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

[Glider]

Some of the RAF bombers weren't really ready for combat either.
Neither was the He 111 in 1940 and cousins.
Nor were most of the French bombers.
Or Italian.
And in the spring of 1942 many of the Japanese bombers were not ready for combat or at least the combat they faced.
Very few German or Italian single seat fighters shot down multiple twin engine bombers in one flight.

In July 41 when the RAF first started to use the B17c I think its fair to say that most British and German bombers of the 1940 era had the worst of the problems sorted. Most had armour protection to some degree, self sealing tanks, reliable turrets.

 

[Shortround6]

In July 41 when the RAF first started to use the B17c I think its fair to say that most British and German bombers of the 1940 era had the worst of the problems sorted. Most had armour protection to some degree, self sealing tanks, reliable turrets.

Well, the German had no turrets. Reliable or other wise. Except for the handful of Do 217s (?) and that turret is a bit debatable.

 

[tomo pauk]

In France and in the very early days of the BoB they had 3 7.9mm machine guns. No better than what they used in Spain.
But that is what the Ju-88s and DO 17s used, a rather frantic refit program to add more guns was the result. And they still had to change over to night bombing.

There is a world of difference between 'not ready for combat' and 'opponent's defenses were good enough for the attacker to change strategy'.
He 111 was certainly 'ready for combat' in 1940. Nobody said that it was ideal.

 

[GrauGeist]

The early series He111 had a dustbin turret and a nose turret - non-powered, of course.

 

[Shortround6]

There is a world of difference between 'not ready for combat' and 'opponent's defenses were good enough for the attacker to change strategy'.
He 111 was certainly 'ready for combat' in 1940. Nobody said that it was ideal.

It may be a difference of wording. The He 111 and it's cousins were not good enough to survive in the combat environment they found themselves in, at least in daylight.
The old step nose He 111s weren't good enough in 1937/38. A little more speed and a little protection was not going to change things much.
The Germans were slow to change the guns and adding 2-3 guns for single gunner to handle is not the improvement that the numbers suggest.

 

[yulzari]

The use of the Fortress I by the RAF was more an exploration of doctrine than the beginning of a high level daylight campaign. It demonstrated the problems of fighting at such altitudes and led to work on extreme cold gun reliability and strengthened the argument for pressure cabins and thus remote gun positions. As soon as the results were in the Fortress was withdrawn and passed for maritime roles at low levels. The same results were passed on the the USA and fed into Fortress developments.

As an aside it is amusing to note that a Hurricane could use two 40mm guns, the Tempest two 47mm ones, the Mosquito a 57mm and the Wellington a 40mm in a mid upper turret, whilst the attempt to mount just one in a Fortress nose led to structural issues when fired…….

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-17, much like the early B-24s, had a "greenhouse" structure (made from aluminium) with plexiglass inserts.
Installing a high-power weapon would damage the structure.

This is why the B-17G (and some retro-fitted Fs) had a chin turret.

 

[Greg Boeser]

For the same reason, the B-25 and B-26 noses needed reinforcing when the .30 caliber nose gun was upgraded to a .50.

 

[tomo pauk]

It may be a difference of wording. The He 111 and it's cousins were not good enough to survive in the combat environment they found themselves in, at least in daylight.
The old step nose He 111s weren't good enough in 1937/38. A little more speed and a little protection was not going to change things much.
The Germans were slow to change the guns and adding 2-3 guns for single gunner to handle is not the improvement that the numbers suggest.

As above - He 111 and it's cousins were 'just' not ideal, that does not mean they were 'not ready for combat'. Just like the Hurricane with 315 mph (and fuel tanks that were, at least rumor has it, easy to catch fire) were not ideal, but were very much ready for combat. Or the Zero and Oscar with similar properties.

 

[Glider]

Well, the German had no turrets. Reliable or other wise. Except for the handful of Do 217s (?) and that turret is a bit debatable.

Fair point I agree

 

[EwenS]

The use of the Fortress I by the RAF was more an exploration of doctrine than the beginning of a high level daylight campaign. It demonstrated the problems of fighting at such altitudes and led to work on extreme cold gun reliability and strengthened the argument for pressure cabins and thus remote gun positions. As soon as the results were in the Fortress was withdrawn and passed for maritime roles at low levels. The same results were passed on the the USA and fed into Fortress developments.

As an aside it is amusing to note that a Hurricane could use two 40mm guns, the Tempest two 47mm ones, the Mosquito a 57mm and the Wellington a 40mm in a mid upper turret, whilst the attempt to mount just one in a Fortress nose led to structural issues when fired…….

After unsuccessful use by Bomber Command, 4 Fortress I were sent to the Middle East at the end of Oct 1941, as an "experimental trial" where 2 were lost. It was quickly found that the performance of the aircraft were seriously degraded in the heat of the ME. Climb to 25,000ft was found to take 2 hrs 40mins rather the normal 1hr 23mins. Fuel consumption also proved higher as did engine temps. Their last operation was on 9 March 1942. The 2 survivors were flown to India in April 1942 and although attached to 215 Wellington squadron saw no action. In Aug the crews were reassigned and in Sept the aircraft were turned over to the B-17E equipped 7th BG 10th AF for use as trainers.

Only 7 Fortress I were turned over to Coastal Command pending delivery of the B-17E derived Fortress IIA from March 1942. 4 Fortress I arrived with 220 squadron in Jan 1942 for training purposes until the first (of only 30) operational sorties were flown in April. Other users were the Coastal Command Development Unit and 206 squadron (for training purposes).

In July 1942 first 220 and then 206 squadrons began conversion to the Fortress IIA as they became available from undergoing modifications at SAL Prestwick.

I would recommend "Boeing B-17 Fortress In RAF Coastal Command Service" by Rob Stitt and published by MMP Books.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Miscellaneous teething troubles related both to the technology and opretional hight apart, I suggest one thing to take away from these early operations is how few airframes were available. It's limited how many kinds of missions can be meaningfully undertaken, when you are only able to employ penny packets.

 

[OldGeezer]

Not trying to be annoying here, but I made my living for several decades in the field of aircraft vulnerability analysis, and rose to the "rank" of Technical Fellow as such, so let me just say that swapping out radial engines in favor of liquid-cooled V-engines would likely have raised more problems than it solved. Liquid-cooled engines simply have more vulnerable area than radials from most viewing angles, because even the slightest splinter damage to anything containing coolant will quickly kill the engine itself. And of course adding the weight of Prestone cooling (fluid, radiators, tubing, pumps) would have required cutting useful payload to compensate, forcing a reduction in either range or bomb-carrying capacity or both. Is any of that worth a hypothetical marginal increase in speed? Luckily there weren't enough Merlins to go around, so that particular trade study never had to be proven in combat. As far as the deliberately provocative title of this thread, I've never heard or read anything where anyone in the Axis defense forces thought the B-17 was "overrated" - quite the reverse.

 

[Glider]

Not trying to be annoying here, but I made my living for several decades in the field of aircraft vulnerability analysis, and rose to the "rank" of Technical Fellow as such, so let me just say that swapping out radial engines in favor of liquid-cooled V-engines would likely have raised more problems than it solved. Liquid-cooled engines simply have more vulnerable area than radials from most viewing angles, because even the slightest splinter damage to anything containing coolant will quickly kill the engine itself. And of course adding the weight of Prestone cooling (fluid, radiators, tubing, pumps) would have required cutting useful payload to compensate, forcing a reduction in either range or bomb-carrying capacity or both. Is any of that worth a hypothetical marginal increase in speed? Luckily there weren't enough Merlins to go around, so that particular trade study never had to be proven in combat. As far as the deliberately provocative title of this thread, I've never heard or read anything where anyone in the Axis defense forces thought the B-17 was "overrated" - quite the reverse.

I don't pretend to have any particular experience or qualifications but from the outside looking in it doesn't seem to have made much difference.

The Lancaster and the Beaufighter were I think unique, in that both had Merlin and Hercules powered versions of exactly the same airframe. From what I can see Merlin powered version Lancaster had a slight advantage over the Hercules version, whilst in the Beaufighter the Hercules had the slight advantage.

Just a gut feeling, is that the difference was more theoretical than actual.

 

[pbehn]

I don't pretend to have any particular experience or qualifications but from the outside looking in it doesn't seem to have made much difference.

The Lancaster and the Beaufighter were I think unique, in that both had Merlin and Hercules powered versions of exactly the same airframe. From what I can see Merlin powered version Lancaster had a slight advantage over the Hercules version, whilst in the Beaufighter the Hercules had the slight advantage.

Just a gut feeling, is that the difference was more theoretical than actual.

The Halifax and Wellington also used both types, there was a concern that losing an engine factory could screw everything up. The two stage Merlin engine started its life as a requirement for a high altitude Wellington.

 

[Glider]

The Halifax and Wellington also used both types, there was a concern that losing an engine factory could screw everything up. The two stage Merlin engine started its life as a requirement for a high altitude Wellington.

Good points

 

[Simon Thomas]

For details on the Fortress I in RAF service, I recommend reading the Operations Record Books of 90 Squadron, AIR-27-731-1 to -7.

Browse records of other archives | The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee the survival of today's information for tomorrow and bring history to life for everyone.

discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk

A few of the things I found interesting were:
4 June 1941:
W/C MoDOUGALL and crew a Height Test up to 36,000 ft. This height was reached in 40 minutes, and they were still climbing at 500 ft. per min.
5 Nov 1941:
All FORTRESS aircraft were grounded until all rudders had been removed and inspected.
29 Sept 41:
The electric suit of the bottom gunner caught fire on the return journey and had to be removed.
17 Dec 41:
Air crews assembled in the Gunnery Leaders Office at 0900 hrs to be told by W/Cdr Swain to stand by for operations. Three crews were detailed. [snip] The target was to have been the SCHARNHORST. At 1200 hrs crews were informed that the operation had been cancelled.

 

[PAT303]

The two stage Merlin engine started its life as a requirement for a high altitude Wellington.

And without the need for the high altitude Wellington goes the need for high altitude Merlins and the loss of all post MkV Spitfires and A series Mustangs.

 

[buffnut453]

And of course adding the weight of Prestone cooling (fluid, radiators, tubing, pumps) would have required cutting useful payload to compensate, forcing a reduction in either range or bomb-carrying capacity or both.

I'm afraid that's overly simplistic and is based on a number of assumptions, including a major one that both the inline and radial engine both produce exactly the same power across all altitudes. It ignores the additional weight of the turbosupercharger, which was quite a heft for US heavy bombers, to get adequate performance. Also, installing a lighter engine will move the CofG aft which drives instability. That's not a good thing in a WW2 vintage bomber. To compensate in a fixed aircraft design, you may need to extend the cowlings to mount the lighter radial engines further forward...which, of course, adds structure and surface area drag.

There's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to aircraft design...and baldly stating that you can save prestone, radiators and piping and not have to make other changes is simply incorrect.

 

[tomo pauk]

And without the need for the high altitude Wellington goes the need for high altitude Merlins and the loss of all post MkV Spitfires and A series Mustangs.

Is the Griffon also un-invented in this case?