Most overated bomber

109ROAMING · 08-22-2008, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Joining in this discussion late, but voting for the B-17.

same here

eddie_brunette · 08-22-2008, 06:08 AM

Wow, what a difficult question, so I'll go for the shocker and vote for the B29.
Although this was probably the best bomber of the war, it was only "tested" in the PTO and was never challenged by Luftwaffe (IMHO had much better A/C than Japanese) also the magic of the '29 was quickly extinguished 5 years later in Korea

edd

Ramirezzz · 08-22-2008, 08:16 AM

Il-2, especially of the early modifications.

ALthough I'm not quite sure if it can be called a "bomber".

Of the "pure" bombers I dunno - maybe Wellington.

109ROAMING · 08-22-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Good question! I think in popular opinion nowadays the Ju 87 is actually under-rated. In D and G forms it soldiered on late into the war, socking it to the Russians, in a dogged, determined way. And then there's Rudel to consider-- perhaps the best, or most accomplished combat pilot of all time, and a 7-victory fighter ace while flying Stukas! Yet everyone today seems to think the Stuka was just death-trap. Not my choice to fly into combat with, but Mr. Rudel thought otherwise! (Or was it Rugel? Y'all know who I mean! 11,000 lifetime comabt sorties? Ringing a bell, anyone?)

Oreo are you talking about Hans-Ulrich Rudel?

Hans-Ulrich Rudel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It shows you just needed to fly one right

SoD Stitch · 08-23-2008, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

Il-2, especially of the early modifications.

Agreed; IIRC, Mr. Hartmann racked up quite a few kills on the Il-2; his technique was to approach from the rear & below, and take out the ventral oil cooler with a well-placed burst of 30mm.

Ramirezzz · 08-23-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

Agreed; IIRC, Mr. Hartmann racked up quite a few kills on the Il-2; his technique was to approach from the rear & below, and take out the ventral oil cooler with a well-placed burst of 30mm.

I would say it was a overrated not because of its poor air combat performance - it was enough for a single engine strike a/c. As a fighter pilot you'll find a weak spot on any plane type sooner or later, it's question of time.
It was overrated because of its air-to-ground and most of all because of its antitank performance. At the early stages of the war before PTABs were introduced it was horrendous. The Vya-23 cannon had problems even at penetrating Pz-III and Pz-IV armour. I have some interesting reports of its combat performance and if I overcome my laziness I'll post here some translated parts

.

kool kitty89 · 08-23-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

Agreed; IIRC, Mr. Hartmann racked up quite a few kills on the Il-2; his technique was to approach from the rear & below, and take out the ventral oil cooler with a well-placed burst of 30mm.

With the 30mm you they wouldn't need to aim for the radiator...

Now with the 20mm (or 15mm in a few cases) and MG's only the radiator was a prime target. (although with the 20mm a good deal of structural tamage could be dealt as well)

Oreo · 08-26-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 109ROAMING

Oreo are you talking about Hans-Ulrich Rudel?

Hans-Ulrich Rudel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It shows you just needed to fly one right

Yes, I was grossly off on my sortie numbers, of course. Here's what wiki says:

According to official Luftwaffe figures, Rudel flew some 2,530 combat missions (a world record)[5], during which he destroyed almost 2,000 ground targets (among them 519 tanks, 70 assault craft/landing boats, 150 self-propelled guns, 4 armored trains, and 800 other vehicles; as well as 9 planes (2 Il-2's and 7 fighters). He also sank a battleship, two cruisers and a destroyer. He was shot down or forced to land 32 times (several times behind enemy lines), but always managed to escape capture despite a 100,000 ruble bounty placed on his head by Stalin himself. He was also wounded five times and rescued six stranded aircrew from enemy territory. The vast majority of his missions were spent piloting the various models of the Junkers Ju 87, though by the end of the war he flew the ground-attack variant of the Fw 190.

Since he started his combat flying in May of 41 that's an average of about 1.67 sorties per day, not even taking into account combat leave, sick days in the hospital after being wounded, and so on, which no doubt gave him a solid average of 2 sorties or more per day that he actually was flying. Pretty incredible, and almost all of it on Stukas.

KrazyKraut · 08-27-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Negative Creep

Ju-87. Slow, outmoded and vulnerable and shown up as soon as air superiority wasn't certain. Best impact was a psychological one but in terms of light bombing I'd rather have a squadron of 109's any day

The 109 couldn't even carry half the bomb load let alone be as precise as the Ju 87. And loaded with a 500 kg bomb (which wasn't even possible until F or G version iirc) it was a sitting duck. Of all the possible choices for a fighter-bomber the 109 is probably among the worst. It could've never replaced the Ju 87.

SoD Stitch · 08-27-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

With the 30mm you they wouldn't need to aim for the radiator...

Now with the 20mm (or 15mm in a few cases) and MG's only the radiator was a prime target. (although with the 20mm a good deal of structural tamage could be dealt as well)

I thought the ventral radiators were armored, too? I'll check my copy of The Blond Knight Of Germany when I get home; it has copies of the Luftwaffe recognition charts (or whatever they're called in German) for each potential aerial adversary an Me 109 pilot on the Eastern Front was likely to encounter, even P-51's. It's got a good diagram of the armor plating on an Il-2.

kool kitty89 · 08-27-2008, 10:10 PM

Well even so, the point stands that 30mm mine shells (the standard ammo for the MK 108 ) would still tear up the Il-2.

Oreo · 08-28-2008, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

The 109 couldn't even carry half the bomb load let alone be as precise as the Ju 87. And loaded with a 500 kg bomb (which wasn't even possible until F or G version iirc) it was a sitting duck. Of all the possible choices for a fighter-bomber the 109 is probably among the worst. It could've never replaced the Ju 87.

True, I think. Bf 109 seems less than ideal, same as Spitfire. Ju 87, like SBD, or Il-2, was tailored to the precision air-to-surface roll. The Il-2 may have been more able to survive without fighter escort, but the Ju 87 and SBD, when properly escorted, were very useful combat a/c.

Oreo · 08-28-2008, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Well even so, the point stands that 30mm mine shells (the standard ammo for the MK 108 ) would still tear up the Il-2.

probably. I'm sure I wouldn't want to find out, from the Il-2 cockpit. . . .

Ramirezzz · 08-28-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Well even so, the point stands that 30mm mine shells (the standard ammo for the MK 108 ) would still tear up the Il-2.

...and pretty all other a/c types as well.

syscom3 · 08-28-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddie_brunette

Wow, what a difficult question, so I'll go for the shocker and vote for the B29.
Although this was probably the best bomber of the war, it was only "tested" in the PTO and was never challenged by Luftwaffe (IMHO had much better A/C than Japanese) also the magic of the '29 was quickly extinguished 5 years later in Korea

edd

Even though the B29 flew faster, further, had a higher payload, had a more varied payload and the most sophisticated avionics (of its day) as compared to others?

Did I also mention it could also carry an atomic bomb and the others couldnt?