SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Where'd that goalpost go?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which one are you saying is spectacular, the G3M or the G4M, or both?
The Ju-87 and SBD sunk more ships than the G4M. What's your point?
You said spectacular bomber. Singular. I thought the goalpost was elsewhere.
Where'd that goalpost go?
Caveats? Vas ist das caveats? Was that what just went by, a goalpost?
Okay, you took a side trip as to spectacular bomber, 1941, 1942. I gave the obvious answer. The Mossie is a spectacular airplane. I chose it in a "Which WW 2 fighter would you choose?" thread. It could ,statistically, run away from anything. See, can I muddy the waters too.
You said there were no spectacular bombers in 1941, 1942. Now you're saying the Mosquito is spectacular bomber. It was around in 1941 or 1942.
I believe I just got you to admit there was a spectacular bomber then. You had previously said there were none. So it is possible for a spectacular bomber to exist then. If one does exist, unless you disagree with yourself, perhaps another could too.
The B-17 was one of the two.
I know, right?I swear. Aviation discussions would be good practice for law school.
Ok, I hit reply on this one by accident.I don't think the 1941 -42 vintage B-17 qualified as spectacular (aside from looks). Promising, yes sure.
Sr6 has made a lot out of the 'junk guns' of the Japanese. There is some truth to that. They had rather poor small arms and crew served infantry weapons as well, but they were able to make them work well enough to sweep aside British and American forces in Malaya and the Philippines, and to prove quite a challenge in many subsequent land battles in China and in various Pacific Islands.
Looks cool, has some impressive traits, but wasn't exactly breaking the enemy's back in 1941-1943. The main problem in the Pacific was that they couldn't hit anything.
The one thing that the B-17 did accomplish on many occasions, was causing the Japanese fleet to scatter and lose formation, which in turn made the seperated ships ripe targets for the low level attackers.Let's put it into perspective. 1941 -1942, even 1943 B-17, did hit a few things in the Pacific. I have the operational histories. But not too many. You are talking like once out of 20 missions. Japanese bombers did a lot better than that. D3A Val's hit rate was 50% in some strikes. G3M and G4M also routinely drew blood, albeit at a high cost.
B-17
Looks - spectacular
Theoretical performance - spectacular
Ability to survive missions - very good (Pacific), good (Med), poor (NW / Central Europe)
Ability to hit ground targets - fair
Ability to hit ships - poor
They did do one low-level raid on Rabaul with B-17s which was successful (and pretty close to the original design mission of this aircraft), and they even hit ships a couple of times, but the ratio of destruction of any significant enemy targets per mission was very, very low. In terms of the true role of the B-17 in the Pacific, it was a maritime armed recon plane which could harass ships and sometimes hit a few planes at airfields and once in a while, a ship or two.
In the Med it was a bit more effective against airfields etc. in 1943, (with many 8th AF planes transferred south for a while) but short of spectacular. B-24 had more impact in that Theater though it too had it's flaws.
Well, I would note, pertinent to this thread, that the Japanese Navy sunk most of the US fleet at Pearl Harbor. Then pretty much all British shipping quite swiftly around Malay and Singapore, including their strategic naval assets (battleships) by using, incidentally, G3M and G4Ms. Then all the US shipping around the Philippines. So I would say that was a fairly significant blow struck mainly by bombers.
G4M sunk more ships than the B-17
Helped the Soviets break the German war machine during these exact years. Stalingrad was in 1942.
I get the joke, and I like B-17s too, but it wasn't quite the world beater at that stage of the war.
B-17 was originally meant to be a coastal defense, maritime patrol bomber. It was pretty good in that role, but that wasn't a decisive mission. Like I said, if you put a (working) torpedo on it, it would have been pretty scary IMO.
They adapted it to Strategic bombing, by improving it and providing excellent escort fighters. That did end up being decisive but that wasn't until 1944. And by 1944, I don't think you can make the case that the German army had a chance to defeat the Soviet army any more regardless of how many ball-bearing factories we bombed.
The one thing that the B-17 did accomplish on many occasions, was causing the Japanese fleet to scatter and lose formation, which in turn made the seperated ships ripe targets for the low level attackers.
So in essence, they did achieve success even if they didn't actually hit anything.
I don't buy the notion that all the troops in the Pacific or CBI were substandard.
Fair point about the B-17 as an armed recon plane, I agree with that. It was useful in that role. Same for the B-24 once it arrived. PBY was pretty useful too, so was the Hudson even. But the Japanese also had the Ki-46, H8K etc.
Hmmm,PBY was pretty useful too, so was the Hudson even. But the Japanese also had the Ki-46, H8K etc.
Now I understand. I feel your pain.Hmmm,
PBY, first flight 1935
Hudson first flight Dec 1938, armed version of the Lockheed 14 Airliner. first flight July 1937.
200 Hudsons produced in 1939
Ki-46 first flight Nov 1939.
Ki-46 II first flight March 1941
H8K-1 first flight Dec 1940. 17 built.
The H8K-2 went into combat in 1943.
Am I detecting a pattern here???
No, I am confirming a pattern.