| Well, OK, let's just summarize the situation:
Aircrafty argues the B-17 is more overrated than the Zero. I argue the opposite.
His argument is based primarily on two assertions: 1) that the B-17 operated under more permissive conditions than the Lancaster and other RAF bombers, and therefore has less merit compared to its reputation; and 2) that the Zero fully earned its near-mythical reputation because of its maneuvrability (and range, but I doubt that's really where its reputation came from). He also hint briefly at the B-24's superiority over the B-17, but chooses not to develop that argument, instead sticking to the RAF versus USAAF bombing strategy line of thought.
Now, Aircrafty's assertion #1 is based on:
- Night bombing and day bombing were just as inaccurate (roughly).
- RAF crews had a tougher time against the threat, as shown by higher ratios of crew deaths in combat.
Now notice that taken together, the above means the RAF and Bomber Harris were just stupid, as they purposefully subjected their bomber crews to higher risk with no compensating gain. This is just bizarre and in fact quite contrary to every source I have ever seen/read on the issue. Night bombing was adopted by the RAF as a reaction to very high daylight losses, period, end of story. I will not argue this point any further, it's useless. It is irrelevant whether or not advances by the Lufwaffe night fighter arm later negated some of the advantages night conferred to the RAF. The RAF continued to bomb at night for a reason. If it wasn't the relative safety of the night (remember, the RAF had no long-range escort fighters to accompany potential daylight raids; I'm also NOT saying night bombing was a safe endeavor), I don't know what it was. According to Aircrafty, presumably it was just to prove the superior courage of RAF bomber crews!
As to assertion #2, let's see:
a) Aircraft's reputation is based exclusively (or at least primarily) on superior maneuverabilty (by the way, climbing ability is part of maneuverability).
b) Maneuverability turns out to be an overrated characteristic (Aircrafty seems to admit that much himself), rather easily countered by hit-and-run tactics and avoiding dogfights, assuming a decent opposition (not grossly inferior designs such as the F-4F).
Now, a logical mind MIGHT deduce that therefore that aircraft, the Zero, was (and still is) in fact overrated. But I guess not for some people...
I won't say a thing more on this issue. Let the readers decide for themselves.
FVD |
LOL, do you ever actually read what other members post? You have spewed out my comments in mixed order in some lame way to twist them for your own purposes. In future don't try and put words in my mouth and don't missquote me (I guess the upside is that it's good that you have made your last post on this subject). Both the B-17 and Zero were early designs and operated long past their use by date. However, until 1943 when the Americans used better aircraft and tactics the Zero was hard for any allied fighter to beat, so how can that be overrated.
Imo the B-17 is the most overrated because of the myths, tv shows and movies etc that feature the B-17 as being the best and most accurate allied bomber of WWII, which is far from the truth. The B-24 was somewhat better than the B-17 but is usually overlooked because of the legend of the B-17.
Again I must stress that the Lancaster and Night versus Day bombing has little bearing on the "most underrated" discussion and I mentioned them purely as a rate of loss matter. However, the B-17 together with its Norden bombsight is a major part of the myth that there was ever such a thing as precission medium to high altitude bombing during WWII. And that the American bomber crews were somehow exempt from area bombing and loss of civilian lives that the RAF bomber crews are sometimes accused of.
Earlier in the war the British conducted an investigation on the accuracy of their bombing and discovered it wasn't nearly as accurate as they thought. Later in the war the Americans discovered that their daylight "precision" raids were also largely inaccurate, the full US Strategic Bombing Survey carried out in September 1945 is a complete confirmation of this. The facts are that as hard as the RAF and USAAF bomber crews tried, the technology, weather conditions and the combat environment did not permit accurate bombing from medium to high altitiudes by day or night. Consequently most of the bombs aimed at the industrial targets spilled over into residential areas etc. When the four engined strategic bombers of the RAF and USAAF were used in support of the Normandy invasion at a tactical level the inherent inaccuracy of higher altitude bombing proved almost as dangerous to the allied troops on the ground.
06-17-2007, 10:38 PM 
Re: Most Overrated Aircraft of WWII 
Check the Ebay Listings forum for the latest diecast model listings on eBay.
.
Similar Threads 
Offline
Online
Linear Mode
