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

[Gary Cain]

Tell that to the 54th Fighter Squadron, that deployed to Alaska in June, 1942 with their P-38Es.

Yes, the father of one of my best friends when growing up was a pilot in that squadron. He had two P-38's, Gizmo 1, and Gizmo II, after a squadron mate wrecked the first one.

His name was Kenneth St Oegger. He later raced unlimited hydroplanes, most famously the Hawaii Kai.

 

[WARSPITER]

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.

Excellent summation. An addition is the oft used question mark - e.g. was the _________ the best _______ of the war ?
The question mark will automatically lead to an automatic polarisation of yes vs no. That's why you see so many headlines that are
a question. In other words, it's a good way to start an argument.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Excellent summation. An addition is the oft used question mark - e.g. was the _________ the best _______ of the war ?
The question mark will automatically lead to an automatic polarisation of yes vs no. That's why you see so many headlines that are
a question. In other words, it's a good way to start an argument.

Trolls should be hit in the face with a frozen, bone-in Boston pork butt. Preferably several times.

 

[WARSPITER]

View: https://youtu.be/sUt8JvrhjhY

If you want overrated compare the title of this vid with the content on combat use.

 

[Snautzer01]

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.

P-38 is more expensive to maintain with no gain over the other airframes. That is important after the war with downsizing.
All war time supply chains are mostly be to be gone. So money and standarisation plays i think a big part in the answer why some planes like p-38 were fased out so quickly.

 

[spicmart]

In terms of aeshetic the B-17 is definitely overrated and boring.
A much more startlng view:View attachment 707730

Oops. It seems I've been misunderstood according to the funny emojis for my own quoted post. It wasn't meant to be funny nor sarcastic at all. I seriously like the looks of the B-24 much more than the B-17's which I consider a boring beauty! The Liberator looks just so much more intriguing with its shoulder-mounted, slender high-aspect-ratio Davis wing shape and profile contrasting the boxcar fuselage, dog snout and weird vertical stabilizers!
Anybody else has a soft spot for the Lib's exterior?

 

[Snautzer01]

 

[Just Schmidt]

Anybody else has a soft spot for the Lib's exterior?

As long as we're not talking pretty, I quite agree.

Moreover, I often catch my self thinking about the models without the nose turret as the four engined B-25.

 

[pbehn]

As long as we're not talking pretty, I quite agree.

Moreover, I often catch my self thinking about the models without the nose turret as the four engined B-25.

Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 had front turrets at the start, which is why I dont understand the articles claim about the B-24 having better defensive armament, it depends on which model you choose.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

P-38G began acceptances in June 1942, the last P-38F were accepted in October. The first P-38G-10 were accepted on 30 September 1942, along with 42-12867 to 42-12869 which became P-38J, though they were originally designated P-38H-1.

 

[fannum]

The Liberator looks just so much more intriguing with its shoulder-mounted, slender high-aspect-ratio Davis wing shape and profile contrasting the boxcar fuselage, dog snout and weird vertical stabilizers!

Note that the B-24 presaged efficient designs of the future, maximizing the lessons being learned from sailplane advances, increasing efficiency by incorporating high aspect ratios and flush riveting. Previous bombers/transports were tied to biplane trusses or massive spars, and with stressed skin designs, since then wings keep getting longer and slimmer.

Check early Consolidated Liberator layouts. They had gone to the more forgiving tricycle gear, and the planned tall tail wouldn't fit in the standardized AAC hangers, so they went to the twin tails, learning from the Brits who had the same solution for their smaller hangers. Remember the DC-4E and Connie went to the multi fin scheme for the same reason ... has anyone called the Lockheed tri-tail 'weird?'

 

[EwenS]

Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 had front turrets at the start, which is why I dont understand the articles claim about the B-24 having better defensive armament, it depends on which model you choose.

And the modification state. The Hawaian Air Depot fitted its first nose turret to a B-24D in late 1942 (it was photographed on Midway in Nov 1942 ahead of its participation in a raid on Wake Is in Dec before being sent back to the US to be examined in detail). Conversions undertaken both in Hawaii and at Townsville, Australia. It was mid-1943 before other modification centres began their conversions.
See "Consolidated Mess" by Alan Griffith

 

[fannum]

View attachment 707784

As a pinned down ground pounder which looks better ... an A-10 or a F-22?

 

[fannum]

And the modification state. The Hawaian Air Depot fitted its first nose turret to a B-24D in late 1942 (it was photographed on Midway in Nov 1942 ahead of its participation in a raid on Wake Is in Dec before being sent back to the US to be examined in detail).

During my brief period as a lecturer at Fort McNair War College, I found a paper (IIRC from another Staff College) where a graduate had analyzed effectiveness of various gunner positions. The nose gunners led, which he postulated was due to attacker tactics and the ability to concentrate fire without having to lead the target.

A surprise was the damage inflicted by side gunners, despite having a single gun.

He readily admitted that the data was spotty, not found for all units, theaters or types of aircraft. It included all types of bombers and patrol aircraft, even single engine and Naval units, but excluded night operations.
Has anyone seen this paper or the follow-ons that were asked for in the conclusions?

 

[WAFU]

B-24 was better…

It was the future, the B-17 was the end of the past

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'm avoiding the whole Hurricane Wildcat thing.

I wish I could…

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Let's move the P-38 discussion to a different thread. It's not really providing any value here.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As far as the B-17 goes, sure it was not the best bomber in the sky performance wise, and it was an outdated design. Look at when it was designed for crying out loud. Its days were certainly numbered, especially once the B-29 would be produced in sufficient numbers.

Having said that, it was not even close to being overrated. Especially when you look into its contribution to the war effort.

Besides it was a Boeing product, that alone gives it cool points.

 

[JDCAVE]

B-24 was better…

It was the future, the B-17 was the end of the past

Sorry. It probably wasn't. It was a horrible and ungainly aircraft to fly. Evasive manoeuvres difficult, if not impossible. Dad said It handled like a cow. It did however have it's role as long range maritime patrol aircraft.

Jim

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

B-24 was better…

It was the future, the B-17 was the end of the past

From GlobalSecurity.org:


B-24 performance problems, coupled by the fact that B-17 production was to taper off prior to B-24 production, prompted the Army Air Force (AAF) to investigate the combat effectiveness of the plane in comparison to the B-17. A comparative analysis conducted in the spring of 1944 by the AAF Operations and Requirements Division concluded that "it would be desirable to increase B-17 production and decrease that of the B-24, because the former airplane is a much more effective combat weapon."

This recommendation was based on statistical comparisons:

1. Statistical data compiled on the utilization of both planes showed that the B-17 was easier to maintain and therefore more available for combat.
2. Statistical data on time from aircraft acceptance to delivery in theater showed that the B-17's spend only half as much time in modification centers thus are availableat the theaters in a shorter time.
3. Use of B-17 combat sorties, versus B-24, resulted in a 40% savings in personneland material.
4. The average man-hours expended in producing and modifying one B-24 weregreater than for a B-17.
5. Statistical comparisons done on loss rate per sortie showed that the B-17 had a 35% longer combat life than the B-24.

Another study was conducted in the fall of 1944 by the AAF Unit Training Division. In the final report,Colonel Walker, Chief of the Unit Training Division, states the following: "The extensive use of the B-24 is inconsistent with the blunt fact that it is the most extravagant killer of any airplane in the AAF. Since Pearl Harbor through September 1944, B-24 accidents in the U.S. have resulted in 2,188 fatalities. In the first 9 months of 1944, B-24's did only 6% of total flying in the U.S. but accounted for 26% of all fatalities. They flew 5% less than B-17's but had 105% more fatalities and 85% more wrecks. Had the B-24 had as good accident rate as the B-17 during the period 7 December 1941 through September 1944, there would have been a saving of 230 aircraft wrecked, 904 lives, and approximately $60,000,000."

B-17 vs B-24

www.globalsecurity.org