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

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

While the B-17 was inferior to the B-24, B-32, and B-29 in terms of outright performance, no Axis power produced a bomber anywhere close to being as good as the B-17.

The Germans captured and/or rebuilt some B-17's and found that for some missions - and not just covert or spying - they had no equal.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Are you ever going to address my point, or do you prefer this attempt at "gotcha" games?

'Cause if you're not going to give fruitful discussion, I'll just move on to someone who can. Cheers.
Click to expand...

Was trying to point out that P-38 was not there from the start of the war, in the sense of actual, useful military hardware. It took Lockheed another 2 years after the XP-38 demise to start delivering service-worthy P-38s.
Contrary to that, the two other aircraft mentioned together with it - Bf 109 and B-17 - were in production by start of ww2; granted, much more of Bf 109s was made in 1939.
 

So you prefer "gotcha". Your call.

*plonk*
 
None of the P-38s "in service" prior to the P-38F's arrival in 1942 were combat ready with the exception of the F-4 version of the P-38E.

Otherwise, if we allow for semantics, the P-47 was in "service" in December 1941.
 
Some thoughts to begin with:
  • Whenever someone sets up comparisons, they first have to establish parameters and criteria ... and in doing so, they influence, bias and often dictate the results. (Or as in political "studies:" You get the results you pay for!)
  • Perhaps the most useless words in a historical discussion are the superlatives: First, Last, Fastest, Highest, or (HORRORS!!) Best! Usually you wind up with with so many descriptive adjectives and modifiers to make the point all but meaningless, and will ALWAYS become red meat for dissenters.
  • When I was in the military, the best airplane was almost invariably the one you were flying, and the two best duty stations were the one before this one and the next one you were going to next.
Finally, you've got to weigh in the experiences and biases of whose accounts you want to believe. Not many have the wealth of experiences of "Winkle" Brown, Gunther Rall or Derek Piggot. We're relying on accounts of flyers of that aircraft or worse, war correspondents.
Per the latter, they did most of their reporting from Mayfair pubs, thus AAF aircraft operating out of England automatically gained a halo. Few if any "journalists" ventured to the uncomfortable North Africa, Eastern Front, South Pacific, CBI or aboard sweltering/freezing ships.
Because of range/ceiling advantages (or sometimes, limitations) B-24s, C-46s, P-38s, P-39s, P-40s often provided yeoman service with little notice.
Even though B-24s were common in the English 8th Air Force, perhaps it was their range advantage or just luck of the draw, B-24 units were somehow further away from London, thus their tales didn't get into print as easily.
That is not to minimize the problems of B-24 or C-46 more complex systems, but remember that the whole technology was advancing far faster than quality control and testing could keep up with. B-17 and C-47 teething problems were generally resolved pre-war. The cost of resolving B-29 issues could likely have equipped the entire 8th AF bomber fleet for the entire conflict ... and they're generally glossed over.
 
GrauGeist said:
None of the P-38s "in service" prior to the P-38F's arrival in 1942 were combat ready with the exception of the F-4 version of the P-38E.

Otherwise, if we allow for semantics, the P-47 was in "service" in December 1941.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, I never claimed it was "in service" in 1939, because I know better. But it had had its first flights nine months before the war started, hence, it was "in the air". It was rapidly discarded after the war as being behind the times performance-wise ... just like the B-17.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a damned good airplane, and that was my point. Comparisons to later, more-capable aircraft shows the B-17 unfavorably, of course. But it was good enough to last the war, and was adored by many if not most of its crews. I'd suggest that their rating of it matters more than some automobile blogger 80 years on in possession of a well-functioning retrospectroscope.
 
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus said:
It (P-38) was rapidly discarded after the war as being behind the times performance-wise ... just like the B-17. That doesn't mean it wasn't a damned good airplane, and that was my point.
Click to expand...
In the drastic post war downsizing, note that maintenance and standardization made the P-51 and a few P-47 fighter bomber units the only survivors for Reserve and ANG roles ... no mission on the horizon for P-38.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Bomber Command, World War II (1939-45); and the lies and corruptions of Geopolitics
Replies
17
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
Replies
5
Views
74
Thumpalumpacus
M
Flying The B-26 Marauder Over Europe
Replies
0
Views
567
MIflyer
M
B-17E in Europe
Replies
17
Views
1K
Big Jake
B
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register