Most overrated bombers?

Easy … GR1/4

Apart from the engines, the He177 would probably have been a lot better if it wasn’t for the dive-bombing fixation in the upper reaches of the Luftwaffe.

As Moggy C rightly implies, the He177 might be a contestent in the ‘most under-rated thread’. No way is it over-rated. It was potentially a very significant bomber and when operated by KG40 etal started to be effective (anti-shipping). Its only real vice was a tendency to burn due to trying to combine two engines into one nacelle. Clearly not good if you happen to be flying one.

In terms of over-rated, I’d go with the Fw200 Condor. A converted airliner whose only virtue was range. Successful therefore as recce platform and for attacking lightly defended targets with small bombs but hopeless against determined defence, over-manned, minimal bomb load and (and this is the clincher for me) structurally inadequate such that the back frequently broke or buckled in service.

It was an almighty crock of poo- but an aircraft can be over-rated without even leaving the factory. Had the He-177 been produced, the Luftwaffe would have had a heavy strategic bomber with the range of the Ju-88. Goering was fully behind this project and threw a huge amounts of manpower and material behind it’s production, despite the huge cost and problems with the engines and the dive-bombing performance. Without it, i contend that whilst the Luftwaffe had bredth, but it had no depth. It was over-rated by the OKL, even before it left the factory.
BARNOWL

I believe Hitler was quite keen on it…
Does that count?

The most over-rated bomber was the He 177 Grief.
BARNOWL

I don’t follow. Everything I’ve heard or read says that it was a load of poo. So who are these people who are overating it?

Moggy.

The most over-rated bomber was the He 177 Grief. This single bombers problems lead to the lack of a strategic bomber in the Luftwaffe. Had the nazis had a heavy bomber, capable of doing what the Lancaster could do to them, would we seriously have been able to withstand the pummelling? Heinkle consistantly exaggerated the performance characteristics of the Grief for Goering in order to win the contract, and in turn, Goering wanted more from it! He wanted it to divebomb (as Hitler stated in a requirement that every bomber should be able to divebomb by at least a 45 degree angle in 1933). Another problem was Goering ordering that instead of four engine, it was only to have two, but the bombload and capabilities should remain the same, which many inside of Germany co nsidered to be impossible. However, with all the setbacks, with engines frequently catching fire and/or pulling so hard they came away from the air frame, Goering had to resort to using the He111, Do17 and Ju88 instead as the Luftwaffe’s ‘heavy’ bombers.
BARNOWL

Jules,

I am pleased to read your position as you have first hand experience

As are we all. Jules is a highly valued contributor to this Forum.

Moggy

Jules,

I am pleased to read your position as you have first hand experience

The idea for Len Deighton’s book ‘Bomber’ started from his once learning that Lancaster crews at a briefing cheered when they heard they were sharing a raid with Stirlings as the latter would keep the German defences busy and away from the Lancs. Sounds like your B17 / B24 analogy.

Whoa, that is a really sad story. Quite, quite awful really. Human nature, preserve the self and all, but man… I’d hate to think what the poor Stirling/B24 crews thoguht if they knew this, and I’m sure they did know it.

JoeinTX – what you say is very interesting and puts things into perspective.

Yeah, it would certainly have to be the -17……the Do-17 that is.

Granted, for 1935 it was pretty spectacular, but for 1940 it was already past it’s prime.

Risking 4 (or five) crewmen to deliver a 2000 lb bomb load at 225 mph with little armor protection and the most meager of defensive armament makes it the most failed of the mainstream types of the war in my opinion.

The B-17? Well, the original idea behind the B-17 was to create a fast, long range medium bomber that could attack invading fleets at a distance from the shores of the U.S. or it’s possessions. Keep the bombload the same but add another pair of engines for speed and the appropriate fuselage/wing size to support the extra fuel and weight…ouila, the B-17 was born. Now despite the fact that it never really was intended as such, when the time to go to war came it had the needed range, the ability to be produced in numbers, and well…it looked like a heavy bomber so off it went.

Tough, had the defensive qualities of a cactus, and did I mention tough….?

Moggy,
Comparing Mossies with B17s is like comparing apples with bananas.

Yes, but I’m still a coward 😮

I’d take the fast banana anytime 😉

The idea for Len Deighton’s book ‘Bomber’ started from his once learning that Lancaster crews at a briefing cheered when they heard they were sharing a raid with Stirlings as the latter would keep the German defences busy and away from the Lancs. Sounds like your B17 / B24 analogy.

Cheers

Moggy

Moggy,
Comparing Mossies with B17s is like comparing apples with bananas.
After getting my wings, I was assigned to bombers. Thankfully it was B17 rather then B24. I knew that my chances of survival were better in B17s.

I believe that more bombers were lost to flak then to fjghters. B17s were much better able to defend themselves from fighters then B24s. Much tighter formations, etc

I still say that I would rather have B24s flying with us then escorting fighters, because the enemy would attack the 24s rather then 17s.

I finished my tour before P51 Mustangs came into our theater. Once they began escorting the bombers, the bomber loss to enemy fighters dropped dramatically.

I’m sure I’ve read, very recently but I don’t know where, that the Mossies that came unglued in the Far East were from Canadian production, not UK. Apparently they were using a different glue or different glueing procedures.

In the Far East, for instance, you may well have ‘preferred’ one of the nice metal American airplanes over the British wooden ones which might (and did) come apart in the air.

If you were in WW2 and had a choice as to which bomber you would want to fly in I’m quite sure you would choose the B17 because it would be your best chance of surviving a tour. This in spite of it’s smaller bomb load.

Nope.

Give me a Mosquito any time Jules. I’m not as brave as you and I’d quite like the ability to run away. Very fast!

I had the good fortune to fly an 8th AF vet a couple of weeks back when he returned to the UK to visit his old airfield – Horham. He’d done a tour on B17 and then flew Mosquito (or ‘Mossie’ as he called it) on photo recce.

There was no doubt in his mind which he preferred.

Moggy

I’m not getting involved in saying which I think is the most overrated. Surely it depends whose rating we are considering?

Regarding the B-17, especially the early 90 Sqn ones.
Remember the Oddentification verse?

Whistle whistle little bomb
How I wonder where you’re from
Up above the world so high
There’s a Fortress in the sky

Allied: B-17
Axis: He.177

Good point Tony, but an Allied one. The German bombers all did critical work for Blitzkrieg; when they ran out of air superiority your point about pre-war views of the bomber applied to them. But to say that the Stuka, Ju88, etc were over-rated neglects their success in the early part of the war.

The hard lesson had to be learned that bombers of any kind require air superiority to have been achieved. However, even with air superiority the Fairey Battle was a risible weapon of war.

All bombers were overrated before the war; it was widely believed that ‘the bomber will always get through’ and that they would bring catastrophic destruction which would rapidly end any war.

The issue here is surely whether any of the bombers are still overrated today, for reasons of national pride, nostalgia or whatever.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum