The B-17 was a great bomber and did it's job well, but the fact is the B-24 and Lancaster are often forgotten and left in the shadow of the B-17 simply because of it's reputation amongst the general public.
To compare this boards beliefs with that of the general public is pointless because on here, I'd like to think that most of people recognise the B-24 and Lancaster, at the very least. The B-17 is seen as the heavy that carried the war to the Germans, but it didn't - if anything the B-24 did, but to simply praise the B-24 would be overrating that too!


----------

