The B-17 Flying Fortress Was The Most Overrated Bomber Of World War 2

[Spectre311]

I Just found this thread and I thought I'd contribute as part of my first post. I think the B-17 was worthy of its accolades and history does prove that it was a workhorse that helped win the war...and I guess this guy's video is another part of the debate. Make of it what you will.

 

[DrumBob]

I watched it. Every WWII aircraft had its drawbacks. I had to hold myself back from calling the guy who made the video a nasty name publicly.

 

[SaparotRob]

I Just found this thread and I thought I'd contribute as part of my first post. I think the B-17 was worthy of its accolades and history does prove that it was a workhorse that helped win the war...and I guess this guy's video is another part of the debate. Make if it what you will.

Hello there, Spectre311. Welcome. That's just another clickbait title to get more views. There's so much written about the B-17, and other great planes, that creators have to come up with something.

 

[JDCAVE]

I Just found this thread and I thought I'd contribute as part of my first post. I think the B-17 was worthy of its accolades and history does prove that it was a workhorse that helped win the war...and I guess this guy's video is another part of the debate. Make if it what you will.

The title was enough to convince me it wasn't worth watching. Welcome, BTW.

Jim

 

[GrauGeist]

YouTube used to be a nice place - cat videos, music videos, bad drivers videos and such.

But then all of a sudden, it became a dumpster fire with "how to" videos and an endless supply of "experts" with their (often horribly misguided and ill informed) opinion of WWII aircraft.

 

[SaparotRob]

I'm waiting for a "Top Ten Aircraft Not Mentioned In A Top Ten Video " video.

 

[Spectre311]

Hello there, Spectre311. Welcome. That's just another clickbait title to get more views. There's so much written about the B-17, and other great planes, that creators have to come up with something.

Thanks for the welcome. And yes I guess being contrarian in today's history circles seems to be the going trend.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I'm waiting for a "Top Ten Aircraft Not Mentioned In A Top Ten Video " video.

You've got some free time now. Get on it!

 

[Shortround6]

That means he would be forced to suffer through an untold number of "top ten" videos.
Crosses the line into cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[GregP]

We need a video about the, "Top Ten Worst Assessments of WWII AIrcraft."

 

[SaparotRob]

You've got some free time now. Get on it!

I'll see if I can get a hold of Professor Propwash.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I'll see if I can get a hold of Professor Propwash.

Guy's a genius.

 

[fannum]

I've stated before, I believe in this thread that the superlatives, i.e. Best, Worst, etc. are meaningless and subjective, only klickbait and bar fight fodder.
Confining this to WWII aircraft, all have to be examined in their time, place and circumstances. WWII was a constantly changing environment, and sources of information varied as well. Remember that the bulk, if not the majority of Allied reporting came from relatively comfy London, thus activities in that theater got the most mention.
I'd note that aircraft that shined away from there often get a short shrift. C-46 in the CBI; P-38 in the long over water ranging in South Pacific; Venturas and Hudsons in desolate region anti shipping, patrol and interdiction; P-39/63s in Russia. Versatile A-20s were stellar early on, especially in remote theaters, but were quickly superceded. P-40s were the work horse, not only in China, but in North Africa before most Americans were paying attention.
Again, time and role: early on the first B-24s were great patrolling convoys in the mid-ocean gap, while early B-17s were duds. The first P-51s were relegated by the Brits to ground attack, and the Russians turned up their noses at the finicky Spitfire.
Each weapon had strengths and weaknesses, many not utilized well and many glossed over. Make sure that you're doing objective studies, and not just recycling the same old data that has acquired a prominence purely through repetition.
Finally, consider this blurb as a whole, and don't cherry pick a particular item to nitpick. (yes, I know all designs evolved, and Merlins made the Mustang a different aircraft)

 

[pbehn]

Again, time and role: early on the first B-24s were great patrolling convoys in the mid-ocean gap, while early B-17s were duds. The first P-51s were relegated by the Brits to ground attack, and the Russians turned up their noses at the finicky Spitfire.

The early Allisson engined Mustangs were not relegated by the RAF, they were the only plane capable of doing the tactical recon job they wanted to do which was more than ground attack. They would have taken more Allisson engined Mustangs right up to the end of the war, but production lines were changed so there werent any.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The C-46 was no great shakes either.

 

[yulzari]

Venturas and Hudson operated from Britain. In the case of the Hudson from the beginning of the war and the Ventura later on.

One might wonder if a city subject to aerial bombing every year from 1940 onwards, the subject of regular cruise missile attacks and international ballistic missiles and forty miles short of German artillery fire extreme range was that 'comfy'?

A French relative, who was with the Free French army for much of the war, was criticised in his home village post war for being 'safe' in London whilst 'we' had the Germans to deal with. He pointed out the above, the death and serious injury toll in tens of thousands with tens of thousands of homes destroyed or rendered uninhabitable and that the village toll was one old lady knocked over by a German motorcycle and badly bruised. BTW he was far from in 'safe' London and active in North Africa, Italy, across France and the push into Germany.

 

[pbehn]

Venturas and Hudson operated from Britain. In the case of the Hudson from the beginning of the war and the Ventura later on.

One might wonder if a city subject to aerial bombing every year from 1940 onwards, the subject of regular cruise missile attacks and international ballistic missiles and forty miles short of German artillery fire extreme range was that 'comfy'?

A French relative, who was with the Free French army for much of the war, was criticised in his home village post war for being 'safe' in London whilst 'we' had the Germans to deal with. He pointed out the above, the death and serious injury toll in tens of thousands with tens of thousands of homes destroyed or rendered uninhabitable and that the village toll was one old lady knocked over by a German motorcycle and badly bruised. BTW he was far from in 'safe' London and active in North Africa, Italy, across France and the push into Germany.

You were far from safe anywhere in UK. Deaths from road traffic accidents were at record highs 9,146 in 1941. My mothers school, literally in the middle of nowhere in rural North Yorkshire was hit by the engine from a crashed Wellington on a training flight. Only one relative of my wife was lost in WW2, he got back from Dunkerque and was run over by a bus in blacked out London.