Most overated bomber

[timshatz]

Probably going to tick off a bunch of the brits on the board but I went with the Lancaster.

Before the feathers fly on this one, I want to say it was a great bomber. Great range, great bomb load. Good cruise speed and decent ceiling. My reason for voting against it was it took nearly 25% of the British war output to make it and, in the end, the campaign it was involved in was questionable in terms of it's success. German industrial output increased even as the towns were being burned down.

In terms of how it was used, it is somewhat overrated. It did enormous damage to Germany. But was that crucial in winning the war and deserving of the reputation it carries? Tend to think not.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Probably going to tick off a bunch of the brits on the board but I went with the Lancaster.

Before the feathers fly on this one, I want to say it was a great bomber. Great range, great bomb load. Good cruise speed and decent ceiling. My reason for voting against it was it took nearly 25% of the British war output to make it and, in the end, the campaign it was involved in was questionable in terms of it's success. German industrial output increased even as the towns were being burned down.

In terms of how it was used, it is somewhat overrated. It did enormous damage to Germany. But was that crucial in winning the war and deserving of the reputation it carries? Tend to think not.

Same counts for the B17 I believe, so the B.17 and the B.24 are in the same category as the Lanc then, being overrated. Of course the bombing of the fuel plants were effective, but so was the bombing of the dams by Lancs.

[Oreo]

Yes, well again, there are two sides of the over-rated equation. The first side is, how good was the plane, and the second side is, how good does everyone think it was? Any plane, good or bad could be over-rated, under-rated, or properly rated.

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Same counts for the B17 I believe, so the B.17 and the B.24 are in the same category as the Lanc then, being overrated. Of course the bombing of the fuel plants were effective, but so was the bombing of the dams by Lancs.

Actually, I agree with you that the B17 was overrated. It was an older design than the Lanc and it showed by being just on the edge of obsolecence while being used. Too slow, not a large enough payload to do what it had to do. If I had to compare it to the Lanc in terms of being a airplane to haul bombs, I would go with the Lanc. About the only things it had over the Lanc were service ceiling and resilence.

Where the B17 (and B24) beat the Lanc was in mission focus. The Lanc went after cities at it's introduction and never really changed. The 17 and 24 went after several targets before finally focusing on oil/petrol. That created havoc for the Germans. In the end, the Germans ran out of men and fuel.

The Lanc's problem is not the aircraft, it was the way it was used. Night bombing could be effective. But it was not a war winning event that Harris said it would be. That's why I call it over rated.

It wasn't the Lanc's fault, it was the mission.

[Marcel]

I totally agree about the night missions.
I would like to point out other Lancaster missions. Think about the U-boat bunkers, bombed by Lancasters. It pulled out the teeth of the German Atlantic fleet. It was precision bombing and it confirms your statement that the Lancaster could have been much more useful when applied correctly.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Actually, I agree with you that the B17 was overrated. It was an older design than the Lanc and it showed by being just on the edge of obsolecence while being used. Too slow, not a large enough payload to do what it had to do. If I had to compare it to the Lanc in terms of being a airplane to haul bombs, I would go with the Lanc. About the only things it had over the Lanc were service ceiling and resilence.

Where the B17 (and B24) beat the Lanc was in mission focus. The Lanc went after cities at it's introduction and never really changed. The 17 and 24 went after several targets before finally focusing on oil/petrol. That created havoc for the Germans. In the end, the Germans ran out of men and fuel.

The Lanc's problem is not the aircraft, it was the way it was used. Night bombing could be effective. But it was not a war winning event that Harris said it would be. That's why I call it over rated.

It wasn't the Lanc's fault, it was the mission.

you are almost 100% correct but made one small error Bomber Command tried hard to hit the oil production faclities and it was one of the top priorities but they were unable to do it with any precision either in day or night up until 44

[Oreo]

I also think if the Lancaster and/or Halifax had been fitted with six-sided heavy machine gun defensive armament, as the B17 and B-24 had, they could have been used in daylight as the others were. Imagine if the British had sent 1,000 heavies over at the same time the USA sent over 1,000 heavies-- totally overwhelm the Luftwaffe!

[kool kitty89]

A big advantage of the B-17 to contemporaries was the service ceiling. (Making it less vulnerable to flak and more difficult to intercept)

[Juha]

Now in reality from August 44 onwards also BC attacked oil targets and during late 44 - early 45 could hit them as accurately as 8th AF, the European winter weather took care of that and the fact that BC was more profilic in blind bombing with radar than USAAF. And according to Speer heavier British bombs made more mess in oil refineries than lighter US bombs and so the refineries hit by BC were more difficult to repair.

Juha

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Juha

Now in reality from August 44 onwards also BC attacked oil targets and during late 44 - early 45 could hit them as accurately as 8th AF, the European winter weather took care of that and the fact that BC was more profilic in blind bombing with radar than USAAF. And according to Speer heavier British bombs made more mess in oil refineries than lighter US bombs and so the refineries hit by BC were more difficult to repair.

Juha

provided that the radar could discriminate the target which was a major problem but BC had since 1938 identified as its 3 top proirities in war with Germany
1) The attack on the German Air Force and aircraft industry WA1

2) Attacks on the german army rail ,canal, and road communications to impede the advance of the German Army in the Low Countries and France WA4
3) Attacks on German war industryespecially in the Ruhr and German oil supplies WA5
The Ruhr was an optimum target as most of German industry was located there and accuracy was not as important
Overall attacks on oil accounted for 26% of BC total tonnage as opposed to 37% on area bombing
.7% on specific industries

[Juha]

Hello Pbfoot
during winter 44-45 also USAAF had often bomb through overcast and so rely on radar.

Juha

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not one to pick "other" but I think the He 111 should of been on there but I did choose the B-17 for reasons mentioned - Marcel, great siggy!!!!

In many cases the B-24 and especially the Lanc were better bombardment platforms.

[RabidAlien]

I'll say the B-17, also. Great bird, great crews, it got the job done. But if Clark Gable and others had been flying in B-24s or -25's or -26's, then the newsreels would've been focused that way and the popularity would've swung that direction also. Each and every bomber listed had its purpose, and for hte most part performed them admirably. I just don't think the -17s deserved the awe and adulation heaped upon it by the drooling masses.....er.....civilians. I can't imagine a group of B-17's bombing Ploesti at low levels, and managing to bring back as many ships as they did with as much damage as they did.

[Juha]

Hello RabidAlien
"I can't imagine a group of B-17's bombing Ploesti at low levels"

IIRC B-17 didn't have enough range to do Aug 43 attack but again IIRC B-17 was clearly easier to fly in formation at high altitude, that's one reason why it was prefered bomber in 8th AF. Also crew oppinion was that B-17 could take more damage and survive but IIRC that cannot be proven statistically. Navigator's position was worse in B-24. B-24 B-24 had greater range so it was preferred in Pacific.

Juha

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

you are almost 100% correct but made one small error Bomber Command tried hard to hit the oil production faclities and it was one of the top priorities but they were unable to do it with any precision either in day or night up until 44

They did join the USAAF on those raids in later 44 but it was a case of coming in kicking and screaming. And the reason for that was exclusively Harris. He was dedicated to the concept of "de-housing" the German populace and using that as a method of winning the war. Figured if he dropped enough bombs, they'd quit (experience of the British during "the Blitz" was ignored).

He was rock in '42 when the Brits had nothing to hit Nazi Germany, Bomber Command being the only game in town but by '44, he had not adapted to the changes that came to the war on a strategic level. Something similar happened with Halsey, though not to the same degree. I believe his determination in '42 became intransigence in '44. Portal probably should've replaced him and brought in somebody that was more of a team player or a more adaptive personality.