Most overated bomber

Which bomber is most overated in today's popular opinion?

  • Total voters
    83

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

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

TO
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 


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.
 
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.

.
 

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
924
Vahe Demirjian
  • Locked
  • Poll
best ww2 bomber
Replies
9
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
4K
GrauGeist
  • Poll
Which period/theater of WWII do you enjoy studying the most?
Replies
6
Views
2K
gomwolf
G
S
  • Poll
Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito
8 9 10
Replies
186
Views
28K
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register