Most overated bomber

[syscom3]

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?]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

.

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

 

[plan_D]

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!