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

[Tankerdude]

I think you B-17 enthusiasts might enjoy my story. In 1967 I made my first of three work periods at NASA FRC, Edwards AFB. I was a co-op engineer from University of Illinois. On the first day I was given a tour of the various shops and people I would be working with (three tours, 17 months total). One stop was called the Model Shop. The fellow there would do shells to blow fiberglass into to make various shapes, wood supports for mock ups and the like. One was the blister on the rear of the B-52 that carried the X-15 and others aloft. On one shelf was a walnut model of the B-17. Maybe 18 inches long. It had a threaded stiff wire to the elevator with a brass nut to position it. I can't remember about the rudder. But a metal slab about a half inch long replaced a section of the left wing; perfectly holding the wing shape. It had three of four brass tubes out the bottom which extended down then a slow 90 degree bend aft. There were corresponding tiny holes in the upper surface. This was a setup that could be connected to small tuning to a manometer that could report the pressure at each hole along the cord of the wing. This was the wind tunnel model for the B-17! I asked the fellow working there if he wanted it and he said no, so I turned for the door and beat feet. Before I could get out the door he said to wait, that he should probably keep it. Damn. If he had not stopped me that would be over my bar today, with instructions in my will to donate it to The Smithsonian.

 

[chipieal]

I cannot disagree with this. The B- 17 was a mid 30's design that soldiered on way past the time when it should have become a second line plane. However, looking at the lead times in developing a multi - engine bomber and the problem of producing existing planes in mass quantity the Fortress was the right plane at the right time. If the USA had the advantage of seeing into the future - they would have shelved all other bombers and concentrated on the B-36 program. if this was available in 1942 - we could have bombed Germany and Japan with ease. One thing about the B-17 it absorbed a lot of battle damage and still made it home.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't f**k with 'em. The lead time on a -4360 engine alone means no B-36s for WWII. The tech did not exist. It had to be invented, and that takes time. You fly what you got.

 

[Shortround6]

You fly what you got.

B-17D first flown in February 3, 1941.

If you can you modify the crap out of what you have.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

View attachment 708528
B-17D first flown in February 3, 1941.

If you can you modify the crap out of what you have.

a/k/a the "oh shit" moment -- when you realize what you got ain't up to snuff.

 

[GrauGeist]

Considering the B-17D could reach 318mph at 25,000 feet (with a service ceiling of 37,000 feet), carry up to 4,800 pounds of bombs internally as well as having a max. ferry range of 3,400 miles, it was no slouch.

 

[GregP]

No one was doing corkscrew manouveres flying in a combat box formation, no one.

Not everyone flew in combat box formations, not everyone.

 

[SaparotRob]

Considering the B-17D could reach 318mph at 25,000 feet (with a service ceiling of 37,000 feet), carry up to 4,800 pounds of bombs internally as well as having a max. ferry range of 3,400 miles, it was no slouch.

And look good doing it.

 

[GregP]

No one was doing corkscrew manouveres flying in a combat box formation, no one.

Not everyone flew in combat box formations, not everyone.

The various 1940's USAAF cost calculations I have access to. Corrections and extensions welcome.

Nice spreadsheet. Thank you very much!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Considering the B-17D could reach 318mph at 25,000 feet (with a service ceiling of 37,000 feet), carry up to 4,800 pounds of bombs internally as well as having a max. ferry range of 3,400 miles, it was no slouch.

It was also superseded by -E, -F, and -G models, precisely because the -D wasn't up to snuff. No power turrets, no self-sealing tanks, less armor, and ferry-range isn't combat radius.

All the same (to the thread's topic), it soldiered on, with modifications, until 1945, because it was a platform large enough to allow those mods, which was my point in this conversation: not overrated. But you're not not going to ask a -D to do Regensburg or even shallow-penetration missions. We both know -- as did the boffins equipping 8th AF -- that those early early models weren't up to task. And I'm struggling to think of one mission carried out at 37k altitude. Help me out?

Considering how many -G models, with power turrets, SS tanks, better armor, and 13 guns fell to fighters and flak at 25 - 28,000 ft, I'm not putting much money on the D-model. What made the B-17 a damned good airplane was that it was able to take those mods and still perform the mission -- which is, after all, what matters, model designations aside.

 

[Simon Thomas]

The RAF commenced B-17C operations in July 1941. They performed so poorly they were removed from service in September 1941.
In that same month, the Bomber Command was still using Blenheims, Hampdens, Stirlings, Manchesters, Wellingtons and Whitleys in front line service.
For the B-17C to perform worse than this list indicates that this early version was astonishingly bad.

 

[GrauGeist]

The RAF's Fortress Is were also sent on unescorted missions and tried to accurately bomb at 30,000 feet but in spite of that, their crews liked them.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The RAF commenced B-17C operations in July 1941. They performed so poorly they were removed from service in September 1941.
In that same month, the Bomber Command was still using Blenheims, Hampdens, Stirlings, Manchesters, Wellingtons and Whitleys in front line service.
For the B-17C to perform worse than this list indicates that this early version was astonishingly bad.

22 missions totaling 39 sorties. So, an average of less than two aircraft per mission.

 

[WARSPITER]

22 missions totaling 39 sorties. So, an average of less than two aircraft per mission.

Yeah they should have sent something decent like P-3.....s - oops.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yeah they should have sent something decent like P-3.....s - oops.

 

[WARSPITER]

Yeah, sorry, I got halfway through and realised the P-38 wasn't in service at that stage (Did we get away with that? Have a look,
is he laughing or coming over - if he's coming over you're a ventriloquist and I didn't say anything).

 

[GrauGeist]

 

[WARSPITER]

Whew....

 

[ThomasP]

I do not know the exact numbers, but most of the higher altitude missions (ie ~30,000 ft) were recon missions, not strike missions. Apparently the UK decided after the first few missions that the B-17C was not mature enough for the daylight bombing mission.

The use of the B-17C for high altitude recon missions is from an official document (I think).

 

[JDCAVE]

Is there any information on the proportion of E/A shot down by gunner crew position in the B-17? i.e. was there a benefit to removing less profitable gunners to save weight and bodies? Clearly once air superiority was in place most gunners were unnecessary. Did they maintain the same crew complement during the waning months of the war?