# Rank the Allied Heavy Bombers 1939 to 1944



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

I thought this might bring up some interesting debate. We all know (well at least most of us...) that the B-29 was the best bomber built during the war, however lets rank the planes before it. Lets talk about the other Heavy Bombers that were fighting the war before 1944.

How would you rank them and why? 

Here are the contestants, if I forgot one please let me know and I will add it.

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Petlyakov Pe-8
Handley Page Halifax
Short Stirling
Avro Lancaster


----------



## DBII (Nov 1, 2009)

Before I found this website, I would have said the B-17 but I do not know anymore. The Lancaster did a lot of work and pulled off the special missions, dam bursting, hydro plants and sub pins. I am leaning toward the Lancaster.

DBII


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 1, 2009)

I prefer the B24 as it performed in all theatres with different roles . the Lanc was afine aircraft but not up to the 24 except in bombload


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 1, 2009)

I'm going with the B-17. It got its job done, flew a ton of missions over 30,000 feet, where the Lib could get barely over 25,000 (I believe). The B-17 was very durable and put up a very go defensive fight. I think that the B-17 is iconic...

The Lib and Lancaster are a tie. The Lib was a great plane. The wing positioning itself was genius. But reading a book, a pilot said, "She doesn't take kind to battle damage, and if power is lost, its glide slope is just about equal with a brick." That could be fatal.... 

The Lancaster was a great overall plane IMHO.. I have been in one (Yes I have check one of my older thread titled "This is what got me to love planes" or something of that nature ) and it is a bit cramped. There is no belly gunner which even on a night mission could be very, very fatal.. its main emphasis was bomb load. 

Once the B-17 got its escort (even though it had superb armament) it definitely got its full use. 

Either way, I salute all of those who took up the bombers. The war couldn't of been won without either of these three bombers...


----------



## Flyboy2 (Nov 1, 2009)

I've got to go with the B-17 on this one.... 

Of the British three i would say the Lancaster was the best


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2009)

little note the B-32 first mission it's may '45, only five delivered in '44 and only to test center.

There are, for the four engined, also the Farman 222223 and TB-3. but early in the war also some twin engined was heavy


----------



## renrich (Nov 1, 2009)

I would go for the B17 over the Lancaster beause it had much heavier defensive armament and because it was more survivable because of the air cooled versus liquid cooled engines. Lancaster losses in daylight bombing would have been much heavier than the B17s.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 1, 2009)

I'm going with the B-17 on this one. Not the biggest bomb-load, but it had great durability, and a good defensive armament. Though my vote might be biased, since I've flown in one.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2009)

A Lancaster EQUIPED for daylight operations might have been a different story.

We are trying to compare a night bomber and a day bomber. The day bomber used a larger percentage of it's useful load in defensive guns and ammunition. Leaving less weight for fuel and bombs. 

THe night bomber, with less chance of fighter interception could trade guns and ammo for more fuel (range) and a larger bombload. 

One might also take note of the rankings of these bombers in relation to their horsepower (include the B-29 in this) .

THe older American bombers aren't doing so bad considering their 4800-5400hp power plants. Lancaster could top out at over 6800HP although most were less. aAnd the B-29s 8800-9200HP is what really allowed to be the champ.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 1, 2009)

The B24 had IMHO a bigger impact on the war , it was the aircraft that closed the gap in the N Atlantic, Ploesti, also used extenbively in CBI by both RAF/USAAF .Renrch mentioned the liquid vs aircooled in choosing the 17 over the Lanc but many Lancs were powered by radials


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 1, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> The B24 had IMHO a bigger impact on the war , it was the aircraft that closed the gap in the N Atlantic, Ploesti, also used extenbively in CBI by both RAF/USAAF .Renrch mentioned the liquid vs aircooled in choosing the 17 over the Lanc but many Lancs were powered by radials



pb, thought the MK II, of which only about 300 (?) were built, were the only Lancs to be radial powered. Seems that well over 7,000 machines would be Merlin powered. 

TO


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 2, 2009)

The USSBS has a lot to say in what bomber can be considered the best.

The B17 has the best performance at high altitude? Well, as altitude goes up, accuracy goes down. Its almost a perverse type logic in bombing from that high up ..... fewer bombs will be on target, therefore the probability that the same target will need to be bombed again goes up. Therefore the aircraft and crews are put at higher risk simply because they have to do the same missions over and over and over.

The US 1000lb bomb simply couldn't get the job done. There's plenty of factual evidence that the AAF blew the roof of the factory (if they hit it) but didn't damage the machinery inside. The Germans could easily clean up the mess and start the production line back up. But the RAF used plenty of ordinance that was far more destructive (the 4000lb types were noted) that not only blew the roof off, but wrecked the machinery and caused far more lasting damage.

As for accuracy, it was the RAF that actually had the best bombs on target percentage. Forget about the AAF claims of being able to "precisely hit" a target. Fact is, it was an area type bombardment that usually had some bombs on target, but also had bombs landing miles away too.

Then there was the difference in style in night raids and day raids. This was noted by the USSBS. Night raids lasted for hours, and in that time, destructive fires could take hold in the targets and actually cause some serious damage. The USSBS quoted German officials in saying that their crews had to stay in their shelters for quite some time because of the danger of going out during the bombing. The daylight raids on the other hand, were over and done with in a matter of minutes. In which time fire crews and damage repair groups could get out of their shelters and get the fires under control before they got serious.

Therefore, I say the Lanc was the best bomber in the ETO. The B24 was better for the Pacific and ASW work, but the Lanc could be pressed into service to do those roles with some possibility of success. But the B24, and definatly not the B17 could carry the bomb load the Lanc could. In the end, the measure of success for a bomber is if it destroys its target, with what efficiency.

And IMO, the B32 doesn't belong here. Its first missions were in the final weeks of the war.

When I first joined this forum, I was convinced in the superiority of the B24. But while trying to prove it with some facts and logic, I changed my mind. The Lanc was better than the B24 and B17 in what it was supposed to do.


----------



## Hop (Nov 2, 2009)

> The US 1000lb bomb simply couldn't get the job done. There's plenty of factual evidence that the AAF blew the roof of the factory (if they hit it) but didn't damage the machinery inside. The Germans could easily clean up the mess and start the production line back up. But the RAF used plenty of ordinance that was far more destructive (the 4000lb types were noted) that not only blew the roof off, but wrecked the machinery and caused far more lasting damage.



I agree, I think the restrictive bomb bays of the B-17 and B-24 were a major disadvantage.

In 1943, 1944 and 1945 the USAAF dropped 48,575 2,000lb bombs in the ETO and MTO, and just 158 larger bombs, all of 4,500lb.

Bomber Command:

2,000lb - 38,000
4,000lb - 114,000 (figure is for the whole RAF, presumably includes the MTO)
8,000lb - 1,088
12,000lb - 1,047
22,000lb - 47


----------



## Glider (Nov 2, 2009)

To rank them I would go for the following:-

1) Lancaster
It had payload, range and even in daylight raids had the same loss ratio as the B24 on similar raids and similar timescales. This plus the ability to carry any sized bomb makes the case.
2) B24
Flexibility and range
3) Halifax
Almost my second choice, the Hercules powered MkIII onwards had better loss rates than the Lanc and it was easier to bail out of. It could also carry most bombs which makes it a contendor.
4) B17
If you had to shoot your way through to the target without escort this would be no 1 choice, but it lacked range/payload and was restricted in the type bombs it could carry. So overall it drops down my list
4.5) B32 Domminator
This has the feel of a plane that didn't achieve what it was supposed to do and still had more than a few significant bugs when sent into action. A sort of He277 for the Allies, potential but still mainly potential as it only has a handfull of missions against an enemy that lacked any effective defence to its name. 
5) PE 8
This I like, but the problem was that it wasn't developed during the war. Had it been it would be higher up the list as I feel that it had a lot of unrealised potential.
6) Sterling
I always felt sorry for the Shorts company. Avro and Handley Page were able to make significant changes to their designs to achieve their full potential but Shorts never had the opportunity to change the wing which was imposed on them by the original specification.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 2, 2009)

Hop said:


> I agree, I think the restrictive bomb bays of the B-17 and B-24 were a major disadvantage.



Any figures of maximum internal load, largest bomb sizes that could be carried, loadouts?


----------



## RAF Liberators (Nov 2, 2009)

The B-24 for obvious reasons, but I could go on.
Highest US production aircraft of the war (over 18,000)
Longest range (The RAF held the record in a B-24 until the B-29's rolled out).
Used in more theatres (until the Lanc was shipped out to North Africa and South East Asia as well).
Was more technologically advanced than the B-17 and the Lanc.
Flew faster.
Not sure where you're getting the 25,000' ceiling from, that's for the early B-24D's the later models had a ceiling of 28,000 plus. But that's a moot point anyway as most RAF operations were below 10,000 so the extra speed over the 17 was of more use.
I'm not sure what you mean by restrictive bomb bays (unless you mean it was two bays instead of the one big one?), don't forget the B-24 bomb bays had shutters that rolled up the side, this was done to reduce the drag effect of opening huge great doors to the 300MpH + winds. Each one of the bomb bays on the B-24 could hold the same ordance as the single bay on a B-17. What often happened was the 2nd Bay was used for extra fuel for the long range attacks out in SEA.
Bomb load of a typical USAAF B-24J was approx 8,800Lbs but I say typical USAAF because again the RAF tended to push the Lib to the limits and beyond. They were also used as a multirole aircraft. SOE, Minelaying, ASR, Tanker, Transport etc etc. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it actually had more roles than either of the 17 or the Lanc.
Oh and the 24 was quite happy dumping 4,000 cookies which were more than enough to blow Jerry's socks off along with his factory roof.
The Lanc is a close second even with my bias.


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 2, 2009)

Well nighttime missions you don't have to worry as much about AA fire than you would daytime. During the nighttime it wouldn't be as accurate as daytime. 

It'd feel a lot safer in a B-17. Armament and Durability. It may not have the biggest bomb load but going on raids with hundreds of planes it doesn't matter as much.


----------



## Glider (Nov 2, 2009)

I admit that I understood that the largest bomb carried by the B17 and B24 was a 2,000lb bomb.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 2, 2009)

Bomb bay load AFAIK
B-17 max 8*1600 pds
B-24 max 8*1600 pds
Lancaster max 14*1000 pds
Halifax max 8*1000 pds (this has also small wing cells for boms)
Pe-8 max 8*500 kg (i'm not sure, maybe that are only 6)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> I would go for the B17 over the Lancaster beause it had much heavier defensive armament and because it was more survivable because of the air cooled versus liquid cooled engines. Lancaster losses in daylight bombing would have been much heavier than the B17s.



The Lancaster would have had more defensive armament if it had been a daylight bomber. You give it the same protection the B-17 had with the P-51D and Lancaster would have done just fine.



B-17engineer said:


> Well nighttime missions you don't have to worry as much about AA fire than you would daytime. During the nighttime it wouldn't be as accurate as daytime.



AA was just as deadly at night as during the day. The night sky over the target was lit up like a Christmas tree.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 2, 2009)

RAF Liberators said:


> The B-24 for obvious reasons, but I could go on.
> Highest US production aircraft of the war (over 18,000)
> Longest range (The RAF held the record in a B-24 until the B-29's rolled out).
> Used in more theatres (until the Lanc was shipped out to North Africa and South East Asia as well).
> Was more technologically advanced than the B-17 and the Lanc.



How was the B24 more advanced than the lanc (apart from the nosewheel of course)



RAF Liberators said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by restrictive bomb bays (unless you mean it was two bays instead of the one big one?), don't forget the B-24 bomb bays had shutters that rolled up the side, this was done to reduce the drag effect of opening huge great doors to the 300MpH + winds. Each one of the bomb bays on the B-24 could hold the same ordance as the single bay on a B-17. What often happened was the 2nd Bay was used for extra fuel for the long range attacks out in SEA.


But the Lanc had a significantly larger bombbay therefore capable of carrying bigger bombs, which were useful for destroying industry, dams, bridges and not-to-forget big bunkers.



RAF Liberators said:


> Bomb load of a typical USAAF B-24J was approx 8,800Lbs but I say typical USAAF because again the RAF tended to push the Lib to the limits and beyond. They were also used as a multirole aircraft. SOE, Minelaying, ASR, Tanker, Transport etc etc. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it actually had more roles than either of the 17 or the Lanc.


 Also more than the Halifax?


RAF Liberators said:


> Oh and the 24 was quite happy dumping 4,000 cookies which were more than enough to blow Jerry's socks off along with his factory roof.


But the cookie was an air-pressure bomb and could not penetrate very well. It was great for areal bombing cities, but not very suitable for destroying bridges, bunkers, heavy machinery. You would be surprised by the amount of damage such a bomb would do on these machines (not as much as you would think). Roofs are usually easily repaired and usually factories were up and running at 100% capacity within a few weeks after a US attack. 

I'm not attacking your opinion, but just showing things are not so obvious as they seem. Maybe a good time to point out some negative points about the B24: It was not as sturdy as either the Lanc or the B17 and according to some reports I've read from pilots it flew like a brick compared to the Lanc. As I said in the other thread, I can find good and bad points for all the famous heavies


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 2, 2009)

I'd rather be in a plane that can take battle damage during day and have good armament. It doesn't matter if your bomb load is more, if you flying in huge formations you'll get a lot done.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 2, 2009)

How did the USAF bomb through cloud cover and smog did they use H2s or beam bombing aids like OBOE and GEE. Whenever I fly over Europe in a passenger plane at approximately 30,000 feet all I ever see is clouds. Surely they didnt wait for a clear high pressure weather system to arrive before setting out. Outside of the summer the bomb aimers couldnt have seen there targets very often.


----------



## seesul (Nov 2, 2009)

Hey Kris or another mod,

could you change my vote please? I was going to vote for a B-17 and my daughter hit some key and voted for Pe-8. It is her opinion but not mine...
Since I´m 34 years older than she my opinion should be accepted

Thx!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 2, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> I'd rather be in a plane that can take battle damage during day and have good armament. It doesn't matter if your bomb load is more, if you flying in huge formations you'll get a lot done.



In war, everyone and everything is expendable. If we took your logic to the extreme, the bombers would be so heavily armoured and protected, they would have a payload of a single small bomb.

The purpose of a bomber is to drop bombs on a target and wipe it out. If you cant carry bombs large enough to do the job, or are inaccurate to the point you need massive formations to do it .... something is wrong.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 2, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> 1. In war, everyone and everything is expendable.
> 
> 2. If we took your logic to the extreme, the bombers would be so heavily armoured and protected, they would have a payload of a single small bomb.
> 
> ...


1. True

2. I don't think that was the direction his logic was going in, it sounded more like a reasoned point

3. Again, true

4. What was the difference in size between a:-

i. B-17
ii. B-24
iii. Lancaster
iv. B-29

formation? An unfortunate truth of WWII bombing accuracy is that it required massive formations with which to do it; massive to stand a statistically greater chance of getting through the flak and fighters and then again to put enough ordnance down on the target area to get the job done; hence the term _carpet bombing. _


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 2, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> In war, everyone and everything is expendable. If we took your logic to the extreme, the bombers would be so heavily armoured and protected, they would have a payload of a single small bomb.
> 
> The purpose of a bomber is to drop bombs on a target and wipe it out. If you cant carry bombs large enough to do the job, or are inaccurate to the point you need massive formations to do it .... something is wrong.





"In war everyone and everything is expendable" What about now? We loose 30 men in a month and it is tragic in Iraq. 

My logic is I'd rather be in the B-17 because IT offered more protection than other bombers. The Lancaster didn't have an underside gunner. The B-24 couldn't take that much battle damage. The B-17 HAD a belly gunner and could take loads of damage. So saying what I said, I am saying I'd rather take a B-17 up rather than a B-24 or Lancaster because it could take battle damage and had good defensive firepower. 

It didn't have as great as a bombload as the others but when flying in at times hundreds of bombers and having good defensive firepower and it being durable I don't mind the 2,000 lbs lesser of a bomb load. I'm not discrediting either bomber. I am saying, the lack of durability and a belly gunner make you more vulnerable.....


----------



## Waynos (Nov 2, 2009)

By that logic I would rather not be in a heavy bomber at all, but in one of a pair of Mosquitoes doing the same mission at over 370mph instead.( FB.VI's if I have a choice) 

Early RAF bombers of WW2, including early Lancasters, did have belly guns but they were deleted as useless. Maybe if the Lanc had been deployed on daylight raids they may have been kept? Either way, I think the relative importance of the belly gun of the B-17 is rather overstated as the attacking fighter still had to approach the bomber, they could not come vertically upwards.

That is to say, in my view, the B-17 defending itself was little different from a Lanc, or B-24 or Halibag, doing the same, it was the P-51 that really made the difference in survivability.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2009)

When comparing the B-17 to the Lancaster it isn't a question of 2,000lb of bombs but of 4,000lbs or more. In some cases you need twice as many B-17s as you do Lancasters to move the same amount of bombs.
Having to use many more bombers for the same tonnage does mean more fuel, more men and so on.

Even haveing to use 50% more bombers may actually mean more planes and crew men lost.

Does anybody have the stastics on losses per tons of bombs dropped vrs losses per 100 or 1000 sorties?

Very early Lancaster had belly turrets (taken out as not needed for night bombing)and at least one or two experimental ones had top and bottom turrets with twin 20mms aimed from the tail station. 

Had the Lancaster been wanted for day bombing there is little doubt it's armament could have been beefed up.


----------



## Waynos (Nov 2, 2009)

I was flicking through Putnams Aircraft of the Second World War earlier today (and one day I'll read it properly!) and I saw a passage that stated that the Lancaster carried double the bomb load of the B-17 and B-24 on raids over Germany. Note, not what it was possible to carry, but what was actually carried. which supports your point shortround6


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 2, 2009)

The B17 was a good durable aircraft of that there is no doubt , but it just didn't 1/3 of the tasks a B24 could. 
18000 B24's were made and 12000 B17's IMO thats says it all . The Lanc was a very fine aircraft but the strategy for them was flawed


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 2, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> When comparing the B-17 to the Lancaster it isn't a question of 2,000lb of bombs but of 4,000lbs or more. In some cases you need twice as many B-17s as you do Lancasters to move the same amount of bombs.
> Having to use many more bombers for the same tonnage does mean more fuel, more men and so on.
> 
> Even haveing to use 50% more bombers may actually mean more planes and crew men lost.
> ...



I was comparing the B-17 to the B-24 first off when talking about there bomb load. 

And the B-17 were used in large numbers so that's a given, fighters were defending there homeland and the B-17's had armament and could take punishment. Crews were also taken down by AA which a bullet cannot stop. And if the Lancaster were used in daylight missions and added armament something would have to go, wouldn't it? (Extra ammo, the turret, gunner etc.) And that's the deal with the B-17 it sacrificed bomb load for armament.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 2, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> 1. In some cases you need twice as many B-17s as you do Lancasters to move the same amount of bombs.
> 
> 2. Having to use many more bombers for the same tonnage does mean more fuel, more men and so on.
> Even having to use 50% more bombers may actually mean more planes and crew men lost.
> ...


1. The price of daylight bombing? B-17 formations had to protect themselves from fighter onslaughts that would have been suicidal at night, easy enough to deride with hindsight but the bombers gunned up heavily in order to defend themselves with the obvious payload penalty. 

The night slaughter was a much more 'ordered' affair by comparison, hence the redundancy of the ventral turret and the Lancaster never carried waist guns anyway.

2. I would say that you have a statistical point but isn't that a bit obvious?

3. Without a doubt at the cost of payload, putting the Lancaster in exactly the same boat as the B-17 and therefore the same dilemma as in your point #1, though it would be a sore test to see if the Lancaster matched the Fortress's durability under the same conditions.


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 2, 2009)

100% agreed!


----------



## parsifal (Nov 2, 2009)

A few observations.

More than half the shoot downs by flak were radar assisted batteries, and the non-radar assisted batteries were heavily supported by searchlights, making flak at night just as deadly as in the day.

What did affect flak effectiveness was crew training and the age of the artillery park. In 1942, the flak arm was largely manned by regulars, with guns that had not exceeded their operating life. The result was that on average it took 4000 shells of HAA to bring down each bomber. By 1944, the regulars had been transferred to frontline units, or killed, and the flak batteries were manned mostly by part time factory workers and the like. Along with the effects of window and other ECM measures, most German flak batteries were reduced to firing in barrage, which on average is about a quarter as effective as targeted fire. Moreover the close teamwork and profiency of the searchlight crews was gone. A smaller, but noteworthy factor affecting accuracy was the aging nature of the gun park. By 1944, most 88s had, on average fired in excess of 50000 rounds per gun, massively exceeding their designed service life. Whereas, the 88 was designed for an effective ceiling of 26000+ feet, by 1944, they were lucky to hit anything above 22000.

The result of all this was that by 1944, it took on average 16000 shells to bring down every target.

By 1944, German flak against US Heavy bomber formations flying above 26000 feet was not effective and this also shows in the statistics. But then, its effectiveness against RAF formation had also dropped, mostly because German radar installation directing the German batteries was being very effectively jammed by the RAF.

I am not saying there werent still losses from flak, but compared to the efforts of 1942, it was inneffective 

The average operating altitude by the RAF BC was 18500 feet, the average operating altitude for the US was about 23000 feet. The differences in operating altitudes was significant, but not decisive.

The british were adept at promoting the fire storm, which if succussfuly generated was far more effective that any amount of high explosive.

Lastly, RAF formations were large (albeit as a stream). In 1943-4, the average size of US Bomber formations was about 350 aircraft, whereas the RAF average formations sizes hovered around the 750 mark. There were many more large scale US raids, however, and later in 1944, the size of US formations crept up


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 2, 2009)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRCgntaDuks_

Would a B-17 or Lancaster have survived that? No its a direct hit to the wing root. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPx9S4prT24_ <- My point.


----------



## RAF Liberators (Nov 2, 2009)

Marcel said:


> How was the B24 more advanced than the lanc (apart from the nosewheel of course)


The Davis wing generated more lift than that of the Lancaster, the avionics were more advanced. The bombay used a shutter system to reduce drag when opening. You have to take in to account the point of inception. Yeah sure by the end of the war the Lancaster was probably more advanced but in 1942/3 it wasn't.



> But the Lanc had a significantly larger bombbay therefore capable of carrying bigger bombs, which were useful for destroying industry, dams, bridges and not-to-forget big bunkers.


The RAF's use of the Liberator was at a much lower level so the ability to hit and destroy bridges and dams etc was well within the ability of the Liberator and it did so on many occasions in both SEA and the MTO.



> Also more than the Halifax?


If the Halifax was so good then why was it replaced in the MTO?



> But the cookie was an air-pressure bomb and could not penetrate very well. It was great for areal bombing cities, but not very suitable for destroying bridges, bunkers, heavy machinery. You would be surprised by the amount of damage such a bomb would do on these machines (not as much as you would think). Roofs are usually easily repaired and usually factories were up and running at 100% capacity within a few weeks after a US attack.



It's all about how you use the tools you are given. The RAF and Commonwealth Squadrons were using the Liberator to do everything that the Lancaster could and more. The RAF used them at way lower altitudes at night (for the most part) to great effectivness.



> I'm not attacking your opinion, but just showing things are not so obvious as they seem. Maybe a good time to point out some negative points about the B24: It was not as sturdy as either the Lanc or the B17 and according to some reports I've read from pilots it flew like a brick compared to the Lanc. As I said in the other thread, I can find good and bad points for all the famous heavies



I know you aren't 
But you have to see it from the other side as well, I have thousands of records that show the effectiveness of the Liberator when used for the right applications. The main downside to the Libs ability to take punishment was the Davis wing and the rear stabilisers, they were designed to within such fine tolerances that any alteration to the shape could have grave consequences. The design was also one of it's major benefits as far as lift and performance were concerned. Having said all that there are a number of pictures of battle damaged Libs around but these tended to be fuselage damage rather than wings.
It had nickname of the flying boxcar because it wasn't as nimble as the Lanc or the B-17 and it was pretty slab sided.
But if it was such a bad design then why was it used in so many applications/roles and theatres than any of the others? 
If the others were so good then why weren't they copied and mass produced under license?

It's all conjecture as there are only a handful of flying examples and all we have to go on are records written by others who may or may not of been bias one way or the other.
Does anyone know the bail out statistics of the Lanc or the Hallibag?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> 1. The price of daylight bombing? B-17 formations had to protect themselves from fighter onslaughts that would have been suicidal at night, easy enough to deride with hindsight but the bombers gunned up heavily in order to defend themselves with the obvious payload penalty.



Yes it is part of the price of daylight bombing. I am not deriding anything, just pointing out that different tactics wound up with different solutions and to criticize a night bomber for not having day bomber guns seems a bit unfair.



Colin1 said:


> 2. I would say that you have a statistical point but isn't that a bit obvious?



One would think it was obvious but shouldn't it be part of which bomber was best?
Which bomber could cause the most damage per bomber? 



Colin1 said:


> 3. Without a doubt at the cost of payload, putting the Lancaster in exactly the same boat as the B-17 and therefore the same dilemma as in your point #1, though it would be a sore test to see if the Lancaster matched the Fortress's durability under the same conditions.



As you say, at cost in payload but since it seems the Lancaster had about 4,000lb to play with (or more?) before it wound up in "exactly the same boat as the B-17" it might actually have an advantage, even if small.

Of course the Lancaster does have an advantge of being a slightly later design (by about 4 years) even if it's Manchester heritage is taken into account.


----------



## carman1877 (Nov 2, 2009)

I think that the lancaster would be the best becuase it has a higher bomb load then every allied bomber except the B-29, which is not in this poll. it had somewhat okay defensive armament but it could have been better, it has a few blind spots. An example is the belly. It was also very versatile, in that it could carry 14,000lbs. of bombs, to torpedos, to bouncing bombs, and even the tallboy "Earthquake Bomb". However over half the number built were lost in combat, which suggest some flaws in its design. It would take 2 B-17s, or B-24s to carry the same bmbload as one lancaster. But then agian the B-24, B-17 had 10 guns or more which protects the plane very good.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 3, 2009)

I can see the qualities of the Lanc as far as payload goes, but in the case of being attacked by a determined enemy, how does it stack up against the B-17's ability to absorbe damage and remain airworthy?

It seems to me that that a huge portion of the quality of a machine is it's ability to bring it's crew back from it's mission. A well trained crew is a valuable asset that cannot be easily replaced...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> It seems to me that that a huge portion of the quality of a machine is it's ability to bring it's crew back from it's mission. A well trained crew is a valuable asset that cannot be easily replaced...



And what is the purpose of a bomber? To drop bombs and destroy the target. If the target is destroyed, then the aircraft has performed its role. If not, then it was a waste of time and material.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 3, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> And what is the purpose of a bomber? To drop bombs and destroy the target. If the target is destroyed, then the aircraft has performed its role. If not, then it was a waste of time and material.


True enough...but there has to be some consideration about durability.

I have to think that at some point, a bomber stops being effective if it becomes a liability more than an asset.


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I can see the qualities of the Lanc as far as payload goes, but in the case of being attacked by a determined enemy, how does it stack up against the B-17's ability to absorbe damage and remain airworthy?
> 
> It seems to me that that a huge portion of the quality of a machine is it's ability to bring it's crew back from it's mission. A well trained crew is a valuable asset that cannot be easily replaced...



I don't know about the B17 but the Lancaster had the same loss ratio as the B24 on similar daylight raids with its markedly smaller defensive guns. Its more than just the guns the tactics differed. The USAAF used to stay in formation and slug it out. RAF heavy bombers on daylight missions flew in similar formations the the aircraft under attack was encouraged to evade within the formation often diving underneath the formation. The idea being to make a more difficult target and bring the fighter into the arc of fire of other bombers.



> But the cookie was an air-pressure bomb and could not penetrate very well. It was great for areal bombing cities, but not very suitable for destroying bridges, bunkers, heavy machinery. You would be surprised by the amount of damage such a bomb would do on these machines (not as much as you would think). Roofs are usually easily repaired and usually factories were up and running at 100% capacity within a few weeks after a US attack.


This is not backed up by experience as outlined in the USAAF Bombing Survey which reviewed the effect of the bombing campaign. Very briefly the larger number of smaller bombs tended to destroy the items that support the manufacturing process but to totally destroy the machinery, against which the bigger boms were more effective. Going from memory, there was an example of an electrical station which had been bombed a number of times by the USAAF and it had been knocked out for short periods as things such as power links, utilities, water supplies had been damaged by the bombing but were fairly easy to repair but the generators and other heavy machinery were untouched as they were in protected buildings. A Halifax raid totally destroyed these key piesces of equipment with their 4,000lb cookies and it was never repaired


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 3, 2009)

The Halifax is my favourite, but I just can't go past the Lancaster. We have debated on here many times the effectiveness of defensive armament at night and I think the Lancaster had enough for its role. It was a superb plane to fly and had an excellent payload and the ability to carry a variety of different ordnance.


----------



## Hop (Nov 3, 2009)

Lancasters in Bomber Command dropped an average of 10,065 lbs of bombs per aircraft that bombed, 9,186 lbs per aircraft despatched.

The heavy bombers of the 8th AF dropped 5,199 lbs of bombs per aircraft that bombed, 4,293 lbs per aircraft despatched.

The price of sacrificing bomb load for protection is that you have to fly twice as many sorties.


----------



## seesul (Nov 3, 2009)

I´ve seen a lots of discussions about the bombers like this and not on this forum only which never got to an end. Why?

From my point of view the most important charactericts of the bomber were:
- payload
- ability to protect itself when attacked (number and the quality of the own guns)
- ability to resist the damage
- flight range

Looking at these aspects no one was the best. Just comparing Lib, Fort or Lanc each of them had its strong and weak sides.

But I just love B-17.


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 3, 2009)

Agreed Seesul, every plane is produced with comprises and the US and UK bombers have different advantages.


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 3, 2009)

Glider said:


> I don't know about the B17 but the Lancaster had the same loss ratio as the B24 on similar daylight raids with its markedly smaller defensive guns. Its more than just the guns the tactics differed. The USAAF used to stay in formation and slug it out. RAF heavy bombers on daylight missions flew in similar formations the the aircraft under attack was encouraged to evade within the formation often diving underneath the formation. The idea being to make a more difficult target and bring the fighter into the arc of fire of other bombers.



So the B-17 was better at flying formation? 

Because surely with a Lancaster with no belly guns or waist guns you'll tell them to dive, alone?


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> So the B-17 was better at flying formation?
> 
> Because surely with a Lancaster with no belly guns or waist guns you'll tell them to dive, alone?



Taking the points one at a time

A) No the B17 was better armed to defend itself and the tactics used by the USAAF were to slug it out. I am sure there was little if anything between them in handling. I don't remember there being any problems on the dam buster raids in bombing at 60 ft almost to the inch, at night, down a valley, with mountain tops the other side. So I am confident that formation flying wouldn't be a problem.

B) In brief Yes I would as the idea was to make the initial shots from the fighter less accurate, and the first shots have always been the most accurate right back to Napoleonic days. 
Plus you didn't comment on the whole posting. The second idea was to lure the fighter into the fire of other bombers by diving, because that gives you the speed and go under the formation, not away from the formation.

Any four engined bomber on its own was in serious trouble.

Interestingly this was also the tactic used by RAF medium bombers in 2 Group. Here the Bostons and B25's were taught to evade and corkscrew if attacked, not stay in formation and fight it out. It should be rembered that the Corkscrew was a standard evasive method for Lancasters as well.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 3, 2009)

No chance for the He 177? Besides the dicey engines, I thought it handled a few duties fairly well.

I'm torn between the -17 and the Lanc. Both excellent machines, performing their duties fantastically but I'm leaning towards the Lanc because I think it had a few more "special" missions which it accomplished than the Fortress. Both are very equal and like Roman says, there really is no end to this discussion!


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 3, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not deriding anything
> 
> just pointing out that different tactics wound up with different solutions and to criticize a night bomber for not having day bomber guns seems a bit unfair


Don't misunderstand my comment
I wasn't suggesting that you personally were being derisory; I was recalling the manner in which some historians regard US daylight bombing doctrine.

That is very true but it works in reverse, criticising a daylight bomber for not carrying a night bomber's payload is equally unfair - they're tooled up for different fights.

The best measure of the Lancaster and Flying Fortress debate would be addressed by the question 'how would each bomber fare at the other bomber's job'?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The best measure of the Lancaster and Flying Fortress would be addressed by the question 'how would each bomber fare at the other bomber's job'?



I think you could modify a Lancaster to be a day bomber easier than you could modify a B-17 to be a night bomber. 

Adding waist guns shouldn't be that big a deal. Changing turrets to mount twin .50 s(or changing TO turrets that mount twin .50s ) shouldn't be that hard either. It was done near the end. putting in a belley turret shouldn't be that hard either. It did have one once althought the H2S radar tended to go where the turret was. Granted you now can't put as many bombs in the bombbay and still get off the ground but here is where the problem comes in.

You can pull some of the guns from a B-17. Say the nose turret. You can pull the waist guns and gunners and the radio operators gun. you could even pull the belly turret and loose 700-800 lbs of ammo to boot.
But you are stuck with a bomb bay that was designed when 750-1000hp engines were considered high power. Without a redesgn of the fuselage/bombbay you just don't have the volume in the fuselage to carry large bombs or large numbers of medium bombs. 
You might be able to redesign the fuel system to carry more fuel for better range though. 

The older B-17 design may not have been as aerodynamically effecient either.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 3, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> The older B-17 design may not have been as aerodynamically efficient either


Some of the pilots of the newer B-17 design balked at the prospect of hauling that motorised chin turret into the plane's drag factor


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

As far as heavy bomber, I went with the Lancaster. Bomb load, altitude and room for electronics IMO put it ahead of the rest of the pack. On the down side, tail wheel configuration, light on defensive armament and although enough couldn't be said about the Merlin that powered most of them, it was an inline carrying an additional liquid (coolant) that could leak and cause eventual engine failure.

The B-24 was the massed produced "pick up truck" that allowed deployment quickly. Its negatives include a weak NLG and questionable internal systems (fuel transfer valves). Early models used Curtiss Electric propellers that could be problematic. With the B-24 being a "pickup truck" it quickly disappeared from the USAAF once the war was over.

B-17 was the sweetheart because of its flying abilities and IMO somewhat over rated when you consider the production and deployment of the B-24, but there is no doubt the B-17 was more "survivable."


----------



## RAF Liberators (Nov 3, 2009)

Curtiss Electric propellers were on on a very limited number of early B-24's
Yes it disapeared fast because other superior equipment like the B-29 was available and not because there was anything particularly wrong with it. The end of WWII spelt the end of the prop powered bombers (for the most part) and the dawn of the jet age.
What do you mean by questionable internal systems (fuel transfer valves)? Do you mean the manual transfer pump or something else?
By the way can someone tell me if the Lancaster have self sealing tanks?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2009)

Due to the nature of "night fighting", the Lancs defensive setup was probably good enough for the circumstances.

If the B24 were converted to night ops, then only six or so .50's would be needed. And thats only because the upper and rear turrets were designed for that size gun.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2009)

RAF Liberators said:


> .....
> Yes it disapeared fast because other superior equipment like the B-29 was available and not because there was anything particularly wrong with it.



The PB4Y and B32 were superior to the B24, let alone the B29.

by 1945, the B24 was a dated design that had strong points and weak points. It was removed from service so quickly because it had run its course in design and there was little that could be done to improve it.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 3, 2009)

Glider said:


> This is not backed up by experience as outlined in the USAAF Bombing Survey which reviewed the effect of the bombing campaign. Very briefly the larger number of smaller bombs tended to destroy the items that support the manufacturing process but to totally destroy the machinery, against which the bigger boms were more effective. Going from memory, there was an example of an electrical station which had been bombed a number of times by the USAAF and it had been knocked out for short periods as things such as power links, utilities, water supplies had been damaged by the bombing but were fairly easy to repair but the generators and other heavy machinery were untouched as they were in protected buildings. A Halifax raid totally destroyed these key piesces of equipment with their 4,000lb cookies and it was never repaired


Ah, thanks Glider (throws book out of the window). But things like the Bieleveld viaduct and U-boat pens is another matter I suppose?


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 3, 2009)

There is still a chance of an attack from underneath any which way you put it.


----------



## RAF Liberators (Nov 3, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The PB4Y and B32 were superior to the B24, let alone the B29.
> 
> by 1945, the B24 was a dated design that had strong points and weak points. It was removed from service so quickly because it had run its course in design and there was little that could be done to improve it.



For once I actually agree with you


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 3, 2009)

I believe with the the exception of the RCAF photo survey Lancs which flew til 64 the B24 remained in service til 61 with trhe Indian Af 2 years more then the B17 target drones. The B24 was also were used in clandestine ops and ECM missions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2009)

seesul said:


> Hey Kris or another mod,
> 
> could you change my vote please? I was going to vote for a B-17 and my daughter hit some key and voted for Pe-8. It is her opinion but not mine...
> Since I´m 34 years older than she my opinion should be accepted
> ...



Done. Sorry it took so long. Somehow I missed your post and request. It is changed now though.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 3, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> There is still a chance of an attack from underneath any which way you put it.



Actually I don't think that all mattered that much. At night, the aircraft from below would hardly be visible. Remember you have (moon) light above you. So I think it was justified to leave away the ball turret in a night bomber like the Lanc or Halifax. The turret would be only dead weight, which was better used to carry bombs. 

BTW does anyone know how effective this massive armament on the B17/B24 really was? As the USAAF bombers had tremendous losses before real escort fighters appeared, I would say it didn't matter that much, maybe only slightly raising the survivability?


----------



## B-17engineer (Nov 3, 2009)

Yes, but I was referring to an earlier post in which Shotround6 said something along the lines of The Lancaster being a daylight bomber it would need the turret, putting it in the same boat as the B-17, lessening bomb load.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> There is still a chance of an attack from underneath any which way you put it.



Tunnel guns would work.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I believe with the the exception of the RCAF photo survey Lancs which flew til 64 the B24 remained in service til 61 with trhe Indian Af 2 years more then the B17 target drones. The B24 was also were used in clandestine ops and ECM missions



Consider the economic realities India was in through the mid 60's.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 3, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Actually I don't think that all mattered that much. At night, the aircraft from below would hardly be visible. Remember you have (moon) light above you. So I think it was justified to leave away the ball turret in a night bomber like the Lanc or Halifax. The turret would be only dead weight, which was better used to carry bombs.
> 
> BTW does anyone know how effective this massive armament on the B17/B24 really was? As the USAAF bombers had tremendous losses before real escort fighters appeared, I would say it didn't matter that much, maybe only slightly raising the survivability?


A ventral turret on a night bomber was all but useless
trying to peer down into the inky blackness below the aircraft would reveal precisely zero until the nightfighter underneath the bomber opened up - which was usually too late. The Luftwaffe took full advantage of this literal blindspot with Schrage Musik.

As a standalone solution it didn't work, the USAAF daylight bombing campaign would have been in deep trouble without fighter escort. It's worth pointing out that towards the end of the war, the RAF were in almost as much trouble as the USAAF due to the advances in AI; Allied nightfighter escorts saved more than a few bombers from destruction. Unescorted carpet bombing courted heavy losses without a fighter escort, it just took a little longer to get really dangerous at night as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

RAF Liberators said:


> Curtiss Electric propellers were on on a very limited number of early B-24's
> Yes it disapeared fast because other superior equipment like the B-29 was available and not because there was anything particularly wrong with it. The end of WWII spelt the end of the prop powered bombers (for the most part) and the dawn of the jet age.


The Curtiss electric propellers disapperared because they also had a habit of "running away" causing the engine to overspeed. Because they were electically driven they had no fixed stop. All pitch changes are done through the electic motor connected to gears.


RAF Liberators said:


> What do you mean by questionable internal systems (fuel transfer valves)? Do you mean the manual transfer pump or something else?


The fuel transfer valves and boost pump were nortoius for leaking on the B-24 and the C-87 and the aircraft commonly were found with leaks in the bomb bay. My uncle was a B-24 FE and later a bombadier and i was told on more than one occasion about the fumes in the cabin and how some aircraft were sometimes flown with the bomb bay doors cracked open. Convair made improvments on the Js and Ms.


----------



## seesul (Nov 3, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Done. Sorry it took so long. Somehow I missed your post and request. It is changed now though.



No prob Kris and thank you!


----------



## seesul (Nov 3, 2009)

In some another thread I´ve posted what Willi Reschke told me on my question about his opinion on B-24´s and B-17´s resistivity. He said:_'B-24 was not a problem but B-17 was a real hard nut'_
And Willi got some 4 engine bombers during his carrier Aces of the Luftwaffe - Willi Reschke


----------



## RAF Liberators (Nov 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Curtiss electric propellers disapperared because they also had a habit of "running away" causing the engine to overspeed. Because they were electically driven they had no fixed stop. All pitch changes are done through the electic motor connected to gears.
> The fuel transfer valves and boost pump were nortoius for leaking on the B-24 and the C-87 and the aircraft commonly were found with leaks in the bomb bay. My uncle was a B-24 FE and later a bombadier and i was told on more than one occasion about the fumes in the cabin and how some aircraft were sometimes flown with the bomb bay doors cracked open. Convair made improvments on the Js and Ms.



Ooooh my Grandfather was also a FE on Libs, I imagine that he was USAAF?
Yeah I heard about the doors being cracked open but was told it was due to the heat (it got hot out in SEA and MTO).
Hey here's an anecdote for you. The 15th AF out in MTO got fresh ice cream made and delivered to them, the RAF came up with a way of making their own. It involved taking the mix up to high altitude in the bomb bay, letting it freeze and then getting back down to Terra Firma double quick time before it melted


----------



## Njaco (Nov 3, 2009)

Great story RAF Lib!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

RAF Liberators said:


> Ooooh my Grandfather was also a FE on Libs, I imagine that he was USAAF?



Yes - He was training to become a bombadair until he was involved in a plane crash.

My wife's grandfather also flew B-24s


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Ah, thanks Glider (throws book out of the window). But things like the Bieleveld viaduct and U-boat pens is another matter I suppose?



And thats when you need the Lancaster with its 12,000lb and 22,000lb bombs.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Ah, thanks Glider (throws book out of the window). But things like the Bieleveld viaduct and U-boat pens is another matter I suppose?



And certain ships like the Tirpitz.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 4, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> And certain ships like the Tirpitz.


and the V3 site


----------



## davparlr (Nov 5, 2009)

I don’t think there is a lot to differentiate between these three bombers. If we look at the raw data, it is apparent that they are very similar and that the mix of crew, defensive armament, and mission being the variable.

Empty weight (lbs)
B-17 36,135
B-24 36,500
Lanc 36,828

Normalizing empty weight based on Lanc configuration of 7 crew (one pilot) compared to 10 crew for B-17/24 and two pilots, 8x.303 Browning MGs vs. 10x.50cal Browning MGs, and three turrets vs. four.

MGs 422 lbs
Ammo (two additional guns) 330 lbs *
Crew (three with added support facilities) 700 lbs
Ball Turret 500 lbs (?)
Additional crew station 200lbs (?) 
Total delta weight 2151 lbs.

*Assuming .30 and .50 cal ammo weighs the same-a faulty assumption.
(?) indicates WAG

Corrected empty weight (lbs)
B-17 33984
B-24 34349

Max weight (lbs)
B-17 65,500
B-24 65,000
Lanc 68,000

Max load carrying capacity (lbs)
B-17 31516 
B-24 30651 
Lanc 31172 

Max load carrying capacity is awash

Max A/S (mph)
B-17 287 
B-24 290
Lanc 280
Max A/S is awash

Ceiling (ft)
B-17 35k
B-24 28k
Lanc 24k

Significant survivability edge for the B-17, but lower target strike accuracy

Cruise Speed (mph)
B-17 182
B-24 215
Lanc 200

Cruise speed adds to survivability by reducing ingress and egress exposure to threat. B-17 is at a disadvantage here.

The B-17 has a reputation of being a strong and survivable airframe.

Total Power (Hp)
B-17 4800
B-24 4800
Lanc 5120

Horsepower favors the Lanc but does not seem to translate to superior performance.

Range is difficult since, for bombers, it is a trade-off between load and fuel. Range is a combination of aerodynamic efficiency and engine efficiency. The B-17 looks more an airplane than the other two that look more like a freight train. However, the B-24 has a more advanced wing. The liquid cooled engines of the Lanc probably reduce frontal area but none of these aircraft can be called clean. Also, I suspect the Merlins are more efficient than the radials.

Due to the liquid cooled engines, maintenance was probably higher on the Lanc.

Other factors include physical bomb carrying adaptability. The Lanc seems to have an advantage here, followed by the B-24.

All in all, as I have said, there is not a lot of difference here. Any of the three aircraft, configured correctly, could perform the other aircraft’s tasks with negligible effectivity change, except for a few discrete missions, where the Lanc has an edge.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2009)

Nice write up.

The Lancs bomb bay is many times more advantageous than the B17/B24's design. Carrying out sized bombs was the Lancs claim to fame, and in the end, it made the Lanc more efficient. I would also like to say that the AAF recognized early on on this design concept as the B29 was designed to use the same concept.

The cruise speeds of the three types is a bit misleading due to the difference in day and night tactics. The B17 and B24 flew at a slower pace so as to maintain formation integrity. The Lanc was alone in the night, so it could travel relatively faster.

There is also an issue on the avionics. The Lanc flew with a complete setup. The B24 used for night missions would need to get a similar setup, which would offset weight savings by getting rid of unneeded defensive MG's.


----------



## RAF Liberators (Nov 5, 2009)

The RAF and Commonwealth operated just short of 3,000 Liberators of which a high percentage were used in the night bombing role. It was common for them to operate with only 7-8 crew. Most of the B-24 Pilot's I've interviewed over the years that went on to fly Lancasters in 1945 have said the Liberator generally performed better overall (they also said it was like flying in an armchair by comparrisson  ).
You can read stats all day and look at percentages until your eyes bleed but you can't beat it when you hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.
No need to flame me either as I'm just relaying what I've been told by the crews.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2009)

RAF Liberators said:


> The RAF and Commonwealth operated just short of 3,000 Liberators of which a high percentage were used in the night bombing role. It was common for them to operate with only 7-8 crew. Most of the B-24 Pilot's I've interviewed over the years that went on to fly Lancasters in 1945 have said the Liberator generally performed better overall (they also said it was like flying in an armchair by comparrisson  ).
> You can read stats all day and look at percentages until your eyes bleed but you can't beat it when you hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.
> No need to flame me either as I'm just relaying what I've been told by the crews.



The B24 was the better of the three for operations (day/night) in the Pacific. Not having industrial targets to hit meant it was used in more of a role of "long range heavy tactical bomber". In that case, the 1000 and 500 pound bombs were more than adequate.

But even if the B24 had been used in an extensive night role in Europe, there was still that pesky question on the small size of its bomb bay.

As for flying charachteristics between the Lanc and B24? Ask your RAF pilots which plane was easier to fly with one engine out.

As for stats? The USSBS went out to find out what worked and what didnt. There were no lies involved, just the brutal truth about what happened when a bomb hit a target and how much damage was created.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 5, 2009)

flying the B24 with one engine out would according to accounts be harder but the load would be split with the extra pilot , everyone mentions the lack of electronics on the 24 , wasn't it a mainstay of 100 group, also serious avionics would be req'd for the ASW work, not to mention the use of guided bombs to destroy some bridges in Burma


----------



## Glider (Nov 5, 2009)

RAF Liberators said:


> The RAF and Commonwealth operated just short of 3,000 Liberators of which a high percentage were used in the night bombing role. It was common for them to operate with only 7-8 crew. Most of the B-24 Pilot's I've interviewed over the years that went on to fly Lancasters in 1945 have said the Liberator generally performed better overall (they also said it was like flying in an armchair by comparrisson  ).
> You can read stats all day and look at percentages until your eyes bleed but you can't beat it when you hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.
> No need to flame me either as I'm just relaying what I've been told by the crews.



I admit that I thought that most of the B24 bombers used by the RAF and Commonwealth were used as day bombers. In the UK 100 Group had about 20 each of B17 and B24 bombers which operated at night.

I have not had the chance to talk to experienced pilots but have a description of the flying characteristics of the B24 as written by a pilot going through the RAF conversion course who was an experienced test pilot themself. The B24 was considered to be a bit of a problem landing at night and in bad weather due to the length of the final approach and compared to Wellingtons and Sterlings you couldn't as freely put it into a tight turn to keep the field in sight. The controls are described as being heavy and it was hard to fly accurately in rough air.
Its probably down to what they were used to flying the Sterling for all its faults could probably turn faster than any other four engined bomber and the Wellington was a lot lighter than the B24. I just thought this would be of interest.

As an aside I read a book once about the experiences of a Wellington Pilots time operating in Burma. They converted to the Liberator and they flew them with a crew of six, but he never said what positions they filled. If anyone has any information I would appreciate it as I have often wondered about this.


----------



## fly boy (Nov 5, 2009)

Okay, just to be sure you mean bombers in operation by 1944?


----------



## RAF Liberators (Nov 5, 2009)

I think some of you guys need to know that 205 Group operated hundreds of B-24 as night bombers in Europe. in 1944.
The small bomb bay wasn't an issue, 205 Group were more than able to take out strategic targets like rail links, marshalling yards, ship yards etc etc
I don't see why you are making such a fuss about being able to use the big bombs, it's all about using the right tools for the job. Maybe the targets of 205 Group and SEAC didn't require the use of UBER bombs that you seem so desperate to go on about.
If you want to know about the operations of 205 Group or SEAC can I sugest you visit my site. Maybe you'll get a better idea of what we used the B-24 for


----------



## parsifal (Nov 5, 2009)

I think the heavier bombs were needed to take out hardened or tough targets as an example, the only bombs capable of taking out U-Boat pens were the 22000 grand Slam bombs, and even then it was a "sometimes" thing to achieve. 

If the targets are unprotected, then a lot of little bombs are actually better than a single big bomb. If the target is a hardened one, then a heavier bomb is necessary to achieve destruction


----------



## RAF Liberators (Nov 5, 2009)

Not sure what was used for hardened targets in MTO or SEAC there must of been a need for hardened defences just not sure how they were dealt with. I'm pretty sure I've got ops records from U-Boat pens being targeted by B-24 Squadrons of 205 Group but maybe they weren't as hardered as the ones in the Western European theatres.


----------



## Juha (Nov 6, 2009)

In fact against industrial targets or cities big blast bombs were much more effective than medium size medium capacity bombs. british learned that during 40-41 Blitz, that was why they developed cookies (4000, 8000 and 12000lb blast bombs), against industrial targets they not only destroyed the buildings but also machinery, which was much more difficult to replace, against cities they blasted away roof tiles, windows and doors and so made the incendiaries much more effective. Tallboys and Grand Slam deep penetrating bombs were special weapons and effective as such but much less used than the cookies, which were part of the standard load of the BC standard bombers

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 18, 2009)

After long analisys i choice the Lancaster, best load, good range

saw the Lancaster came bombing to march '42 we need add some other more old bomber for a full reply to thread

afaik pre Lancaster we have
B-17 until E (this is only a couple of month early of Lancaster)
Liberator I II (same of above for this)
Halifax I
Stirling I
Pe 8
the oldest TB-3 and Farman 222223
many twin engined


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 18, 2009)

I think that I'd go something like this....

1. Avro Lancaster 
2. Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
3. Consolidated B-24 Liberator
4. Handley Page Halifax
5. Short Stirling
6. Petlyakov Pe-8


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 18, 2009)

Why so low the Pe-8?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 18, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Actually I don't think that all mattered that much. At night, the aircraft from below would hardly be visible. Remember you have (moon) light above you. So I think it was justified to leave away the ball turret in a night bomber like the Lanc or Halifax. The turret would be only dead weight, which was better used to carry bombs.
> 
> BTW does anyone know how effective this massive armament on the B17/B24 really was? As the USAAF bombers had tremendous losses before real escort fighters appeared, I would say it didn't matter that much, maybe only slightly raising the survivability?



Marcel - I suspect the prime benefit was simply deterrance - the incredible firepower available intimidated a percent of LW pilots from consistently closing to close range where their cannon would have been even more devastating.

I have never heard or read an account from any LW fighter pilot that didn't say 'closing on a formation of B-17s wasn't easy - it put the fear of god in me'..

The great ones swallowed their fear and closed and shot them down.. the others hung back and lobbed fire into a formation with little results.


----------



## beaupower32 (Nov 19, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I have never heard or read an account from any LW fighter pilot that didn't say 'closing on a formation of B-17s wasn't easy - it put the fear of god in me'..



I have also heard them say its attacking a B-17 is like making love to a porcupine on fire. It wouldnt be fun no matter how you look at it.

My vote was for the B-17. Although it didnt have the bomb load of either the Lancaster or B-24, I think it was the more durable of them all. Great defensive fire power, and good range. I will put the lancaster in a close second place, as its bomb load was unmatched by anything else.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2009)

beaupower32 said:


> I have also heard them say its attacking a B-17 is like making love to a porcupine on fire. It wouldnt be fun no matter how you look at it.
> 
> My vote was for the B-17. Although it didnt have the bomb load of either the Lancaster or B-24, I think it was the more durable of them all. Great defensive fire power, and good range. I will put the lancaster in a close second place, as its bomb load was unmatched by anything else.



Isnt the purpose of a bomber is to carry lots of bombs and destroy its target? Putting defensive firepower and durability above that is a bit illogical.


----------



## seesul (Nov 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Isnt the purpose of a bomber is to carry lots of bombs and destroy its target? Putting defensive firepower and durability above that is a bit illogical.



sure...but before the bomb run the bomber has to reach the target...don´t take the bomb load into the consideration only...in such a view you could put wings and 4 Pratts on Kenworth and you would have the best bomber?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2009)

seesul said:


> sure...but before the bomb run the bomber has to reach the target...don´t take the bomb load into the consideration only...in such a view you could put wings and 4 Pratts on Kenworth and you would have the best bomber?



No, youre making a poor analogy.

The LW proved they could shoot down any unescorted B17, B24 and Lanc. So what if the B17 was the tougher of three? Its the payload and type of bombs you can carry is whats important.

After mid 1944 when the allies could flood the sky's with escort fighters did the durability of the three bombers become irrelevant.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> No, youre making a poor analogy.
> 
> The LW proved they could shoot down any unescorted B17, B24 and Lanc. So what if the B17 was the tougher of three? Its the payload and type of bombs you can carry is whats important.
> 
> After mid 1944 when the allies could flood the sky's with escort fighters did the durability of the three bombers become irrelevant.


So if I've got you straight

before mid-1944 the durability of the three bombers was irrelevant

after mid-1944 the durability of the three bombers was irrelevant

What's _your_ analogy?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> So if I've got you straight
> 
> before mid-1944 the durability of the three bombers was irrelevant
> 
> ...




Yes. Speaking strictly for the B17 and B24:

Before fighter escort was aavailable, the B17 kept the losses from going from severe to catastrophic.

After escorts were available, it didnt matter that the B17 was the tougher of the two. What now was important was payload and types of bombs. Which one was the better dumptruck. And not to mention the LW had the types of cannon needed to take down a B24 and B17 on an equal basis.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 19, 2009)

Morale may have been a bit higher in the B-17 units because of the higher durability. 
It probably didn't make much difference to the planners.

You have to fly how many more missions with the B-17s to get the same amount of bombs on target?
So the B-17, while withstanding more damage, gets shot at more often per ton of bombs dropped.


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 19, 2009)

Presence of escorts in other words is more of a factor than durability of the bomber. Ironically, BC....having long realized this before the USAAF conceeded the point, embodied this truth by utilizing the cover of darkness. However by latewar, darkness became increasingly ineffective as a cover, resulting in BC's losses to spike while the 8th's went down.


----------

