Most overated bomber

[kool kitty89]

...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]

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]

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]

B-17 overrated ? Not hardly

 

[syscom3]

B-17 overrated ? Not hardly

Why?

 

[Doughboy]

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

B-17 overrated ? Not hardly

The B-17 was definitely overrated.

 

[ToughOmbre]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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