Most overated bomber

[Oreo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Some strange votes in this poll.

B-17, B-25 and SBD overated?

TO

 

[Oreo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ToughOmbre]

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]

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]

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

 

[Oreo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.