Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
Well, the German had no turrets. Reliable or other wise. Except for the handful of Do 217s (?) and that turret is a bit debatable.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.
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.
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.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.
Fair point I agreeWell, the German had no turrets. Reliable or other wise. Except for the handful of Do 217s (?) and that turret is a bit debatable.
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.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…….
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.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.
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.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.
Good pointsThe 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.
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.The two stage Merlin engine started its life as a requirement for a high altitude Wellington.
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.
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.