# Best Bomber of ww2



## germanace (Nov 24, 2004)

What is the best bomber of ww2

Ivote for the b-17


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

1) Boeing B-29 Superfortress
2) Avro 683 Lancaster (No.1 at night and in Europe)
3) Handley Page Halifax 
4) Boeing B-24 Liberator
5) Boeing B-17 Flying fortress

please note the B-24 and halifax are so close they can be interchanged...........

please don't say the B-17 was the best, as the site's biggest bomber fan it's a topic i fell very strongly about, because apart from it's armour and armorment and ceiling it sucked.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

1. B-29 
2. B-17
3. Lancaster
4. B-24
5. P.108


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 24, 2004)

I hate to say this - but the question is so subjective. The best bomber - in what role? For which characteristics? Like all equipment, there are flaws and strengths. 

Really, it can be put down to this. If its known about, it was a pretty good aircraft, as anything that was U/S has faded into deserved obscurity.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 24, 2004)

I would say the Lancaster because it could carry one hell of a load, but just 2 B-29's ended the war so I'll have to go with that 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## germanace (Nov 24, 2004)

whats wrong with the b-17


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 24, 2004)

Nothing, the B-17 was just as good as all the other's, but it was the 29 which finished the war.

Hot Space


----------



## rebel8303 (Nov 24, 2004)

I think that US had really good bombers
B-29 and B-17 where the best
I also like Ju-88 although it is inferior


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 25, 2004)

My favorite is:







Douglas A-26b Invader - 3 seat attack bomber
*Powerplant:* Two 2,000 hp (1491-kW) Pratt Whitney R-2800-79 Double Wasp radial piston engines
*Maximum Speed:* 355 mph (600 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4750m)
*Climb (Initial):* 2,000 (610) ft /min
*Service Ceiling:* 21,100 ft (6736m)
*Range:* 1,400 miles (2253 km) with max bomb load
*Weights -* Empty: 22,370 lb (10145 kg), Max Overload: 38,500lb (17460 kg)
*Dimensions- *Span: 70 ft (21.34m), Length: 51 ft 3 in (15.62m), Height: 18 ft 3 in (5.56m), Wing Area: 540 sq ft (50.17m2)
*Armament: *Up to *22* x 0.5-in (12.7mm) machine guns
*Bomb Load:* 4,000lb (1818 kg) and up to 8 x 5" HVAR's.

It had two remote turrets and the same computing gunsight system as used on the B-29. And, after dropping its payload, it was almost as manuverable as a fighter! About 700 or so made it into WWII, mostly operated out of Italy. Versions of this plane remained in US combat duty until 1969 and some are still used to fight fires.


=S=

Lunatic


----------



## germanace (Nov 25, 2004)

I know the b-29 ended the war but the b-17 was there early in the war
without it the b-29 might not have been


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

Well the B-17 was the Work-Horse of the 8th AF, so it should be up there as well 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

RG, I prefer the A-20 to the A-26, but both were good 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

I prefer a Ham Sandwich with a tiny little bit of Pickle myself  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Pickle?


----------



## Andrew (Nov 25, 2004)

Whats wrong with


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Yeah...Spam-up!


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

Yep, I'll have Spam Pickle instead 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> RG, I prefer the A-20 to the A-26, but both were good 8)



Why would you prefer the A-20 to the A-26? The A-26 is the next generation A-20. Kinda like prefering the Wildcat to the Hellcat.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Just personal preference 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2004)

> B-29 and B-17 where the best



i agree with the B-29 part but the B-24 was better than the B-17 an is always forgotten.........

i'm still interested in hearing peoples arguments for the B-17...............


----------



## Capt. Scott Tailwheel (Nov 26, 2004)

My vote is for the Douglas A-26 Invader which had the performance of a fighter and could actually outrun a P-51 It survived WW II to serve in Korea and Veitnam and if you count it... Central America with certain Govt. (Never happened or existed) agencies.

The Invader is an awsome aircraft and contiunes to serve in the capacity of Air Attack Tanker, although sadly they're now being slowly phased out due to aging and parts shortages. (sigh)


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > B-29 and B-17 where the best
> 
> 
> 
> ...



B-24 carried a little bigger payload a little further a little faster. But the B-17 was much more resiliant and able to survive much more damage, and had a little better gun arraingement.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 26, 2004)

I say the He-111 H6 , its quite fast for a bomber and can carry 2 SC2000's , plus i love the plane as well


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Ive noticed a theme with your choices


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeomanz said:


> I say the He-111 H6 , its quite fast for a bomber and can carry 2 SC2000's , plus i love the plane as well



But the B-29 was quite a bit faster and could carry up to 10 2000 lbs bombs. Kinda looks more like a giant He111 than B-17 too don't ya think?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

The He-111 was IMO the best looking bomber of the war 8) The B-29 was very nice too though


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 26, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The He-111 was IMO the best looking bomber of the war 8) The B-29 was very nice too though



Yep , I just live the way it looks 8) , 

Lunatic , I see your point , but H6 was made earlier than the 29 , 2 SC2000 is bout 4000bl's , and the b-29 has 4 engines , and the He111 is pretty


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 26, 2004)

I was pretty once, but I'll won't go there for the moment  

Hot Space


----------



## Capt. Scott Tailwheel (Nov 26, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

> B-24 carried a little bigger payload a little further a little faster. But the B-17 was much more resiliant and able to survive much more damage, and had a little better gun arraingement.



the B-24 could take just as much damage as the B-17 and the gun arangement meant very little as even the up to 13MGs of the B-17 still offered little protection from fighters, the B-24 was the better bomber............


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > B-24 carried a little bigger payload a little further a little faster. But the B-17 was much more resiliant and able to survive much more damage, and had a little better gun arraingement.
> 
> 
> 
> the B-24 could take just as much damage as the B-17 and the gun arangement meant very little as even the up to 13MGs of the B-17 still offered little protection from fighters, the B-24 was the better bomber............



I disagree, the B-17 was known to be much more durable. The wing of the B-24 was particularly subject to folding up when taking hits at the root. It was also less fire-resistant. B-17's had better gun arcs, espeically beneath. The fixed ball turret was faster than the retractable ball, and many (maybe most) B-24's had no ball turret at all.

Good defensive armament was not particularly effective at killing enemy fighters, but it did make them change their attacks and thus make them less effective at killing the bombers.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

they still had a damn good chance of gettin a bomber though..............


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 27, 2004)

The B-24 had it's Fuel Tanks above the Main Spar. Once, it was dead, m8  

Hot Space


----------



## R Pope (Nov 27, 2004)

All great planes, but the Lanc has to be #1, then B-17, Halifax, and B-24 tie for #2. B-29 was another generation, but rushing production caused too many problems.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

i see what you mean with the lanc but i still don't see why everyone rates the B-17 so highly, it was nothing special as a bomber, it's only good points were it's damage tollerance and maybe ceiling (i've left out defensive armourment and but a maybe on the ceiling because neither made it safe from attack).............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

It made it saf_er_. It was accurate too.

I fail to see how the Lancaster rates above the B-29, it was all the good points of the Lancaster with none of the bad points. Although it wasnt as successful this was only because it came late. If the 2 planes had seen the same amount of service you'd be telling a different story.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 6, 2004)

the b-17 is way more safer than the b-24 because the b-17 can somehow bring its crew back to england even if deep inside germany and missing a major component like if it losses 2 engines, losses half a wing, tail section COMPLETE blown off, etc, and i think that the b-29 IS the best bomber in the war, it's even safer that the b-17s and it can carry about more than twice the b-24 can carry(the b-24 is considered to be a heavy-bomber)

and about the he-111 does looks good, but its so sad compare to the US heavy bombers, lets put it this way:
# of 20MM shells to down one(normally)
He-111 5-10
B-24 20-30
B-17 35-45
B-29 50-65 (kinda chazy)


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 6, 2004)

and i agreed w/ cheddar cheese


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 6, 2004)

I was reading the memoirs of a B-24 pilot and he said that once you lost an engine in a B-24, everyone had better get their bail-out kit in gear because if you lost another one you were going down. 

Not so with a '17.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 6, 2004)

I read an account of a B24 campaign which also suggested that the Liberator was vulnerable to enemy fire, especially around the wing roots. Many pics you see of B24s going down show one or both wings folding too.

And Galland, Im sorry mate, but no aircraft could survive the kind of damage you're talking about. Half a wing or a whole tail gone? Its aerodynamically impossible for that a/c to keep flying. Even Boeing cant mess with the laws of physics! 

Regarding the bomb-loads of the heavies, remember that the stats you see in many books are maximums, they had to be reduced to get the best balance between payload and range. And weight in absolute terms is not necessarily a measure of combat effective ness. A Lanc carrying a few 500lb GPs and a bunch of incediary SBCs (or a single 4000lb Cookie, for that matter) is carrying less weight than a Fort with 12 500lbers, but who's to say which does the more damage? That depends on the nature of the target, the skill of the bombardier and the reliability of the fuses, amongst other things.


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess this is the best way of putting this:

Lancaster - Best Pay Load.

B24 - Best Range.

B-29 - Best Speed and Armament.

B-17 - The Stongest of all, by far.

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Actually the 177 had the best range  However the plane was pants


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 7, 2004)

wel myou could argue that messerschmitt long range atomic "amerique" bomber had the longest range..............


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2004)

The Amerika bomber never became operational though. So you cant really count it as the longest-ranged bombe of WW2.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

> "amerique"



What possessed you to type it like that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 8, 2004)

because i didn't know how it was spelt..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

Well the Me-264 isnt french... 

You should have typed America, or Amerika, then I wouldnt be mullering you...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 8, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> I guess this is the best way of putting this:
> 
> Lancaster - Best Pay Load.
> 
> ...



The last bombing mission of WWII from Guam to the for side of Japan on the night of 13/14 August 1945 the B-29's were reported to have carried 16,000lb bomb loads 5,800 miles (round trip) that is an incredible load/range combo that nothing else could touch in WWII.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

Bloody Hell...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2004)

I found out recently (a documentary no less) that the B-29 was a 3 billion dollar program that exceeded the Manhatten project tn both scale and scope.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 9, 2004)

Why? I mean, it was surely advanced for it's day but it was a fairly conventional design, wasn't it?


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Why? I mean, it was surely advanced for it's day but it was a fairly conventional design, wasn't it?



Actuly the B-29 was a great leap. In one jump it raised the average payload from around 5,000lbs (the Lanc had an extream payload for early-mid WWII designs) to 20,000, increased range with that payload by 2x to 5,000mi, increasedaltitude to over 30,000ft, airspeed bu 100mi, added pressurisation for crew support and added remote fire control to better control the weponry. Some of these were firsts for Any production plane!

It was so advanced that Stalin made reverse engineering the B-29 a national priority for two years after 3 were interned in 1945.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 9, 2004)

Ah yes, the Russian clone! The Tu-4, I believe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

I think we're all forgetting the most majestic of bombers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

that's a still taken from a video clip showing russain paratroopers, they had to climb out onto the wing holding onto a rope, then just let go, i think it was because it was too dangerous to just jump out the door


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

I dont think the TB-3 had doors


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

1) how did they get in?
2) how did they get out?
3) how is it the paratroopers are coming out of a door?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

The TB-3 is an open topped plane. My guess is theyre actually on the wing


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 12, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The TB-3 is an open topped plane. My guess is theyre actually on the wing



In thr picture I saw had a large group clustered (frozen?) on the wing. I don't know if there were any inside or not.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 13, 2004)

B-29 would ultimately carry a weight (up to 2 Grand Slams) or greater power (Fat Man, Little Boy) than the Lancaster. By war and away the B-29 was the best bomber.

It's technological jumps also included the very complex remote sighting system and pressurization. In terms of performance or technology, nothing else from the war could touch it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

Agreed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The TB-3 is an open topped plane. My guess is theyre actually on the wing



they are on the wing, that's what i'm trying to say!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

But they aint come from a door, I reckon they simply climbed out on to it.


----------



## remoraptor (Dec 14, 2004)

For me I'd rate these bombers in three categories:
Best Heavy Bomber - B-29 Superfortress 
Best Light/Med Bomber - Mosquito, B-25 Mitchell 
Best Ground Attack - Il-2 Shturmovik, B-25 Mitchell 

The Arado jet bomber and A-26 Invader were probably the best in their class but they came a little late in the war.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 14, 2004)

For a medium bomber the B-26 trumps the B-25. The B-25 was excellent at low-level missions, especially in the Pacific, but that's attack aviation, not medium bombing. The B-26 had the lowest loss rate of any American bomber. And it flew true medium bombing missions (medium altitude, level attacks.)


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

I agree.. While I like the B-25 more, The B-26 was better at....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

i think the mossie falls into the "fast bomber" catagory, if that exists.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

If it did, the Mossie would be in 1st place....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

damn right, there isn't really any pther catagory it fits into...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 15, 2004)

I think he was making the point that nothing else is in its class, making it the winner by default...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

i don't think he was.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

I wasnt..


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 15, 2004)

My mistake...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 15, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> For a medium bomber the B-26 trumps the B-25. The B-25 was excellent at low-level missions, especially in the Pacific, but that's attack aviation, not medium bombing. The B-26 had the lowest loss rate of any American bomber. And it flew true medium bombing missions (medium altitude, level attacks.)



The B-25 flew in many rolls it also flew throughout the war It also flew many bombing missions in all theaters including Russian and Burmese. One of the reasons the B-26 had such a low loss rate were a. the allies har more air superiority and b. the heavy bombers made great diversions when the B-26s were flying over their main thearer the ETO.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 15, 2004)

Seems Remoraptor is onto it...'' The DH Mosquito, the Wooden Wonder''... No one can ever question the fact that the Mosquito was one of the few really GREAT war-winning aircraft, or that the story of it's conception, design and procurement was one the most remarkable of the Era...and that it's speed, manoevrabilty and bomb capacity nullified the efforts of many other bombers. I also feel that the Mossie worked hand-in-glove with that other GREAT bomber, the Lancaster, to contribute greatly to Germany's demise...
As for US Bombers, the B-25 Mitchell made [I feel], a huge contribution in the main theatres during the War, notably it's attack on Japan under Doolittle, a great morale-booster at great cost....
The B-24 did sterling service where it was most needed in the Atlantic, and the B-29, for all it's teething-troubles, ended-up being the 'Big Daddy' of them all....
However, I totally dispute the B-26 Marauder warranting any real acolades, they were slaughtered early-on in Europe, and really needed escorts....

SO, naturally, my main vote is the Mosquito, particuarly because of it's multi-role versatility, and the rest as outlined.....[did I hear a big groan out there???...]


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 16, 2004)

What wasn't slaughtered early on in Europe? Unescorted daylight raids were a mess. The B-17s and B-24s were slaughtered, and they certainly deserved all the praise they received. The B-26 was loved by its crews and offered considerably better performance than the B-25. The B-25 was certainly more versatile but most of its missions were ATTACK missions. The B-26 was the premier medium bomber of WWII.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 16, 2004)

Well, personally, I feel the Wellington deserves that honour...they made 47,409 sorties in Bomber Command, including 6,000 odd by OTU's, and dropped nearly 42,000 tons of bombs. In all, the Command lost 1,332 on Ops plus a further 337 in accidents. On Ops from the UK, they flew 63,976 sorties, totalling 346,440 hrs of flying. In the MTO and Far East, flying hours totalled 524,769, and they dropped nearly 100,000 tons of bombs. After the War, they continued to fly as trainers for 350,000 odd hrs...They built a total of about 11,500 of them, first designed in 1936, blooded in combat 4th Sept. 1939, the 2nd day of the War and was still in production on VE Day...It was designed by Barnes Wallis, famous for it's remarkably durable geodetic construction, took a 4,000 lb 'cookie' and was pleasant to fly, altho' slow at 180- 250 mph odd, but with 2,500 miles range and was loved by it's crews...

Apart from that , RAF 75[NZ] Sqn. was the first to have them, and a chap called F/S J.A. Ward from my l'il old hometown won the Victoria Cross after climbing-out on a wing and putting a fire out, in July 1941, heading back from a raid on Munster...I went to the same college, and they had his medal there....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

I agree with Gemhorse here actually, I think the "Wimpy" was the best medium bomber.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 16, 2004)

Personally, I think the Ju-88 deserves some credit. How many bombers medium bombers do you know operated in just about every role imaginable for aircraft?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

Good Point.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 16, 2004)

The JU-88 deserves to be in there too.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 16, 2004)

Maybe the Ju-88 should receive honorable mention, but it clearly was not the best bomber of the war.


----------



## NightHawk (Dec 17, 2004)

The B-17 flying fortress gets my vote, with the fire power thet thing could carry. and the beating those plans could take...........
b-17 gets my vote.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Persolly I like the He-111. It had a large payload for a twin engined plane and was fairly fast. The maximum ceiling was its only real problem.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 17, 2004)

yes it will wanto bet? b-17's MAJOR parts blown away and still flys back 2 base, itz not just possible, it HAD BEEN done many times be4(esitimated about 500 B-17s)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

What you on about? The B-17 was as tough as old boots...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

> The B-17 flying fortress gets my vote, with the fire power thet thing could carry



but that still didn't protect it from fighters..................

and if you think the lanc wouldn't be able to make it back on one engine, you'd be wrong


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

The Lanc was every bit the flying freight train! Good pic, btw.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

> The Lanc was every bit the flying freight train!



how dare you, freight trains are big fat and ugly brutes, the lancaster was a true lady..............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Okay then, _she_ was a flying freight train.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

no she wasn't she was no glamour queen i'll admit, but she was every bit the grand dame............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

That hauled a shit load of freight, in bombs.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Oh, and she was tough too! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

> That hauled a s**t load of freight, in bombs.



yes but she made it look easy, she did it without breaking a sweat, making her even more the lady............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Bloody ugly lady then, I think im more attracted to Martyn... 

That picture up there doesnt look real either, the ground doesnt have any texture and it appears as though the plane has ben superimposed onto a background.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 17, 2004)

I would rate them this way:

Heavy Bomber - B-29
Best Medium Bomber - B-17
Best night bomber - Lancaster
Best light bomber - Eto Mossie
Best light bomber PTO B-25

When the B-29 entered service it redefined 'heavy bomber' so thats my take on it. The B-25 was designed to early for the 2,000 hp engines think what it could have done with another 500hp or better.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 17, 2004)

Awesome pic Lanc !...I've seen another shot of one on one engine at a post-war airshow. They were definately capable of returning damaged on one engine in a slow descent....

As far as the B-26 went, General Ira Eaker was disappointed to receive them instead of B-17's B-24's, which he needed for his Strategic Plan. However, flying at medium heights [12,000 ft max.]- and with a Spitfire escort, they sustained very few losses after their disastrous introduction. As in N.Africa, they decided B-26's were too large and not fast enough for low-level attacks, where surprise was crucial to minimise losses. In the following months, they were transferred to the 9th AF and produced some of the more accurate bombing results in the ETO....

For my money, the B-25 was the consumate US Medium bomber, and it was a shame they didn't give them more powerful engines...They made a huge contribution overall to the War effort, in all their theatres of operations and proved very adaptable and popular...that's probably why they are still quite plentiful in Warbird Aviation today.....

Also, wmaxt, the Mosquito carried 4,000 lbs of bombs, the same as a B-17, which makes it abit more than a 'Light-bomber'....

And LG, you're a scamp with this 'B-29 with two tallboys' thing....As already debated, that happened after the War, and a Lancaster could've also carried a 10,000 lb A-bomb if required...B-29's suffered losses from Jap flak, fighters and airborne phospherous bombs...not to mention all their 'teething-troubles....- I applaud your patriotic fervour, but although the biggest bomber of the War, biggest doesn't necessarily mean best.....In later years, the A-4 Skyhawk proved this and it was also capable of nuclear delivery......


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 17, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > The B-17 flying fortress gets my vote, with the fire power thet thing could carry
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually, that's kinda in favor of the Fortress, since that version had more powerful radials, as did the B-17...


*EDIT* What I'm saying is, the radial engined B-17 could do something most regular (Merlin) Lancs couldn't!


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 17, 2004)

The other pic I've seen that I was referring to, was of a Merlin-engined Lancaster....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 17, 2004)

Hmmm, proven wrong then...

Oh well "It's GREAT TO LEARN - _BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!_"


Man, I love Family Guy!


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 17, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> Awesome pic Lanc !...I've seen another shot of one on one engine at a post-war airshow. They were definately capable of returning damaged on one engine in a slow descent....
> 
> As far as the B-26 went, General Ira Eaker was disappointed to receive them instead of B-17's B-24's, which he needed for his Strategic Plan. However, flying at medium heights [12,000 ft max.]- and with a Spitfire escort, they sustained very few losses after their disastrous introduction. As in N.Africa, they decided B-26's were too large and not fast enough for low-level attacks, where surprise was crucial to minimise losses. In the following months, they were transferred to the 9th AF and produced some of the more accurate bombing results in the ETO....
> 
> ...



So could the B-25 though it normaly carried 3, the P-38L was rated at 4,000 and could and did carry more on occasion. Carring 4,000 doesn't make it a heavy bomber overall capability in the long range bombing arena does so does the 4 engine layout. The B-17 could carry up tp 17,500 if ammo/fuel was not criticle so I think my mix stands ok.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 18, 2004)

The B-29 didn't carry the bombs post war. The whole point of the tests was to see if it could be used to cut bridges and rail complexes in Japan. But the when is irrelevant. The point is, the B-29 could carry loads no other WWII bomber could dream of carrying.

As far as development troubles, the Lancaster had its far share. The Manchester was a horribly unreliable aircraft. And if you want to point out that was an engine problem, fine. Most of the B-29's problems were directly related to the R-3350s.

I believe the absolute max for the B-17 was 17,600lbs (9 x 1,600lbs internally and 2 x 4,000lbs externally).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

but at quite a struggle, at a guess i'd say it'd have to carry no armour, no guns (which obviously means no ammo) and it'd have very little range.............



> The point is, the B-29 could carry loads no other WWII bomber could dream of carrying.



yes it could, fact of the matter is that the lancaster was the only aircraft to use the grand slam opperationally, something which you can't deny...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

> but at quite a struggle, at a guess i'd say it'd have to carry no armour, no guns (which obviously means no ammo) and it'd have very little range.............



Ummmm, I dont think so...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

for a B-17 to carry it's maximum payload?? for the lanc to carry the grand slam it had to get rid of two gun turrets, 3 crew members and loose 8,800 rounds out the rear turret (the only turret left), you're willing to mock my guess, i'm interested to hear your guess at how you'd have to change the B-17 to carry it's max...........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

> I believe the absolute max for the B-17 was 17,600lbs (9 x 1,600lbs internally and 2 x 4,000lbs externally



Those figures add up to 22,600lbs


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 19, 2004)

I hit the wrong button. The max was made up of 6 x 1,600.

And Lanc, the B-17 didn't have to be modified. It's range was severly limited and it would carry the overloads of ammo used on long range missions, but it wasn't modified.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

By severly limited are we talking a couple of hundred miles or what?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

are you sure it didn't have to modified?? not even making the bomb bay bigger or adding external hardpoints for the external bombs??


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 19, 2004)

I guess the extra fuel needed to fly at the higher altitudes does play a part in the B-17 range...

Back to the B-25, B-26 Mossie n' P-38, they were essentially twin-engined 'Medium-bombers'.....Four-engined was termed 'Heavy-bombers'. Others like twin-engined Whitleys, Blenheims, Boston/Havocs etc. were more 'Light-bombers'....I guess really, P-38's, Mosquitos, gunship B-25's and Beaufighters fit into the 'Heavy Fighter-Bomber' Class.......

B-29's were THE 'Heavy-Bomber' of the War, I cannot deny that.... 
- I'll have to let Lanc sort-out the finer points on the 'Tallboy issue', I do concur though, that operationally, they were the Lancaster's baby, to devastating effect.......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

> B-29's were THE 'Heavy-Bomber' of the War, I cannot deny that....



not in europe............


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 19, 2004)

P.S. - Love that particular shot in your new siggy, Lanc......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

me two, here's the pic i cut it from.................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 19, 2004)

Nice pic, lanc!  I like the sig too!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

> P-38's, Mosquitos, gunship B-25's and Beaufighters fit into the 'Heavy Fighter-Bomber' Class.......



The P-38 was a fighter, first and foremost. It just happened to have the capability to be good as a bomber.

Yes the lancs siggy is good because you cant see the Lancasters horrid front end...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

it doesn't have a horrid front end.........

and the beaufighter was a strike fighter.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

/torpedo bomber


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

/maritime strike


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

/night fighter


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

ohh that's a good one

/escort fighter


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

/plane

...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 19, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> I guess the extra fuel needed to fly at the higher altitudes does play a part in the B-17 range...
> 
> Back to the B-25, B-26 Mossie n' P-38, they were essentially twin-engined 'Medium-bombers'.....Four-engined was termed 'Heavy-bombers'. Others like twin-engined Whitleys, Blenheims, Boston/Havocs etc. were more 'Light-bombers'....I guess really, P-38's, Mosquitos, gunship B-25's and Beaufighters fit into the 'Heavy Fighter-Bomber' Class.......
> 
> ...



If my nomenclature is disagreeable use "Very Heavy" for the B-29 and move the rest up one catagory making the B-25 and Mossie back into medium bombers.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 19, 2004)

Lanc, no modification was needed to the bomb bay of the B-17, 6 x 1,600lbs were the designed maximum load. As for the external hardpoints, those were a standard feature for the F and G models.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2004)

and it could still carry all guns and ammo??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

Yeah he said that on the last page...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 20, 2004)

Like I said, it would still carry ammo. It wouldn't be possible to "triple-up" on the ammo loads as was common on some of the long-range, unescorted missions. The mere "standard" levels of ammo, however, wouldn't be that serious of a limitation since the targets would (of necessity) be close and escort was quite possible.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 20, 2004)

I recall reading somewhere that the ''Gunship B-17's'' were too slow with all that extra hardware...

I feel the B-24 was a good bomber, also really came into it's own as in Anti-sub/Convoy work, due to it's long range.....All aircraft in this line of work seemed to be hopelessly out-gunned though, against the U-boats.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 20, 2004)

The gunships were too slow because they dramatically outweighted the rest of the B-17s in a formation. If every bomber is carrying an oversized load there is no speed difference.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 21, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The gunships were too slow because they dramatically outweighted the rest of the B-17s in a formation. If every bomber is carrying an oversized load there is no speed difference.



True, the problem with the gunships was that after the other bombers dropped their load the gunships couldn't keep up - they still most of their load!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 21, 2004)

And even if they fired off all of the extra ammo they were still hindered by the weight/drag of extra guns, turrets, and armor.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 22, 2004)

As for the Lancaster, although the two prototypes, [which first flew 9th Jan. 1941], made use of Manchester airframe components, mainly the very large bomb-bay, they were not actually Manchester conversions [as often recorded], but were ADDITIONAL to the Manchester contracts....The first production Lancaster I, followed the last Manchester off the Avro assembly line in time to make it's first flight on 31 Oct. 1941, less than two years from the inception of the design, the decision to phase in it's production made on 15 Nov. 1940...and a dozen more had been completed and flown before the end of 1941....
- It's operational debut was 2 months later on 3rd Mar.'42, it's max. speed of 270 [email protected] 19,000ft; range of 2,450 mls with 5,500 lbs bombs and 1,020 mls with 14,000 lbs......
- With better engines in later models, it's pretty amazing that they ended-up carrying and dropping Grand Slams of 22,000 lbs by March '45, with precision accuracy....

But they did a helluva lot of work from March '42 through to War's end and beyond...... 

And in comparison, the B-29 which first got the prototype go-ahead on 6th Sept. 1940, and started off the production lines in Sept.'43, [through until Oct.'45], it finally started it's bombing campaign on Japan in June '44, and after Le May took over in late Aug.'44, they started to get some success from about October....after he started using 'RAF Pathfinder techniques', but by December the loss rate was reaching prohibitively high levels, averaging 4-5 aircraft per trip....
From Nov.'44, ten+ missions to Musashi, near Tokyo, 10% of the damage caused was within the 130 acres of plant area and only 2% of bomb tonnage dropped actually hit buildings...the Jap workforce suffered only 220 casualties, for 40 B-29's lost, 440 aircrew over a total of 11 raids...In one raid in early Feb.'45 by Admiral Mitscher's Task Force 58, of Naval fighters bombers, far more damage was done to Musashi than all the B-29 strikes put together.... At this time the abort rate by B-29's was 23% per mission, so they stripped 6000 lb of weight off each aircraft, and taking 'RAF Bomber Tactics' again, started incendiary raids on cities, the factories being too hard to hit, and after losses to Japanese flak fighters, went over to 'RAF-styled night-attacks', which started to make inroads... - It wasn't until late May '45 that they could go daylight without heavy losses, because by then they had P-51 escorts from Iwo Jimi to assist...By June, using B-29B's, they could haul 18,000 lb of ordnance, and they had the new 'Eagle' radar sets, and could go from 'bludgeoning' to more accurate and selective bombing.........

From August '45, the rest was history, but when you 'crow' about the 'B-29 is Best', it's really a case of reading ALL the historical facts.....The Lancaster didn't have any real teething-troubles, the Manchester did with the Vulture engines, a 'bolt-two-V-12's-to-one-crankcase' notion, that I may add Allison tried with it's 2000 hp X-3420 in the late 1930's....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

Many nations tried to fit two engines to one crankshaft and it practically never worked. The He-177 is a good example.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

question, when did the B-29 withdraw from service??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

If you had read Gemhorse's post you would have found out...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

We all know the B-29 was the best. And the B-17 Gunships were YB-40s. And the MiG-15s made B-29s obselete, but that's Korea...no place for it here.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

> If you had read Gemhorse's post you would have found out...



well guess what, i didn't...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Yeah I kinda guessed that...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

very good CC..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

DO I get a gold star?


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 22, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> question, when did the B-29 withdraw from service??



Actualy the B-29s were given uprated engines and some other mods, to become the B-50. Some of these were converted to tankers and retired in the late 50/early 60s. The Super Guppies an outsized cargo plane based on the B-29 is still in limited use today.


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 22, 2004)

Another disconcerting fact about the B-29 was on July 29th 1944, one of these aircraft was hit by Jap flak attacking Anshan, Manchuria, which started a chain of events that ultimately lead to the 'cocky stance' of Russia with the start of the Cold War, and cost to the N.American taxpayers of billions of dollars....

This aircraft, followed by two others at later dates, were to be forced-down on entering Soviet Airspace, and became destined to provide Russia with ALL that fantastic, sophisticated technology that embodied the B-29, to be copied into the Tupelov Tu-4, followed by the Tu-20, which was the only Soviet bomber capable of performing strikes across the Polar regions....

This sole factor was to cost Billion$ in creating immense chains of radar installations and interceptor bases, intended to shield the North American continent from potential manned air attack......it afforded the Soviet Union a major economic victory - a few hundred aircraft demanding a totally disproportionate counter-effort, on the part of the USA and Canada.....

We all love America, but sometimes it just can't seem to 'see the wood from the trees....'
From before the start of WWII, Russia being run by a meglamanic dictator, not unlike Hitler [but unfortunately worse], had an ambivelant attitude to Hitler's expansionist program in Europe, and the Allies [proper] should've realised when Russia and Germany made their non-aggression pact, that Russia wasn't chummy with the Allies....When Hitler reneged and attacked Russia, why oh why did we all rush in to help ?? - Anyone with a focus on history could see Hitler opening another front, like Napoleon, and without our help, Russia should've been left to lie in the bed they'd made with Germany.....All the Allied [proper] lives lost trying to supply Russia were wasted, we should have left them to their Isolationist attitude to duke it out with Germany, it would have saved millions of Allied lives....

The B-29 wasn't to blame as such, nor the unfortunately misplaced trust of their crews in an alleged Ally, but all the crews that perished getting this aircraft successfully operational paid with their blood, and although it finished-off Japan, there can't be any other aircraft that can be this controversial in what it took and what it gave......


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Do you write articles for magazines or something? That writing is brilliant.

And, yes the Bull. Complete copy of the B-29 but with 23mm cannons instead of .50cals. It was the later Soviet bombers like the Tu-95 that were testing British airspace everyday!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

Interesting that the Soviets never invested billions in espionage and engineering to produce a carbon copy of a Lancaster . . .


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Dig at Lanc there...and it wouldn't have been THAT much to copy the B-29 seeing as they had a nice collection in Russia.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 23, 2004)

It still required a fair amount of work to reverse engineer the design. But the point remains valid that the B-29 was the only bomber of WWII that was able to function in the postwar world.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Well, there's no denying that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Knowing the lanc he'll say otherwise


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Then we can all gather today and give him a hefty back hand.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Nah I gots the feeling he'd enjoy having that done to him


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

I see... ...we'll avoid that then...and eeewww.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

lol, it's ironic then that the lanc remained in service with the RAF till 1964...................


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Then the Lincoln was based on it, then the Shackleton was based on that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

but the lancaster stil remeined in service 'til 1964, serving just as long as the lincoln..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 24, 2004)

But not as a bomber. As has been noted, tanker and transport derivatives of the B-29 served even longer . . .


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2004)

but the lancaser lived in spirit in the shackleton, which served longer than the B-29, and you can't say the B-29 lived on in the B-36 and B-52............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 24, 2004)

I was referring to the B-29 living on in the B-50 as well as the direct tanker and cargo developments.


----------



## R Pope (Dec 24, 2004)

The Russians didn't have the metalurgical savvy to duplicate the B-29 and maintain its structural strength so the Bull was somewhat of a Dog. The engines particularly were troublesome, even more so than the originals. The first Russian copy had American engines, "borrowed" from one of the interned aircraft, "Ramp Tramp" I think. Later on, the Russkies put turboprops on the AWACS version. Now there's a sight!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 25, 2004)

but the B-50 isn't a true B-29, the lancs serving in '64 were proper lancs..................


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 25, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but the B-50 isn't a true B-29, the lancs serving in '64 were proper lancs..................



The B-50 is almost 90% B-29 with up rated engines, gun controls and avionics, it also has a bigger fin/rudder. The difference in designation was for getting funding from Congress for the aircraft.

K-97 has an upper deck that expands cargo space and the Guppie/super guppies havs a radicaly expanded upper fuselage for outsized cargo (like rockets) and are still flying today.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 25, 2004)

The last actual serving B-29 was retired in 1960 whereas the last B-50's were retired in 1967. But as others have said the B-29 lives on in the form of the Guppy as well as the Tu-95 Bear! Its an almost direct descendant of the B-29 as Tupolev used a lot of the design features from the Tu-4 in making the Bear. The cockpit layout is very similar and Ive read that even the fuselage diameter is the same!

Either way though I will say that the Best Bomber of WWII was definatley the B-29!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

How can you honestly say that the Tu-95, a turbo-prop 1960s Soviet bomber, descended from the B-29. Just because the Soviets copied the B-29 and made the Tu-4 Bull, it doesn't resemble the B-29 in ANYWAY! It's like saying the B-52 is a descendent of the Handley Page bombers of World War 1, after all they're both heavy bombers....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 25, 2004)

Ya know, they're actually Turbo_shafts_...


What's a turboshaft, you ask?


Basically, it's a jet engine that has a turbine at the end, behind the air compressor baldes; the hot air from the jet turns the turbine, which in turn turns a shaft connected to a propellor... (In the Bear's case, a pair of contra-rotating props for each engine)



Random fact: each Nk-12 Turboshaft on Tu-95s, Tu-114s, Tu-126s, and An-22s is rated at *FIFTEEN THOUSAND HORSE POWER!!!*


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 25, 2004)

Well.... I gave the reasons. First off the Bear first flew in 1952, not in the 60's. The cockpit layout is very similar, with throttles on the left hand of the pilot and on the right hand of the copilot with a center aisle stand between them. The fuselages are the same diameter and if you can find a picture of the glass nosed bomber version, take a look at the greenhouse design and compare it to the B-29. You would be crazy to think that the Bear did not take many design features from the Tu-4. The Soviets would be crazy themselves not to develop and utilize certain design features present in the Tu-4. The Soviets didn't call the interned B-29's a gift from God for nothing! I have also read statements from Tupolev engineers that they used design features from the Tu-4. In fact Tu-95 design began shortly after full Tu-4 production began.

Sure you can compare a HP O400 to a B-52 and say theyre both heavy bombers and you can say the B-29 and the Bear are heavy bombers. But you can not deny that the Bear is similar to the B-29/Tu-4. 

Answer this, do you think the Bear would have the design that it does (or even existed!) had the three B-29's not landed in the USSR??


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

First of all, the Bear is still considered a 60s bomber because that's when it started probing British airspace. The RR Nene engine was designed in 1941, I hear no one ever calling it a 1940s Jet engine...

Second of all, the Bear looks NOTHING like a B-29. The control situation and same diameter is not a reason to call it a descendant...but then, let's just say all heavy bombers derived from the bombers before them. 







B-29...







Tu-95..

I see your point if I hadn't been told any different I'd mix these two up...  

They probably would have achieved something a long those lines. Seeing as the B-29 gave them no knowledge on TURBO-SHAFT (Thank you, GrG and no, I didn't ask  ) or swept-back wings...


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 25, 2004)

Fine, whatever and go drink some beer. Who cares if its considered a 60's bomber because thats when it "probed" British airspace. Should I call the He111 a 40's bomber because it didnt "probe" British airspace until the BoB? ... and I suppose a B-17 should be considered a 40's bomber because it didn't "probe" German airspace until the early 40's. Nice rule, I'll have to remember the great "probe" rule!

Your decended from your grandmother and I hope to goodness you dont look exactly like her... although you do have some traits or genes.

My point is that the Soviet engineers said they used design features from the Tu-4 to develop the Tu-95. Whatever the heck that means to you, fine. You can go argue with them, after all they were the guys who said they used the Tu-4 to develop the Tu-95. I was just repeating what they said... you know... because I figure they might have some insight on the subject. Next time I need to know something about an aircraft, or anything, I'm coming to you. Forget the SOB that designed the thing, I'm coming to you!


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 25, 2004)

Sorry to seem harsh with that last post. Please accept my apologies!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

A little problem with the probing of British airspace comment there. You do know that's what it was called, right? And that's what the RAF Fighter squadrons had to scramble to get up to everyday in the 60s and 70s, either a Bear or Bison...

And the He-111 was in use before the BoB in the Spanish Civil War. More people than not call the plane its decade from its first active service decade, you wouldn't call the F-22 a '90s fighter even though it first flew in the 90s. Something a lot more simple for anyone to grasp on that idea is the EE Lightning, designed in 1947 finally in operational service in 1960. '40s Fighter or '60s fighter? 

I never said that the Tu-95 didn't use design features from the Tu-4. If you want to use them as a reason to call it a descendant, then fine. The F-117 originally used A-10 under-carriage, is it a descendant of the A-10? 

And finally, I've been drinking beer all day. If you want me to carry on then I can't let you down. 8) 

No need to apologise, we ALL get frustrated at times...and I don't know, I might share some visible characteristics with my grandmother...or maybe not...


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 25, 2004)

Yeah I know its called probing. I was just poking some fun at the word probe. The He-111 is another one of my favorite aircraft and was the first thing that popped into my mind that served before the BoB.

Y'all English are pretty cool. They'res a place in Virginia a couple hours drive away from here that still has a lot of English influence in their culture. They speak with a completly different accent than most Americans, I've always heard it was called Cockney and it was explained that the area after being settled didn't get much influence from the rest of the world. The area was fairly isolated but thats changing and dont hear the accent as much as you used to.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

I'd poke fun at the word probe too...I was just hoping you weren't thinking like me...  

Oh...GOD...you have cockneys there too....I feel for you.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2004)

wow american cockneys................


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 28, 2004)

The whole story of this debacle of captured B-29's to Tupelov's, which I may add just didn't cost the US Canada, but also kept the UK busy, was found in 1971 July, August, September October issues of Air Enthusiast, and although alot of hard-earned US technology went 'East', at the end of the Day, the US still holds the cards, from B-52 to Stealth's, although those new Sukhoi's could be a worry......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2004)

to be honest the USSR's in such a mess i don't think they'd be able to support a large scale war...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

Well its a big country, it'd take a while to wipe em all out...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2004)

not with america's nuclear arsenal, but russia also has enough military power to wipe out america so it's a bit pointless................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

Not really, then we can invade America and enjoy their cheap petrol prices...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2004)

if the chineese didn't get there first...............


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 28, 2004)

One nice thing about the breakup of the USSR is that a large number of their nukes are being dismanteled. The company I worked for has been doing this for 6 or 7 years. Not enough but a start!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 28, 2004)

I take it none of you heard the news recently? Putin announced that Russia is building Nuclear Weapons 3 times the power of anything built before, with a 6 ton Nuclear Warhead. That's big, very-very big. I have no idea what they equals to in TNT terms. 

Also, the Russian government is resorting to Soviet style rule again. They have 'legally' re-made oil companies of Russia state controlled, once again.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 28, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Not really, then we can invade America and enjoy their cheap petrol prices...



Umm, I think you Brits tried that before...  

They are cheaper than yours, but they have climber dramatically, especially here in California where it is considerably higher than the national average.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

Cheaper, your fuel prices are nowhere near as high as ours. Ours are 70% tax, if I remember correctly. Since when did we try and invade America? Except in 1812, when America tried to take Canada and we kicked them out - while fighting Napoleon in Europe - and then trotted all the way down to New Orleans.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Also in 1776. My family line is full of guerillas that made a hobby out of "chasing Tories". But it's nice to know that our countries have evolved, so to speak. 

70% tax?!?!?! Good God man! So if you had less taxes, your fuel prices would probably be similar to ours.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

Or even less than yours. We get our oil cheaper than America. I think when US was at $50 a barrel - Britain was at $46.

In 1776 we didn't invade, there was no invasion at all. We just got kicked out of somewhere we went in the 1600s...that's mean...


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

No invasion per se, but there were alot of troops already here. Although I do find it interesting to note that the "shot heard round the world" in history books has changed a bit. I was always taught that it was the British who fired the first shot. I collect antique books and one of the old book I have, from the 1800s said that it was never clear who fired the first shot and it was highly likely that one of the guns of the irregulars accidently discharged, which set off the chain reaction.

It's good that the Brits and the Americans get along well today, otherwise I would be in terrible shape. I have English, Scottish and Irish ancestry, sprinkled with some Dutch, Swiss and Cherokee. So I would be at war with myself as a yank!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

To solve all the old international problems, we could just have stood you there to beat yourself up.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Too funny!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 29, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

evangilder said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Not really, then we can invade America and enjoy their cheap petrol prices...
> ...



I heard somewhere it costs you the same for a gallon as it does us for a lire  Thats just not fair.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

I think that's about right. But where do those tax dollars go?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 29, 2004)

Well now that's the big mystery, isn't it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Looks like a case for Inspector Clouseau, in the next Pink Panther film


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2004)

you see this doesn't happen when you use red diesil.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

No, but you do get nicked if youre caught and you have to drive a diesel, which isnt good.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2004)

Tax dollars? What tax dollars? That would be confusing if they taxed us in dollars...

And our tax is going to the nice Iraqis, of course.


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 30, 2004)

He-111 H6 , it could carry 4000kg of bombs and looks nice too


----------



## evangilder (Dec 30, 2004)

Whoops, good point, tax _funds_ is what I should have said.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 30, 2004)

Yeomanz said:


> He-111 H6 , it could carry 4000kg of bombs and looks nice too



You crazy?!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 30, 2004)

It may not have been anything like the best, but it did look _sorta_ cool. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 30, 2004)

It looked very cool i think 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2004)

yeah she was good looking................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 30, 2004)

No way should any version of the He-111 be considered in this conversation.

And don't forget that tax pounds that go towards socialized health care.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2004)

No, that's what National Insurance goes towards - LG. See, we pay National Insurance on our income. That's why people who don't work are dirty scabs because those who do work pay for their health care. So, again, the Fuel tax funds goes to those nice Iraqis...


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> No way should any version of the He-111 be considered in this conversation.
> 
> And don't forget that tax pounds that go towards socialized health care.



oh i'm terably sorry sir , when you think about it , a b-17G could only carry about 8000 Kg's , it had for engines and was made later in the war , so ,their


----------



## evangilder (Dec 31, 2004)

Umm, the first flight of the He-111 was in February of 1935, the B-17 (Boeing model 299) first flew on July 28, 1935. They are almost identical in age. The He-111 is a medium bomber, the B-17 a heavy. 8,000 kg is a pretty big payload for that timeframe. The bombload on the 111 was about 2,000 kg and the bomb-bay configuration was such that the biggest bomb that could be put in there was 250kg in a tail down position! (Vertical bomb racks).


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

Yes but im sure the H-6 carried 2 SC2000 , which is about 4000kg , i was just saying that a 1941 B-17 probably the D , could,t/didn't carry 4000kg's


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

and it wasn't uncommon for B-17s to fly to berlin with a 2,000kg payload...........


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 31, 2004)

later versions yes of course ........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2005)

sory, meant to say 2,000lbs, rediculously little...............


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 1, 2005)

so you were agreeing with me then ...right ?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2005)

Partly a question of weight to range. The longer to go, more fuel, hence more weight for fuel, less for bombs. A 1941 B-17 had not even seen combat yet to be able to be really battle tested. B-17's didn't even get to England until the Summer of 1942. The standard bombload on a B-17D was 4,800 lbs (Typical). While the H6 version of the He-111 could carry a couple of torpedoes and quite a bit of weight, the range with that much range would be significantly reduced.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 1, 2005)

The He-111 couldn't even begin to compare with the B-17 in any sort of payload/range competition. Nor could it match the B-17 in altitude or bombing accuracy. And let's not even get started in defensive capabilities.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 1, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> sory, meant to say 2,000lbs, rediculously little...............



Sorry it was 4,000lbs min for the long range missions, still not much for a heavy bomber with 10 men but that was the way of it.


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 1, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The He-111 couldn't even begin to compare with the B-17 in any sort of payload/range competition. Nor could it match the B-17 in altitude or bombing accuracy. And let's not even get started in defensive capabilities.



sure the b-17 was definately a fortress , but sticking 12 gunners in a plane doesnt make it untouchable (i know the B-17 didnt have twelve gunners btw )


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 1, 2005)

but even if it had no gunner at all its at least 3 times harder 2 shoot down then a he111 w/ gunner


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 1, 2005)

Maybe the He-111 should get a little prize for being in active service for so long, the Ju-88 for being the best all-rounder of the Luftwaffe bombers, but all this was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes really, in that he obstructed their aircraft industry so much, they never really finalised and produced a seriously heavy-bomber, and they did have a coupla doozies in the pipeline too......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 1, 2005)

The He-111 did serve for a very long time and that is to be commended, but then, what else did the Luftwaffe really have?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2005)

An elastic band and a pencil. By 1943 the Germans didn't really have much use for a heavy bomber though, except maybe to bomb Russia.


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Maybe the He-111 should get a little prize for being in active service for so long, the Ju-88 for being the best all-rounder of the Luftwaffe bombers, but all this was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes really, in that he obstructed their aircraft industry so much, they never really finalised and produced a seriously heavy-bomber, and they did have a coupla doozies in the pipeline too......



He-177 was a poor excuse for a H' Bomber , 
a 4 engined He-111 with a bigger fuselage might have been good for a H' Bomber , but the He-111 Z wasnt a good idea in my oppion , i'd be shocked if a fighter missed one of them it was that wide


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

the Z wasn't intended for use as a bomber, just a glider tug for the 321............


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

, you learn something new every day .


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

well that's as far as i know anyway............


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

but german could have used a 4 engine heavy bomber , rather than bombarding britain will Do's


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

yes but at the time of the BoB 4 engined heavys weren't that common...........


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

well they should have started to build one then , or stivk two 110's together with Sc1000 on both fusalage's and two on the wings


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

at the time the He-111 was designed they only envisiged a small scale war with neighbouring countries, so a big bomber wasn't nessisary, they thought their thoery was proved right during the spainish civil war but we proved them wrong over britian.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

The He-111 wasn't bad for the BoB. It could have used more defensive firepower (preferably something in a powered turret). Its real flaw was its inability to hit strategic targets in Russia or in the West once Germany started losing its French bases.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 3, 2005)

Watching the History Channel It was noted that the B-17s dropped one-third (1/3) of the bomb tonnage dropped on the ETOin WWII.  

Kinda puts it back in contention!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

I saw that program and it drove me nuts. Granted the B-17 was a terrific aircraft but nothing at all was said about the B-24 or the Lanc and their combination to the CBO. Also, the P-51 was, once again, portrayed as the savior of daylight bombing without so much as lip service being paid to the contributions of the P-38.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

Its similar with programs on the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire gets all the glamour but the Hurricane only gets mentioned as "the RAF's other main fighter". ITs annoying.


----------



## Udet (Jan 3, 2005)

Another very difficult thread going on here.

Again, we found ourselves before an issue we can give as many approaches as individuals are around here.

I think it was here where I read someone saying the German doctrine of putting the entire bomber crew virtually in the nose section of the bombers to boost morale (Ju88 and Do17 during the Battle of Britain) was a silly thing to do, for the crew could get wiped out on one single pass of the British interceptors.

I do think that is misleading. The guns of the RAF interceptors during the Batlle of Britain were even ligther than those the German bombers had for defensive action: .303 cal vs. 7.92 mm.

I have been told the Battle of Britain has got its tales as well. The RAF fighters could hardly blow the German bombers out of the sky with their very light guns, and records of heavily damaged He111´s, Ju88´s and Do17´s making it back to base in France are plentiful.

Many of the German bombers lost over England were more in the so heavily damaged situation they simply had to try a force landing, and not necessarily plummeted down in flames. I have seen dozens of photos of German bombers lost over England, and in fact, the vast majority of such pics show the German pilot force landed its damaged bomber, the propellers twisted backwards during the landing.

Furthermore, the Ju88 and the Do17, once their bombloads had been delivered were fast and very manouverable. Surely not faster than the Hurricane and the Spifire, but never as dramaticly slow as B-17 or a B-24 facing a Bf109 or a Fw190; speed is not everything though.

There are records of British pilots who got nastily surprised by the ability of the Ju88 and the Do17 to evade them.

So, as an individual crewman of a bomber (personal interest) I´d rather be on a German Ju88 or Do17 during the Battle of Britain and not in the massive clumsy heavy four engined B-17 or B-24 from 1943 and on facing the cannon armed Bf109s and Fw190s and the 88 Flak batteries. My chances of survival are higher on a Ju88 or Do17 than in a USAAF heavy.

It is clear to me that even by having such a massive size and defensive armament (i.e. B17 and B24), therefore implying a bigger effort in bringing them down, the German fighter pilots were far better at bomber destruction duties than the RAF boys were. The Germans carried a far superior bomber destroyer capability than that displayed by the British pilots over England in 1940.

For tactical purposes surely the heavy bombers win for they have a far bigger bombload and are able to bring more destruction. Still, the accuracy of the heavies of the 8th and 15th Air Forces left a lot to be desired.

So someone said putting the whole crew in the nose section to boost morale is a silly thing. The USA doctrine of putting 10 men all along that large tube packed with defensive guns enters the domain of amusement. Each bomber brought down means a lot of people lost. Lose only ten bombers, a small number of aircraft if you will, and it shall mean 100 men did not return; not precisely a morale boosting element for those crews returning from mission and finding 100 beds will be empty for the night.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

All very good points, well said. I dont necassarily agree with your choice of bomber to be on but I can see where you're coming from.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

I can see the arguments but the aircraft you mentioned lacked the payload, range, and defensive ability to be successful as strategic bombers. As such they fall behind the Allied heavies.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeomanz said:


> well they should have started to build one then , or stivk two 110's together with Sc1000 on both fusalage's and two on the wings




I know it's a joke, but the wing would be too long, there wouldn't be enough structural integrity to support the two fuselages, though a joining of the tails might help, but I think it would warp and wobble in the wind...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

To the RAF boys in 1940 bringing down a bomber was anyway possible, if it had to ditch you've still stopped it bombing. This doesn't make the bomber any better though. 

Also, .303 cal/7.62mm isn't much weaker than 7.92mm. And 8*7.62mm put in the right place, can still do some damage. All the Spitfires needed in 1940 was the e-wing, then we'd see those German bombers blowing to pieces.


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 4, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Yeomanz said:
> 
> 
> > well they should have started to build one then , or stivk two 110's together with Sc1000 on both fusalage's and two on the wings
> ...



and if it got into the air the wings would probably fall off


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Do people think that German Mediums (He111, Do 17 etc..) were better than the British Mediums (Whitley, Wellington etc...)


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

I've never thought about it, I think the Wellington was one the best early war Medium bombers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Thats what I always thought, but the late He-111's were pretty good too.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

The Wellington could carry more, I think.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Nope!  4,500lbs for the Wellington as opposed to nearly 8,400lbs for the He-111 8) However the Wellingtons range was better, at 1,470 miles rather than just under 1,000 miles for the He-111 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

I haven't seen any numbers on this but I believe the Wellington had a better range/payload capability than the He-111. Also, I like the fact that the Wellington had powered gun turrets. Those were a major advantage over the hand-held guns on the 111.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 4, 2005)

the wellington was comfortably the best early war bomber, far superior to anything else then in service...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

The B-17 was in service. Do you think the Wellington was superior to the B-17?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 4, 2005)

after reading an account of it's service with RAF 90sqn, yes


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

Did the B-17 do anything in Europe in 1939-1940?


----------



## Udet (Jan 4, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I can see the arguments but the aircraft you mentioned lacked the payload, range, and defensive ability to be successful as strategic bombers. As such they fall behind the Allied heavies.



Hello Lightining Guy!

You are correct and such comment can be deducted from the ideas I posted. However, do not forget the Luftwaffe bombers were not far from bringing the RAF effort down on its knees, then the order to switch to civilian targets came and the momentun was lost.

As to the defensive ability, I think I can argue your assertion. Perhaps it is the influence of the USAAF heavies packed with up to 12 defensive guns of the .50 caliber that leads many to think the German bombers of 1940 had a "weak" defensive capability.

I have combat film footage from the cockpits of German bombers during the Batlle of Britain, where you can see the bomber gunners setting Spitfires and Hurricane ablaze. The number of 7.92 mm defensive guns varied from bomber to bomber: there were cases where German medium bombers carried up to 8 defensive guns. They were not easy victims. And as I said, the Ju88 and the Do17 once they had launched their bombs were fast and very manouverable.


PlanD, hi!

Well, a 1.80 1/9 meters high guy is shorter than a 1.81 meters one. Don´t you think? Therefore, when it is said the German bombers defensive guns were of larger caliber than the RAF´s, the idea is correct.

It is not necessary to tell the 8 guns of the Spitfire could make heavy damage and force the bomber down. Didn´t I say I have seen dozens and dozens of German bombers brought down over England? My point is, German medium bombers were far more capable of absorbing damage than previously acknowleged, and big numbers of them made it back to base in France with heavy combat damage.

Of course it was enough for the RAF guys to force the bomber down after inflicting heavy damage to it: one crew less and one bomber less. But that was not the issue of my point


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

I never said it wasn't smaller. I said it wasn't much weaker, not much weaker at all. So much so, not really worth mentioning. 
The German bombers couldn't absorb damage as good as the Allied heavies, or even Allied mediums. I wouldn't consider taking a plugging to the fuselage with 8*.30s much to sing and dance about. Getting a few shots from two 20s is. If the e-wing was equipping the Spitfires, the -111s had been dropping like flies.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

the lancaster doesnt kick ass at all said:


> the wellington was comfortably the best early war bomber, far superior to anything else then in service...................



"What makes you think Bomber command are going to give you a Wellington? They're worth their weight in gold!"

"How about telling them I designed it!"



(Dr. Barnes Wallis in "The Dambusters")


----------



## Udet (Jan 4, 2005)

"I never said it wasn't smaller. I said it wasn't much weaker, not much weaker at all. So much so, not really worth mentioning. 
The German bombers couldn't absorb damage as good as the Allied heavies, or even Allied mediums. I wouldn't consider taking a plugging to the fuselage with 8*.30s much to sing and dance about. Getting a few shots from two 20s is. If the e-wing was equipping the Spitfires, the -111s had been dropping like flies.2

Hello PlanD!

I do think your argument on the capability of the German bombers to absorb damage is unaccurate.

What do Allied heavies have to do at all in a Battle of Britain scoped comment?

What is the point in saying the German medium bombers did not absorb as much damage as the allied heavies did? 

Did the allied heavies face German interceptors armed only with 7.92 mm MG´s?

I, as well, wouldn´t consider taking a plugging to the fuselage of my B-17 with 4- 2cm or 3cm cannons much to sing, dance and chump on popcorn.


There is counterpart to your comments.

You should see guncamera footage of the Butcher bird, both in the standard and Sturmböck versions, chewing the B-17s and B-24s. That was called true and complete pulverization of the target.

From what I have read, it is not exaggerating to affirm the combat experiences of the heavy bomber crews of the USAAF were FAR more frightful and nightmarish than those the Luftwaffe bombers crews experienced over England in 1940.


I digress, the point was the RAF interceptors, with the guns they were fitted during 1940 did not enjoy a powerful bomber destroyer capability. Yes, in many many cases was simply enough to get the job done by assuring the German bomber did not return to base. Any reasonable doubts on this? 

I can assure you the fate of thousands of USAAF and RAF heavy bomber crews was far more violent and terrifying at the hands of Luftwaffe interceptors than the one experienced by the Luftwaffe in 1940 at the hands of the RAF. This, within a moderate tone, of course, getting intercepted and riddled with machine gun fire can be everything but pleasant.

The question is, have you seen photos of German bombers returning to base in France with very heavy combat damage? The evidence exists, and it´s plenty of it.

Finally, I would not be very convinced in saying the German medium bombers had less resistance to combat damage than Allied medium ones.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 4, 2005)

I do have to concur on some points made here so far.... 

I have always felt that Fighter Command fighters in the BoB were rather inadequately armed with the .303's, that 20mm should've been used earlier, although it did take them time to go from drum-fed to 'successful' belt-feed 20mm guns....
In my reading, one NZ fighter pilot, Crawford-Compton I believe, was most successful attacking the German bombers by always aiming for and hitting one of the engines, the one that did all the accessory power....He commented that .303's seemed ineffective against the bombers unless attacked otherwise......
- Also, although both the He-111 and Ju-88 were both good aircraft, as they did use them throughout the War, and I do believe the Wellington was an exceptionally good aircraft for Britain, and they did carry the initial offensive against Germany, and they did soon realise that day-bombing was a lost cause....partly because of the firepower differences between German fighters and the bomber defensive firepower, something I believe was always dreadfully inadequate with the .303's.....
- If they could've upgraded much earlier to .50's or greater, many would've been saved.....- That Britain chose to go on the night offensive after daylight disaster, did give more bombloads and less men were lost....
- We have to thank the US for their tenacity to do the daylight runs, they felt they had a point to prove with greater firepower to protect themselves and the 'round the clock' bombing was what eventually run Germany down.....
But in all my reading, lately about the Aircraft vs U-boats, it does seem to have been a problem that all British aircraft had that used .303 usually had a hard time scoring success....The Wellington was used against U-boats, but when Doenitz ordered them to stay-up and fight-back with their 20mm's [twins and quads] and 37mm's, one can see what an uneven battle it was.....

In conclusion, Britain most certainly should have used heavier guns from Day One, .303 was great for soldiers, but not in the Air War..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

Udet, a lot of those "chewed-up" B-17s and B-24s came back to their bases in England. I have seen numerous pictues of Allied bombers sans engines, control surfaces, sections of fuselage, etc. that returned to base. The same cannot be said of the German bombers.

Also, the American bombers had numerous advantages over the Germans defensively. These would include more guns, of a heavier caliber, in power-operated turrets, and massed formations. The Luftwaffe bombers of the BoB had none of these and, as such, where extremely vulnerable.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

And my (what I thought quite obvious) point was that because German bombers could take a beating from indeqeute firepower doesn't make them durable. 
Taking a beating from 20mm and still getting home does. That's why if the Spitfires had the e-wing in BoB German bombers would have been dropping like flies because they wouldn't be able to handle 2*20s and 2*.50s. 

And Gemhorse, that's why the "Tse-Tse" with a 6pdr battered the U-Boats. 8)


----------



## remoraptor (Jan 5, 2005)

How about the best Russian and the best Japanese bombers?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 5, 2005)

there's a tricky one.............


----------



## Udet (Jan 5, 2005)

Lightning guy:

Of course! I know what you mentioned. The B-17 was capable of taking a lot of punishment and still making it back to base. Still, thousands of them were shot to smithereens as well.

I as well have seen lots of pics of such B-17s returning to base in miserable condition. Most of the times such bombers were sent to the scrapyard though.

Remember my point was to simply tell the German bombers of 1940 over England were not as frail as commonly depicted. 

You tell that still getting forced/shot down by fighters fitted with .303 cal machine guns tells something on the fragileness of the German bombers. Not very so, for the Germans did not rely that very much on their bombers´ armor and defensive fire to ensure survival on interception by enemy fighters.

Please see my opening post on the "Defensive bombers armament" thread and you will understand what my points are.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 5, 2005)

remoraptor said:


> How about the best Russian and the best Japanese bombers?



Well either the Pe-2 or Pe-8 were the best Russian ones. Probably the Pe-2 because i dont think the Pe-8 saw much service.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 5, 2005)

Yeah, I agree with you there plan_D....shame they didn't make more of them too, would've been useful for other things besides U-boats...
This book I'm reading is by Norman Franks Eric Zimmerman, 1998, and is a lot of research collated to tie together the strings of who did what to who...The Mosquitos mentioned didn't have all that much success, partly because they were single aircraft against one or more U-boats, except in one instance of two against two, and the Mosquito's 4x 20mm + .303's were outgunned by quad 20mm's and 37mm's, the aircraft obviously more fragile than the U-boats, where even 20mm's were surviveable... - Quite bloody courageous on the part of anti-U-boat Aircrews.....


----------



## remoraptor (Jan 5, 2005)

These u-boats had much more to lose though. The concept of flak-trap u-boats meant that they had to confront aircarft on the surface instead of avoiding them.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 5, 2005)

from what i'vd known the U-boat VS Air fights are normally the aircraft will win cuz the airfraft can be shot down but itz hard and the fact that those aircraft that are fighting the u-boats are fitted w/ anti-sub weapons like deoth charges and anti-ship rockets double the danger 4 the boats so itz really a stupid idea


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 5, 2005)

And by the end of the war, homing Torps like the FIDO.

Udet, Plan_D's point about the uncomporable firepower of the interceptors is very valid. Another point would be flak. The German 88 was perhaps the most lethal land-based AA gun in the war. The Luftwaffe certainly didn't have to face anything similar to it over England in the fall of '40. Nor did they have to fly anywhere near similar distances. Shorter distances mean fewer casualities.

As for the best Russian bomber, my money would be on the Pe-2 but the Il-4 should probably receive some consideration. It was more of a true bomber than the Pe-2 and saw much greater service than the Pe-8.

For the Japanese, I believe the Ki-67 "Peggy" would win fairly hands down. It was certainly the best bomber the JAAF developed during the war and the IJN was beginning to use them in place of the well known Betty by the end of the war.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2005)

The Germans also had a 105mm AA cannon which was basically an 88 but bigger calibre. And do you know who part designed the 88? Bofors, a British company. Britain got 3.7 inch ones, that look like an 88 for obvious reasons - Bofors designed that too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Yeah, I agree with you there plan_D....shame they didn't make more of them too, would've been useful for other things besides U-boats...
> This book I'm reading is by Norman Franks Eric Zimmerman, 1998, and is a lot of research collated to tie together the strings of who did what to who...The Mosquitos mentioned didn't have all that much success, partly because they were single aircraft against one or more U-boats, except in one instance of two against two, and the Mosquito's 4x 20mm + .303's were outgunned by quad 20mm's and 37mm's, the aircraft obviously more fragile than the U-boats, where even 20mm's were surviveable... - Quite bloody courageous on the part of anti-U-boat Aircrews.....



I read a story the other day that an RAF Catalina was patrolling the Atlantic and saw a U -Boat. It attacked and the the U-Boat fought, inflicting the Pilot with 72 injuries and completely trashed the plane. Despite this, he destroyed the U-boat and made it back to land where he recieved emergency medical attention. Oh, and he was awarded a Victoria Cross too.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

I am familar with the 105mm gun. It was the primary heavy AA weapon for the Kreigsmarine.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

You wouldn't like one of them pointing at you while anti-shipping. "Dat 'Tse-Tse' hat 57mm, BAH! Wie hat 105mm! Ja ja ja!" That's what they'd say...exactly like that. 

And the Mosquito pilot would say "Oh, bollocks ginger they've got those huge 'effin guns on that blighter! Let's twaddle off to blighty and screw this mission"

And that's what happened on the 18th June 1944. Exactly like that...I have..the erm...reports.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

Piaggio P.108A had 102mm gun, bit fairer me thinks...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2005)

not when it's so heavy and can proberly get no more than two shots in a pass, it'd be a sitting duck..............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

And why would a P.108 be shooting at a U-Boat? Politics never was your thing, was it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

Errrrrm, after the armistice perhaps? 



> not when it's so heavy and can proberly get no more than two shots in a pass, it'd be a sitting duck..............



Not with escort, and there'd be groups of em...that'd work well...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

It would be too heavy and escort isn't going to stop AA fire. Possibly after the Armistice but really, they didn't do that much against the Germans.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 7, 2005)

The P.108 wouldn't be shooting at anything since it never got into service.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 8, 2005)

Some U-Boats had very stiff AA, but what was dangerous to attacking planes was the 20mm, not the larger guns.

Even so, the idea of staying on the surface and fighting it out with an attacking plane was a failure and was abandon after some brief success against the earlier attack planes (such as the PBY) which were usually extremely slow.

Staying on the surface to duke it out with a B-24 or a Lancaster, let alone a Hellcat or other fighter type was foolisness. Even if they shot down 3 planes for every sub lost, the planes would have to be considered the victor. And it was clear they wern't going to do even that well.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 8, 2005)

But then the Mosquito would just blast them senseless with a 6pdr. Genius. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The P.108 wouldn't be shooting at anything since it never got into service.



Well the P.108A with the 102mm gun wouldnt because only one was built and that got Captured by the Germans


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

The US Navy 'jeep carriers' typical used F4F fighters to strafe a U-Boat to kill of drive off the gun crews. Then a TBM would roll in and blast the submarine with rockets, bombs, depth charges, etc. The U-boats best bet was to dive. Sticking around on the surface was suicide.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Errrrrm, after the armistice perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and can i just point out, whilst i know little of RA tactics, it's unlikely they'd send groups of bombers with big guns and fighter escort on routine patroll, possible against specific targets, but if the SM.79 couldn't do it, what chance did the P.108 have??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

Heres the irony, the SM.79 could do it, it was one of the best torpedo bombers of the war...


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 8, 2005)

For anti-U-Boat work, how about the Hellcat (or Wildcat) carrying two FIDO's?

This little baby, devloped by _inferior American technolgy_  went from drawing board to operational use in just 16 months, sinking its first U-Boat in May 1943. 204 FIDO's were launched against enemy submarines, sinking 37 of them and damaging at least 18 more.

Note: usually 2 FIDO's were fired at a target u-boat.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 8, 2005)

Yes, that was what happened, fighters would strafe whilst calling-up support...
By the latter stages of the War, there was greater coordination with anti-sub aircraft, and the US did contribute some great additional technology, besides the additional aircraft....
If a patrolling aircraft stumbled onto a surfaced sub, it usually attacked ASAP before it could dive, which could happen despite Doenitz's order to stay-up and fight, but let's not under-estimate the firepower of the U-boats, they were deadly, and accurate!..... 
- CC is quite right about the amount of damage the aircraft could absorb, and having to come right over to drop their ordinance, they copped-it at almost point-blank....Unfortunately, the bigger the aircraft, the bigger the crews usually, so losses were high, hence my bitch about aircraft armament being insufficent. Some of the U-boat crews were very well trained, and getting sprayed by .303's with all that heavy metal to duck behind helped, whilst incoming aircraft had to deal with a voracious amount of up-coming flak....Essentially it was the depth-charges or bombs that did any serious damage, but getting down there and accurately placing them against that sort of barrage was nothing short of heroic....
Things were helped by the introduction of FIDO and RP's, the latter more or less replacing 57mm cannon, and the 20mms were really a case of simply 'trading shots'...
- Being able to lob stuff at U-boats from more of a distance, plus the greater number of aircraft involved, was what really made the difference in the end......

Oh, and incidentally, Wellington bombers basically carried the same bomb-tare as B-17's.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

Just out of curiosity, what sort of AA fire power are we talking about here?

The American submarines might carry a couple of 40mm as well as a couple of 20mm. While that isn't a bad load, it is completely inadequate to stop a determined attack. Where the U-boats any better armed?


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 8, 2005)

From what I'm reading, twin 20mm's, quad 20mm's, a single 37mm [I think it's single] and the main deck gun, 88mm I think....


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 9, 2005)

Correction, a 105mm deck-gun, and 8x 20mm, [2x twin and 1x quad 20mm]...that was in Nov. 1943, but some were also armed with 37mm's...


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Just out of curiosity, what sort of AA fire power are we talking about here?
> 
> The American submarines might carry a couple of 40mm as well as a couple of 20mm. While that isn't a bad load, it is completely inadequate to stop a determined attack. Where the U-boats any better armed?



Lots of good info on WWII submarines can be found at http://uboat.net.

Genrally they were kinda similar. German subs tyically carred 2 x 20mm and perhas another 2 x 20mm or a 37mm, and an 88 or 110 mm deck gun. There were only a handful of "flak" subs with more AA on them, and these were not usuable for anything but escorting other subs out of the Bay of Biscay, a concept which was a failure, the experiment lasting only about 6 months from May-Nov of '43. From 1943 on, Aircraft were increadibly deadly to u-boats, and accounted for over half of u-boat kills. You can check the loss data yourself at: http://uboat.net/fates/losses/

US subs had the following (general) armament:

Gato class (77 ships): 1 x 3" gun, 2 x .50 BMG's, 2 x .30 BMG's.

Balao class (118 ships): 1 x 4" deck gun, 1 x 40mm Bofors, 2 x .50 BMG's.

Tench class (35 ships): 1 x 5" deck gun, 1 x 40mm Bofors, 1 x 20mm (?), 2 x .50 BMG

The 40mm bofors, from late 1943 on, probably was more effective than all the guns on the U-boats combine, even the Flak boats, due to the proximity fuse.

=====================================

US submarines were unquestionably the best in the world, even at the start of the war. They included an advanced targeting computer, welded construction allowing deep (for then) dives of 300-400 feet (more if the captain was feeling lucky), and were the only subs to be airconditioned. Relatively early on (1943 I think) they were also equiped with radar, greatly improving their ability to find and track their prey.

Airconditioning is a huge asset in a submarine. When you dive, in order to keep the pressure as ballanced as you can, you increase the pressure inside the sub. This increases the temperature, which is why on accurate movies like Das Boot (a great film!) you will notice they are always sweating like pigs. This is not just hard on the crew, it's also hard on the equipment as condensation forms on and in everything, causing corrosion, especially damaging to electronics.

On the otherhand, due to what can only be considered pure stupidity, the Mk-14 torpedo carried by virtually all US submarines was nearly useless for the first 18 months of the war. During the 30's, only two live fire tests were carried out, one failed. It was determined the Mk-14 worked (how 50% is good enough I do not know) and because they cost $10,000 each, no further tests were conducted. After mid 1943 the issues with the torpedos were resolved and from that point on they worked nearly flawlessly.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Correction, a 105mm deck-gun, and 8x 20mm, [2x twin and 1x quad 20mm]...that was in Nov. 1943, but some were also armed with 37mm's...



Those configurations are for the U-Flaks, of which only 6 were built. They had very limited range, only carried 5 torpedos, and were a failure and were converted back to normal attack boats in Nov. 1943, after about 6 months of operation.

Typical armament was 1 x 88mm or 105 mm deck gun and two 20mm's, plus 2 more 20mm's or one 37mm.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 9, 2005)

Yeah, thanks RG, they weren't specific as to what was what in the book, other than the U-boat serial No.'s and the same for the aircraft, which also mentioned the crew members - Sorry about the grainy pics, still trying to get the guts on my scanner reso....- It's great there's a U-boat website, I wasn't aware of that...
- There's a coupla photos toward the end of the book of U-534, sunk 5th May 1945 that was raised in August of 1993. In 1996, it was taken to Liverpool and restored, opened to the public as a memorial to ALL those involved in the Conflict....sure is real big when sitting outa the water, so it was sure quite a task to sink them....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 9, 2005)

Either way, while impressive for a submarine, we are hardly talking about a floating fortress. The reliance upon 20mm weapons were a mistake. Medium AA would have been preferred. Unfortunately, German medium AA (like the naval 37mm) was among the worst in the world being a semi-automatic weapon. The 88mm and 105mm were very effective heavy AA guns, but would the Germans be carrying AA ammo for them? I think it would be more likely that they carry HE rounds for attacking merchant ships.

And the excellent submarines of the IJN should be considered. At the start of the war, they had the best torps in the war and that was a major advantage over the US boats.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Either way, while impressive for a submarine, we are hardly talking about a floating fortress. The reliance upon 20mm weapons were a mistake. Medium AA would have been preferred. Unfortunately, German medium AA (like the naval 37mm) was among the worst in the world being a semi-automatic weapon. The 88mm and 105mm were very effective heavy AA guns, but would the Germans be carrying AA ammo for them? I think it would be more likely that they carry HE rounds for attacking merchant ships.
> 
> And the excellent submarines of the IJN should be considered. At the start of the war, they had the best torps in the war and that was a major advantage over the US boats.



I just don't see how a single 88mm (or 105mm) deck gun would be much use fending off aircraft, except maybe something extremely slow like the PBY. There is a good 5 seconds between when the shooter calls out the range and the round is fired, and then a few seconds to reach the target, which means the chances it is going to burst within the required 100 feet or so is minimal. Without a proximity fuse, it pretty much has to hit the target, and that is extremely unlikely.

The German 20mm AA guns were actually pretty damn good, espeically when radar aimed (not available on subs of course). However, the gunners were increadibly exposed and the tactic used was to have a wildcat (or other plane) machine gun the deck while another attacked the sub itself. If you had two capable planes, such as a wildcat and an Avenger, the u-boat was pretty helpless to put up much AA.

As far as the ammo, I would imagine (but am not sure) that the same ammo would work for either purpose, as they always had an impact fuse. The time-delay fuse could just be set long and it would do fine against a merchant ship.

As for the IJN, their subs kinda stunk. But they did have good torpedos.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Well, there's no point in having a brilliant submarine if the torps suck.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

This is true, which is why USA submarines were relatively ineffective in the first 18 months of WWII. However, fixing/improving torpedos is much easier than fixing/improving submarines.

After about 18 months, US torpedos were fine, and the subs were increadibly effective from that point on.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 10, 2005)

I read somewhere recently that the proximity fuse was the most successful development of WWII.......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

Chances of scoring a direct hit with a heavy AA round on a fighter-sized target are rather low. Even before the addition of the VT fuze to the American 5" shells a time-fuze was used since it was realized shrapnel was the best chance to down an aircraft.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

Without the VT fuse they had to rely on the timed fuse. This required gun aimer call out the delay, the fuse setter set the delay, the shell be loaded, then the gun was fired, and it was hoped the time delay would be correct. But the time to set the fuse and load the gun was variable, and the path of the target was often variable, and the end result was that timed fuses were horribly ineffective against most targets. And the gunner's imperative to adjust his fire once he called out the delay was for the most part gone, he had to fire if he wanted much of a chance to score a hit or the delay would be all wrong. The only reason the German's had any success at all was the dense formations of bombers flying strait and level on their bomb runs were easier to hit and they had huge numbers of Flak guns (20,000) mostly ringed around a few key cities. But even so, they didn't do very well.

With the VT fuse the gun was loaded, the gunner aimed, and he could fire when he felt he had the best chance of hitting the target. If the round came within the prescribed distance of the target it would wait until the distance started to increase and then expload. This meant the odds of scoring a meaningful hit were tremendously improved. The VT fuse could also be set to detonate when it came within a set distance of a target, which was mostly used for airbursts of artillery fire.

In my opinion, the VT fuse, the A-bomb, and 10 cm (and smaller) radar have to rank as the three most significant weapons developed in WWII.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 11, 2005)

But the point remains, scoring a direct hit on a fighter with a heavy AA weapon was next to impossible.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

Hmmm.. How heavy?

40mm Bofors guns on Warships had some success at it. Of course, there were lots of QuadBof's firing!

I agree, a single 88mm or 5" gun, or even a fair number of them, have almost no chance of hitting a fighter that is engaging in any kind of manuvering.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

Generally, the 40mm is considered a medium AA weapon. Heavy AA would typically be somewhere in the 3"-6" range.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Bofors 40mm, you say!? Yes, 40mm was medium. You know what I don't get, the German hardly used medium AA...why? I just don't get it.  They had the 37mm AA on...ah...what's it's name? Wirbelwind, not the vierling one that had four 20mm...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

The Germans didn't use much medium AA because their medium AA weapons sucked! That 37mm weapon you refer to was a basically a conventional, breech-loading cannon. Rate of fire was pathetic (not much better than what the US 5"/38 could achieve) and a low-rate of fire is hardly desirable in an AA weapon.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

The 37mm armed Wirbelwind had more success than the Vierling one, I'm informed. Although the Vierling massacred infantry much better.


----------



## Cougar (Jan 25, 2005)

the B-17 an is always forgotten.........

lol.......no


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 25, 2005)

OK

Best bomber of WW2, that is a hard one.

Light: Mosquito
Medium: Wellington
Heavy: Lancaster
SuperHeavy: B-29

Most impact on WW2: Lancaster


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 25, 2005)

I could see the Mossie as the best light bomber. The B-26 Marauder beats the Wimpy in the Medium role. The B-17 and B-24 were probably the equal of the Lanc. There is nothing from the war to compare the B-29 too so it was certainly the best overall. In terms of impact, I would go with the B-24. The number of B-24s produced is fairly close to the total number of B-17s and Lancs produced and it saw service in far more diverse areas. While the B-17 was primarily and the Lanc was solely a European bomber, the B-24 served everywhere US forces were present.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 25, 2005)

I agree LG, the B-24 was under appreciated but they were everywhere doing almost every kind of job an aircraft of its size could do. Besides being a heavy bomber it excelled in maritime patrol, anti submarine work, photo recon, cargo transport, tanker, VIP transport, some odd jobs were gunnery and flight engineer trainers for B-29 crews, plus along with weary B-17's became formation aircraft.

As much as I truly love the B-29 as well as other allied bombers, light, medium and heavy, I have to admit that the B-24 was a jack of all trades that was surely one of the most valuable aircraft of the war. Although this does have a lot to do with its design with the boxy airframe and range, plus the fact that they're were so many of them!! 

Besides serving with the USAAF and USN they were also operated extensively by the RAF albeit in patrol or cargo roles.


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 26, 2005)

I think you will find the Lanc was used in more than just the ETO.

Not in great numbers as the ETO needed every bomber they could get their hands on but there were some used in the far east and a few in North Africa IIRC.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2005)

Alot of the B-24 groups phased out their Liberators for B-17s as the war dragged on. There were a few problems with the B-24. One of the biggies was the nose gear. They were notoriously weak and landing on a soft or rough field would collapse it in a heartbeat. 

The Davis wing was a great design, however, a flak hit between the engines would often cause it to fold up. I have seen a few pictures of this type of unrecoverable damage. 

I should point out that I do _like_ the B-24, warts and all. There were roughly 12,000 B-17s made and roughly 18,000 B-24s made. They served many different countries well during and after the war.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 26, 2005)

MikeMan said:


> OK
> 
> Best bomber of WW2, that is a hard one.
> 
> ...



I'd say:

Attack: IL10
Light: A-26 Invader
Medium: Tu-2
Heavy Day: B-17
Heavy Night: Lancaster
Super-Heavy: B-29

Most impact on the war: IL2, SBD-Dauntless

The effectiveness of strategic bombing is somewhat doubful.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 26, 2005)

Ive seen a lot of those videos and pictures of wings folding on B-24's. Thats some of the hardest stuff Ive ever seen, but seeing any aircraft go down, allied or axis is rough especially trying to imagine what its like being in there.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2005)

Agreed, Dave. Often when the wing folds up, the aircraft goes into a flat spin. The centrifugal force pins the crew where they are. Some did manage to get out, but alot of them were killed because they simply could not get out of the plane. It's heart-wrenching to see the pictures and video of that.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

The effect of the strategic bombing was doubtful!?! That's not what the Germans thought. Their industry was taking a pounding from the heavy bombers and their defeat in the East was due, in part, from their inability to hit Soviet industry. 

Also, I don't see how the A-26 is considered a light bomber since it carried a heavier weapons load than the B-25 medium bomber. And as much as I love the Dauntless, it certainly didn't have the overall impact of the B-24. 

Note: I am not arguing that the B-24 was the be-all and end-all of bombers but it was built in greater numbers and saw more wide-spread and various uses that any of the others mentioned.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2005)

> I think you will find the Lanc was used in more than just the ETO.



as much as i want to agree with you i can't really, she was an extremely versatile aircraft and this can be shown through countless modifications, because she was in such high demand by bomber command no-one else could get their hands on them, not even coastal command and they were screaming out for them


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 26, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The effect of the strategic bombing was doubtful!?! That's not what the Germans thought. Their industry was taking a pounding from the heavy bombers and their defeat in the East was due, in part, from their inability to hit Soviet industry.



Well, perhaps I overstated this. Stragetic bombing was effective, but not until very late in the war did it pay off. I think, with 20-20 hindsight, that a more selective bombing campaign (focusing on oil and communications/transportation) would have been more effective. This could have been carried out mostly with fighter bombers or specialized medium bombers. For every B-17 build, three P-38's, four P-47's, or five P-51's could have been built, and still left substantial resources and aircrews available for other war efforts. A specialized plane something along the lines of a larger P-38 or metal mosquito could have been extremely effective in destroying such targets, espeically with strong fighter and fighter-bomber support.

Read over the US Stragetic Bombing Survey for yourself.

As for the Russians, Germany never demonstrated the capacity to produce a sufficiently strong strategic bombing effort to have had much effect. They would have to have built 10 times as many He111 class bombers to do the job.




Lightning Guy said:


> Also, I don't see how the A-26 is considered a light bomber since it carried a heavier weapons load than the B-25 medium bomber.



I don't think load really matters. The same thing could be said of the Mossie, it could carry a heavier bombload than the B-25. What I'm looking at it the type of mission typically carried out, which was tactical in nature. The A-26 was used mostly for tactical bombing and ground support.



Lightning Guy said:


> And as much as I love the Dauntless, it certainly didn't have the overall impact of the B-24.



The Dauntless destroyed the Japanese fleet at Midway, which was one of the most significant "turning points" of the war.



Lightning Guy said:


> Note: I am not arguing that the B-24 was the be-all and end-all of bombers but it was built in greater numbers and saw more wide-spread and various uses that any of the others mentioned.



Yes, because it sacrificed durability and defensive capability for ease of construction. B-24's were built in such numbers not because they were better than B-17's, but simply because it was easier to build them. Compromises were made in the durability and defensive firepower of the B-24 to facilitate quick mass production.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

Look at the B-25 in the Pacific. It flew a lot of strafing and skip-bombing missions. This was certainly as much attack aviation as what the A-26 was doing. 

Midway was a huge turning point, but it would be a fallacy to give "most impact" to an aircraft based on one operation. If you are going to do that, why not list the Stuka since it started the war or the B-29 since it ended it?

I also don't see how the B-24 sacrificed firepower. The only guns it didn't have that the B-17 did were the two cheek guns and the radio-room gun of the B-17 and these were the least effective guns anyway. Also, the tail turret on the B-24 was more effective than the ad hoc arrangement on the B-17.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 26, 2005)

The A-26 arrived in the ETO in September 1944, and was a superb aircraft, it's delay being blamed on the Douglas Co. administration....

All the work the B-25 and B-26 did, was planned to be replaced by the A-26, the B-model packing 22 guns....the C- [glass-nosed] model being faster at 370 mph. 

The A-26 arrived in the PTO in January 1945, and led some GI's to comment that they wished it had arrived much sooner....

Apparently the OSS used them first, to ferry agents into Europe....


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 26, 2005)

B-29B Superfortress
HP: 4X2250HP
Max Speed: 364 mph at 25,000 feet
Cruise Speed: 210-225 mph
Maximum range 4200 miles at 10,000 feet with full fuel load and 18,000-pound bomb load
69,000 pounds empty, 137,000 pounds loaded with 18,000 pounds of bombs. Fuel capacity was 6988 US gallons, the bomb bay tanks were not standard fit. 
Wingspan 141 feet 3 inches, length 99 feet 0 inches, height 27 feet 9 inches, wing area 1736 square feet. 
Two 0.50-inch machine guns in the tail, with provision for two 0.50-inch guns in the mid-fuselage pressurized area. Bomb load was typically 20,000 pounds, although with a mix of high explosive and incendiaries, this could be increased to 22,800 pounds.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

An interesting note on the A-26, Gen. George C. Kenny, commander US 5th AF, SWPA was not extremely impessed with the new plane. He felt that the A-20 was doing what was needed and didn't want to suffer the break in combat needed to transition to the new type.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 26, 2005)

Kenney also wanted bigger stuff and constantly requested B-29's be given to the 5th AF. He was always turned down and finally requested B-32's stating that they essentially useless being manufactured and not put to use. He stated something on the order that giving them to him would bring the most available firepower against the Japanese in the shortest period of time. So he was finally given the B-32's and they were assigned to the 312 BG(which had operated A-20's). It was found that the B-32 was a lot better than previously expected, providing good range, defensive firepower and a stable bombing platform.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

Kenny was an "operator" no doubt about it. He got results. He was always one of my favorite commanders.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Look at the B-25 in the Pacific. It flew a lot of strafing and skip-bombing missions. This was certainly as much attack aviation as what the A-26 was doing.



B-25 skip bombing missions were against cargo ships. They were not often used to attack heavy troop concentrations or directly support troops engaged in battle. Certainly the A-26 is every bit as much a "light bomber" as the Mossie.



Lightning Guy said:


> Midway was a huge turning point, but it would be a fallacy to give "most impact" to an aircraft based on one operation. If you are going to do that, why not list the Stuka since it started the war or the B-29 since it ended it?



Well, the destruction of the Japanese fleet has to be considered one of the most siginficant events of WWII. The Stuka did not turn the war in Germany's favor against any major foe. The B-29 could certainly be argued for.



Lightning Guy said:


> I also don't see how the B-24 sacrificed firepower. The only guns it didn't have that the B-17 did were the two cheek guns and the radio-room gun of the B-17 and these were the least effective guns anyway. Also, the tail turret on the B-24 was more effective than the ad hoc arrangement on the B-17.



The B-24 turrets, except in the dorsal position, were all inferior to those of the B-17. The mechanisms were just not as good. The "Cheyenne" tail gun with reflector sight in the B-17G was much superior to the turret arraingment of the B-24. The Bendix chin turret with computing gunsight was very much superior to the nose turret on the B-24. Both the tail and nose turrets of the B-24 were seriously flawed designs. If you have access to Flying Guns of WWII (by Tony Williams who somtimes posts here - I highly recommend this book which is only $30 for a nice hardback copy) read the section about the turrets of the B-24. If you cannot, ask and I'll try to transcribe the relevant section (though I hate doing that since he does sell that book).

Flying Guns of World War II
 ($33)

Rapid Fire: The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine-Guns and Their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces
 <---- also worth buying ($18)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 27, 2005)

The Stuka was the brunt of the air support during the initial stages of the war, for Germany. It certainly let them run amok through Europe and most of Russia. I'd say all of Europe was a pretty major foe.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

But the stuka was only a part of the overall German offensive power. Even without it they'd have succeeded in Poland, France, and early on in Russia. At no place in WWII was the Stuka the decisive weapon of German victory. At Midway, the Dauntless was the decisive weapon of Japanese defeat.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 27, 2005)

The Germans did need good groud support aircraft, the Stuka provided it. Although much credit is given to the Stuka, for a lot of destruction early on, on several occasions Guderian was questioned (while in Poland and France) what had done the damage, that could be seen. Every time he was asked by a visiting officer, who could see burning wrecks, 'Did our Stukas do that?' every time...'No, our Panzers' So, I'll give you that one. 

SURELY though, the aircraft carrier was the decider at Midway.  I have a model of a Dauntless, I wonder if it's still alive.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

plan_D said:


> SURELY though, the aircraft carrier was the decider at Midway.  I have a model of a Dauntless, I wonder if it's still alive.



Not only that, but the Dauntless was by far the most effective of the bomber types available. Torpedo planes were pretty useless in the face of defensive fighters. The Dauntless was far superior to the Val (or to the Stuka for that matter). It could be argued that the TBF Avenger might actually have been an even better attack plane if armed with bombs, but it was armed with torps and died like flies at Midway. Of course, poor disapline on the part of the Japanese fighters, which all decended on the Avengers's, left the door open for the Dauntless's which wiped out the Japanese carrier fleet in minutes.

Another issue of course would be the poor construction of the Japanese carriers. It only took a few 500 lbs bomb hits to finish one off.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 27, 2005)

I don't like the Stuka. It wasn't the best, or first dive-bomber it's just the most famous. And the SYMBOL of the German Blitzkrieg.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I don't like the Stuka. It wasn't the best, or first dive-bomber it's just the most famous. And the SYMBOL of the German Blitzkrieg.



The main thing about the Stuka was it could do a vertical dive. In an almost vertical dive, bombing can be very accurate. The Dauntless could also do a near vertical dive, but I don't think quite as well as the Stuka. On the otherhand, the Dauntless was much much faster than the Stuka, and that is key if there is any chance of interception.

The TBF Avenger could do a fairly steep dive, and it also had a bombsite for level bombing. It was much much tougher than either the Stuka or the Dantless, and had both a .50 gunner in the normal position and a .30 aiming down to the rear. Later in the war the Avenger was found to be as effective as the Dauntless and more survivable, and it carried a bigger payload.

The HellDiver came out later, but by that point they'd pretty much found that fighter-bomber's could do ground attack almost as well as a dive bomber, and were much more survivable. But the Helldiver was probably better than the Dauntless.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2005)

i like the stuka, one hell of a machine..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

Consolidated tested the Bendix chin turret on a modified B-17 and found that it offered no improvement. IMO, the nose turret also had the advantage of armored glass and plating. The Bendix turret provided no additonal protection from fire to the bombardier of a B-17. Also, the Cheyenne turret was a very late addition and still didn't have the field of fire as the Consolidated A-6 turret in the tail of a B-24.

The Helldiver was superior to the Dauntless in virtually every area except maneuverabiliy and range.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2005)

damn ugly though.............


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 27, 2005)

First, the Japanese carriers are construted w/ wood, just like the US carriers. (most of the British carriers are made w/ metal or steel), so it's vulnarable. Second, I rated torpedo planes a better plane to sink a ship because if (and ONLY IF) there are no fighter interceptions, the torpedos are far more damaging than bombs from dive-bombers, and I would say that the dive bombers are good too. Third, fighter-bombers are good for tactical bombing, that's true, but before it releases its payload, it can't fight other fighters, so if you said use the fighter-bombers to attack w/ fighter escort, itz effective. (just don't think of the fighter-bomber as the Me-110)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

I assume, Adolf, that you are refering to the flight deck? yes? Not all of the American carriers were made out of wood but the flight decks were.

And torpedoes were more damaging to a ship but they were harder to imploy. The ideal situation was to have the dive-bombers damage and disable and enemy ship before the torpedo bombers came in for the coup de grace.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Consolidated tested the Bendix chin turret on a modified B-17 and found that it offered no improvement. IMO, the nose turret also had the advantage of armored glass and plating. The Bendix turret provided no additonal protection from fire to the bombardier of a B-17. Also, the Cheyenne turret was a very late addition and still didn't have the field of fire as the Consolidated A-6 turret in the tail of a B-24.
> 
> The Helldiver was superior to the Dauntless in virtually every area except maneuverabiliy and range.



The Bendix chin turret included a computing gunsight and was much more effective than the Liberator's A-6 turret. The gunner only had to put the circle around the target and adjust the ranging recticle, the turret would calculate the necessary lead. The Bendix remote electric turret was very much faster tracking than the manned turrets. This was the same sighting system later used on the B-29 (which also had central fire control).

Installing the nose turret on the B-24H had the negative effect of forcing a redesign of the bombadier position to a less optimal location. It also allowed freezing cold air to flow through the fuselage. The Consolidated A-6 turret was used on most B-24's though some used the superior Emmersion A-15 turret in the tail only, but this was in short supply and was only utilized in the Consolidated built B-24's out of San Diego starting in spring/summer 1944. Most Liberators still used the Consolidated turret. The nose turret was the A-6. From "Flying Guns of WWII":



> ...
> The Consolidated A-6 turret was hydraulically driven; but instead of using a ring gear to rotate the turret - a complicated and expensive item to manufacture - its designes chose to use a drum on the turret axis with steel cables running around it. This apparrently ingenious solution became a serious weakness, because the tension of the cables changed through wear and termperature variations, resulting in erradic control. The gun mounts were not steady enough for accurate firing, and to make things even worse they transimitted the vibration of firing into the sighting system. The turret was also too small to accomodate most gunners. Even after numerous modifciations the Consolidated tail turret was 'an ineffient combat weapon', but the needs of the time mandated its production and installation, not only in the tail but also in its nose. The British chose to install the Boulton Paul tail turret in Liberators delivered to them, while they conserved the Martin dorsal turret. Nevertheless the turret was gradually improved and widely used.
> page 163 - Flying Guns of WWII.



The Cheyenne turret was officially adpoted for production in Summer 1944, but it was installed as a modification before that time, and it was installed on most B-17's very quickly. It included a reflector sight and could aim almost 90 degrees to either side and up or down almost 60 degrees from level. It was very much faster tracking and much more stable than the A-6 turret on the Liberator, and had none of its sighting or gunner comfort issues.

Can you document the use of armor glass on the Liberator turrets? I can find nothing about this. It seems unlikely, as more wieght means a slower turret, and weight was already an issue for the B-24 turrets. H series payloads were significantly effected by the added weight of the later model turrets (maybe these had armor glass?).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> first, the japanese carriers are construted w/ wood, just like the US carriers(most of the british carriers are made w/ metal or steel), so itz vulnarable, second, i rated torpedo planes a better plane to sink a ship because if(annd ONLY IF) there are no fighter interceptions, the torpedos are far more damageing than bombs from dive-bombers, and i would say that the dive bombers are good too, third, fighter-bombers are good for tactical bombing, thats true, but be4 it release its payload, it can't fight other fighters, so if u said use the fighter-bombers to attack w/ fighter escort, itz effective(just don't think of the fighter-bomber as the me-110)



Japanese carriers were very open inside. Most crewmen did not have any kind of quarters, they slept on bunks that pulled out from the wall in the hanger or other areas of the ship. They had very little damage control capability for this reason. American carriers were built of better steel, had better armor throughout, and were very well compartmentalized. This meant that hits that were easily fatal to Japanese carriers were not fatal to US carriers, as was made clear several times during the war.

As for the wood vs. steel carrier decks.... please read:

Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile? (<-- link)

I think you will see the answer is a resounding NO!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm

This website provides some information on the armor on the various nose turrets used on the B-24. Under the section on the Emerson turret the actual thickness of the armor is given. For the Consolidated turret it just mentions the fact that it carried armor plating. Again, I just wont to point out that Consolidated expirement with the Bendix turret and found in not to be worth while. Personally, I wonder how much value the lead-computing sight since the time for such actions in a head on attack was very limited.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm
> 
> This website provides some information on the armor on the various nose turrets used on the B-24. Under the section on the Emerson turret the actual thickness of the armor is given. For the Consolidated turret it just mentions the fact that it carried armor plating. Again, I just wont to point out that Consolidated expirement with the Bendix turret and found in not to be worth while. Personally, I wonder how much value the lead-computing sight since the time for such actions in a head on attack was very limited.



I think the lead computing sight was mostly effective for shooting at a fighter attacking a bomber other than the one you were in.

I'll check out that site. But note the Emmerson turret was rather rare on the B-24.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 27, 2005)

Perhaps, but the chin turret was never going to get more than a quick snap shot at a fighter. I've certainly found that to be the case when flying a simulated B-17 mission. I think it would have been more effective to protect against attacks from the rear quarter.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Perhaps, but the chin turret was never going to get more than a quick snap shot at a fighter. I've certainly found that to be the case when flying a simulated B-17 mission. I think it would have been more effective to protect against attacks from the rear quarter.



Perhaps so, but it was still better than other gun options for the front, which is where the most need was for more firepower. Firepower to the rear was considered sufficient - the enemy was not generally attacking from that position anymore by the start of 1944.

Remember, in my opinion only the top, belly, and tail turrets made sense. The planes should have otherwise been optimized for speed as defensive firepower was never sufficient to stop high speed slashing attacks by well armed fighters. The chin and remote turrets had the advantage of being much more airodynamic than manned turrets.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 31, 2005)

I recall reading that the Corsair was an excellent divebomber, easily capable of carrying a couple of 1,000 lb'ers, usually dived at 70 degrees plus, where it's undercarriage could be used for airbrakes, although they often didn't bother........

In reading about an RAF Bomber Commmand crew flying Lancasters with 186 Sqn., they landed post-raid at a B-17 airfield.....'' The following day their hosts took them for a spin in one, and the author was astonished at all the guns, but what staggered him was the bomb bay, that could only accommodate 6x 500 lb'ers at maximum load.....He felt that to his way of thinking, it was a helluva risk of 10 lives to drop six small bombs....He figured it required four B-17's to deliver the same weight of high explosives as one Lancaster....or put another way, 40 men would risk their lives to do what the RAF could achieve with seven........''

It begs the question, that although all were grateful that the ' round the clock ' offensive greatly assisted concluding the War in the ETO, how would it have been if both Allies had conducted the Night Offensive together...?...Germany couldn't have coped with that amount of incoming raids coming in at once, I'm sure...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 31, 2005)

Standard load on a B-17 was 10 500lb bombs so that annalogy is a little off (unless a Lanc was dropping 20,000lbs every mission). The main difference was the accuracy though. It would be a long time before Bomber Command could achieve accuracy comparable to the USAAF daylight raids. And of course by 1944 escorting the daylight raids became an end to itself as it gave the USAAF fighters a chance to engage and destroy the Luftwaffe.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2005)

The B-17 bomb bay had two symmetrical halves. Each had shackles for:

12 x 0100 lbs
08 x 0300 lbs
06 x 0500 lbs
03 x 1000 lbs
04 x 1600 lbs (might be only 3 would fit)
01 x 2000 lbs (special shackles required) 


In Europe, the 8th AF bombing accuracy was not any better and sometimes worse than the RAF's BC bombing accuracy. How does one put a bomb "in a pickle barrel" when the formations could be up to 2300ft across and the bombs were drop on the lead bomber's command through the clouds? 

http://www.bkbhq.com/users/race/Air Force/Escorting_files/image009.jpg

The RAF dropped individually on target markers.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Feb 1, 2005)

The bomb in a pickle barrel is a myth, a hyperbole. With the American tactic of massed formations having each airplane aim and drop its load separately was an invitation for disaster. Mid-air collisions over the target would have become an incredibly serious problem. 

And it must be remembered that (at least in the first half of the war) Bomber Command had enough trouble simply finding the target let alone hitting it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 1, 2005)

yes but we were going by night............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Feb 1, 2005)

And that's the point. Daylight bombing eliminated most of the problems with navigation and finding the target. At the very least it must be acknowledged that it was a lot easier to hit the target by day.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 1, 2005)

yes but you hit it with a very much smaller punch......


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 1, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but you hit it with a very much smaller punch......



I dont know about that. 

For instance the RAF goes in and drops 100 tons of bombs over a 10 square mile area, when the actual target is somewhere within that 10 square mile area.

Or the USAAF goes in and drops 10 tons of bombs in a one square mile area that contains the target.

Both get the job done but which is more efficient? Which gives a larger "punch"?


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 1, 2005)

Y'see, '' daylight raids eliminating problems with navigation '' was quite a cop-out....Although the Norden bombsight was an excellent piece of equiptment, there were still alot of problems with accuracy....

Bomber Command started-out quite unprepared in WWII, it was really uphill, those gallant early-war crews in their Hampdens, Blenheims and Whitleys were asked to fight a battle against almost impossible odds....no radar, puny bombloads and the opposition, both from the ground and in the air was formidible...look at the trouble the 8th AF had with it later-on. Weather played a large part in the success or failure, but those early BC crews and aircraft never faultered, buying valuable time for Britiain to develop from dropping propaganda leaflets, to set forth on one of the longest, costliest, most destructive, and finally, most murderously effective bombing campaigns the world has ever witnessed.....that chancy beginning was so different from the thousand-bomber armadas that rode forth in later years...... 

But it was navigational accuracy first that got them there [and back]...in the dark, and it was a combination of radar and bomb-aiming tactics that gave Britain it's accuracy, even installing bombing-cameras that took another half-minute of the bomb-run to take the picture, to ensure that ' bombing-creepback ' didn't interfere with accuracy......

Against a picture of that sort of Strategic Night-bombing Campaign, dropping a few bombs in daylight with escort, seems a doddle, where you can see the fighters, where flying the bombers another 10,000 ft higher can't have helped accuracy, and right throughout the War, the German Anti-aircraft Arm was MOST formidible, day and night, didn't matter what height you were at.....

As far as accuracy went, the formation of RAF 617 Sqn. gave Britain a unit that became specialists, still going today....

When you think about '' Best Bomber '', sure the B-29 was great, but it was built from data gleaned from B-17 B-24 experience in the ETO, and the B-29 only became effective from the tactics gleaned off Bomber Command....Remember, both Paul Tibbetts and Curtis Le May cut their flying teeth in the 8th's early days in the ETO......

This is why I vote the Lancaster as '' Best Bomber '', because it was the instrument that became Germany's harbinger of Defeat, from it's introduction to the end of conflict, it consistently and incessantly delivered a vast bombload to all corners of the Reich, over and above any other aircraft....

The Mosquito comes second, because for what it was, and what it did, made it ' hand-in-glove ' with the Lancaster's work.......


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 1, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> When you think about '' Best Bomber '', sure the B-29 was great, but it was built from data gleaned from B-17 B-24 experience in the ETO



The Model 345 (B-29) was designed to answer an Army design specification issued on January 29, 1940. The formal design from Boeing was submitted on May 11, 1940.
First orders were taken for the B-29 on May 17, 1941 with the first XB-29 flight coming on September 21, 1942.

The first B-17 raid over Europe was launched on August 17, 1942.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Feb 1, 2005)

And the main reason that the B-29s didn't achieve much success over Japan was due to the jet stream air currents encountered at altitude.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 1, 2005)

To begin with the B-29 diedn't have success but they learnt from the Brits that night bombing from lower altitudes did the trick. The B-29 was sent with a bombload consisting almost entirely of incendiaries at low level and at night. This produced results


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 1, 2005)

A fair amount of the incendiary missions were conducted in daylight as well. Although the incendiary missions gather a lot of the limelight, bombing with general purpose 500, 1000 and 2000 pound bombs occured just as frequently. 

I've got quite a few mission log details from B-29 crews on Sallyann's B-29 Yahoo group and there is a pretty even mix between incendiary and general purpose bombing.

One crew log I'm looking at right now shows 22 missions spanning between May 7 and Aug 15 1945. Of these 8 were general purpose and 14 were incendiary.

Another crew however shows 14 missions between April 1 - June 10 1945. Of these 9 were general purpose and only 5 were incendiary.

And finally for the entire 9th Bomb Group between Feb 1 - Sept 2 1945, 75 missions. 28 were general purpose/high explosive missions, 28 were incendiary, 14 mining missions, 1 shipping search, 1 POW mission, 3 Display of Power missions. 

All of these were randomly scattered with no grand pattern of GP or incendiary either.

Most altitudes were between 8000 to 28000 feet with a few extremes on each end.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Feb 1, 2005)

So there was some traditional high-altitude bombing over Japan. And this did achieve a level of success (granted not that in the ETO).


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 2, 2005)

Yep sure did. Just about every mission list using GP or HE bombs was at fairly high altitude in daylight against a known specific target like aircraft factories, ship yards and steel works. 

Heres an excerpt from a couple of the precision bombing missions.

"7 April 45- Mitsubishi's Aircraft Engine Works, Nagoya was two thirds ruined today, bringing total destruction to 94%. Anti-aircraft fire was intense and accurate, enemy fighter defense vicious. We claimed our first fighter kill and probably destroyed one more and damaged five.

9 June 45 - The Aichi Atsuta Aircraft Plant in Nagoya was our main target one of the multiple attacks on various Empire targets. Dropping 184 Tons of high explosive bombs, the target was practically wiped out. 95% of the aircraft works and over 50% of the engine works were destroyed. We met slight fighter opposition while anti-aircraft fire was generally meager. "



Every incendiary mission just lists a town, like Osaka or at most a section of a town like Tokyo Urban area.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

Bombing Japan was more difficult than bombing Germany.

First off, the 8th AF was working out of England. That's a lot easier than working off some God forsaken island in the middle of nowhere.

Second, it was a much longer trip to reach Japan than Germany.

Third, it was much more difficult to navigate across the ocean than accross the land.

Forth, it turned out there was a very strong jet-stream around Japan at high altitude that did not exist in Europe, and its characteristics were unknown.

Fifth, there was very little human intelligence about Japanese targets. With Germany, spies were able to provide tremendous details about the German war machine, but with Japan, this all had to be surmised from pre-war data and recon photos. Post mission damage assesements were likewise much more difficult.

Because of these difficulties, plus the nature of the Japanese defensive capabilities (much weaker than those of the Germans), the decision to switch to night bombing was made relatively early in the bombing campaign. This decision was also encouraged by an analysis of Japanese building techiniques, which utilized wood to a far larger extent than European cities, making them extremely vulnerable to incendiary bombing. Because effective daylight bombing was not really a viable option until more B-29's were available, it made sense to switch to night bombing until that time. However, once the B-29 force was up to strength, significant daylight raids were conducted, especially once forward bases to launch fighter escorts from were established (such as Okinawa), and longer range escorts such as the P-47N were available.

As for the B-29 being based upon experiance with the B-17 and B-24, this is only partially true and not within the context suggested. The B-29 was suggested well before (the US involvement in) WWII, and was very quickly made a priority once the US was in the war with Japan because it was clear a longer range bomber was going to be needed. Also, the need to have something capable of dropping the A-bomb further motivated the B-29's development. It was also thought that Germany would hold out longer in Europe, and the larger payload and higher altitude capability of the B-29 might be needed there as well. The B-29 was certainly not a "response" to experiance with the B-17 and B-24, as almost no such experiance had been had with those planes when the commitment to the B-29 project was made.

The Lancaster was a great bomber, but the B-29 was even better.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 2, 2005)

Dang skippy!!!!! or as the kids today say Foshizzle!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > yes but you hit it with a very much smaller punch......
> ...



oh come on, the americans were carpet bombing just as much as us, you didn't really aim with the intention purely of destroying only a single target..........

that's a good point, you say the B-17 was more accurate than the lanc, it was two lancaster Sqns (9617) that became the most accurate heavy bomber squadrons of the war..........


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 2, 2005)

I dont see any mention of the B-17 at all in my post.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

sorry i was refering to the cencsus in the conversation in general.........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 2, 2005)

The destruction of a V-1 site:

Mossie did it with 39.8 t

B-17 did it with 165.4 t

B-25 did it with 182 t

B-26 did it with 219 t


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

nice stats...........


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's a good point, you say the B-17 was more accurate than the lanc, it was two lancaster Sqns (9617) that became the most accurate heavy bomber squadrons of the war..........



Ummm... British measurements of "accuracy" were different than USAAF measurements. Yes the Lanc's were more accurate at landing their bombs with the confines of a city than the USAAF bombers were of landing them within 1000 feet of the target structures.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> The destruction of a V-1 site:
> 
> Mossie did it with 39.8 t
> 
> ...



Been over that before. The mossie targets were very specific. The B-17 targets were much more general. Since the targets were not identical, the stats are meaningless.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 2, 2005)

Ah? A V-1 site is target specific.


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 3, 2005)

Yes, the B-29's development first started with an official letter, containing Request for Data R-40B and Specification XC-218, arriving on the desk of Phillip G. Johnson, President of the Boeing Corporation........

Yes, I know ALL about the B-29's development, Combat Deployment Preparation, the raids from China, the early raids from the Marianas, through to the Destruction of Japan with the Fire raids and Nukes.......
I see you've mentioned some very choice raids in 1945 running-up to the final dropping of the nukes......

I could mention for example, the first arrival in India, April/May 1944, of 148 B-29's, supplying of bases over the Himalayas [the ' Hump '], into China, where at the best deliver-rate of fuel that was assigned to the B-29's to deliver, ''was 2 gals of fuel to deliver one, at worst that rose to 12 for every one gallon delivered, that just the flight over, negotiating the weather, was counted as a ''combat mission'' with a camel painted on the side.......''

The early raids from China, with finally the first raid on Japan, on 14 June 1944, against the Imperial Iron Steel Works at Yawata, on Kyushu, of the 47 bombers that made it there [ they lost six to accidents and one to enemy fire], only one hit was recorded, and that was 3/4 of a mile from the Aiming point......that was the first B-29 raid on Japan...........

Now you can pick all the choice plums of the B-29's eventual successful raids, or you can thoroughly read it's WHOLE History of Development and Service in WWII, and arrive at a really self-honest appraisal of it's terribly lengthy and serious teething-troubled development, and the lengthy and costly development of it's Combat Career, to eventual successful VLR Bomber...... and THEN compare that to the Model 683 Avro Lancaster.......

The Lancaster was born of a compromise, and derived from a design of a medium bomber, and emerged as THE most successful Heavy Bomber to serve with any of the combatants in WWII......Of the 7,300 built by War's end, they flew more than 150,000 sorties between 1942-45, dropping over 600,000 tons of bombs, loosing 3,345 missing in action, and the only operational aircraft [as we all know,] to drop 22,000 lbs of bomb......

Although the Manchester development started in mid- late 1930's, the decision to start the Lancaster design was initiated on 15 Nov. 1940, it first flew 9th Jan 1941 and was first operational on 3rd March 1942.....

In my mind, the ''Best Bomber'' would have a good strong development and service career, be economical both in crew and fuel, and be able to show it's ability to defend itself and absord some punishment, as well as deliver it's ordinance successfully, over and above any ''choice'' successful missions it may have performed.......

While I agree the B-29 was the biggest bomber of the War, and had it's special features, and although it was NOT designed specifically to carry a Nuke, because in still ironing-out it's bugs in development, some were re-assigned for modification and they got the job.....

At the cessation of War in the ETO, Lancasters were underway to form 'Tiger Force'', to happily continue on after Germany and bomb Japan to rubble too...... 

If you were to post-up the B-29's FULL history, as I could on the Lancaster, the General Consensus, in all honesty, would show the B-29 wanting on many aspects.....all I'm asking for here is some latitude around our respective patriotism, and what service is, was, and both aircraft played important roles during the War....While the B-29 was of a more futuristic design, of high altitude, armaments and strategic delivery, the Lancaster gave exemplary service from start to finish, was developed under extreme pressure of War and was extremely well built in those circumstances, with a minimum of well-trained crews and delivered hard against an entrenched and formiable enemy who still had Air Superiority.....for awhile...and in ALL weathers.....


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Ah? A V-1 site is target specific.



The V1 sights that the Mossies hit were very specific targets with detailed photos. Those hit by the B-17's were more general area targets.

We just discussed this recently, if I have time I'll dig out that info again but it's already on this board somewhere.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

Gem,

Had the B-29 been given the mission of the Lancaster, it would have done equally well from the start. Also, the B-29 could do the night missions the Lanc could do, but the Lanc could not do the daylight missions the B-29 could do. Comparing success levels in highly different combat missions is apples and oranges. The ETO was a much easier theater of operations to work in than the PTO.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 3, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Yes, I know ALL about the B-29's development.....


I see.... 

I did not say the B-29 was perfect, I didn't say it was imperfect either. I was just pointing out that the ratio of incendiary v. GP/HE bombing was around 50/50. 

Your the one who said the B-29 was built (key word built) from data gleaned from B-17, B-24 experience in the ETO. I simply stated that the B-29 development was well underway before any of this experience could be gleaned. Shoot, by the time the B-29 flew they're wasn't much info at all to be gleaned from anyway! But like you said you already knew that.

BTW. What was the name of Jimmy Doolittles B-29 and whats its claim to fame?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > that's a good point, you say the B-17 was more accurate than the lanc, it was two lancaster Sqns (9617) that became the most accurate heavy bomber squadrons of the war..........
> ...



are you aware of the exploits of 9 and 617 Sqn?? if the B-17 was carrying a single bomb could it use it to sink a ship?? if 3 of them were carrying a single bomb could all 3 hit it in quick succession?? again if some B-17s were attacking a bridge, each with a single bomb, could the B-17s drop 2 bombs to land at almost the same time, both hitting either end of the bridge, blowing it completely into the air, THEN, whilst the bridge was in the air, put a third bomb straight down the middle?? could the B-17 fly at less than 100ft into one of germany's most heavily defended areas by night, and drop a single mine into a dam with a widow of error of half a second?? didn't think so...........

and i'm with Gem on this one, could the B-29 fly the kinds of missions the lanc was flying in 1943?? no, because it wasn't even around at the time........


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

You're saying the Lancaster could? From altitude? Bahhh!

Yes the B-29 was a later plane. How is that relevant to this thread?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2005)

> You're saying the Lancaster could? From altitude? Bahhh!



that's exactily what 617 and 9 Sqn did, apart from the dambusters bit but the B-17 didn't have a hope in hell of doing what the lancs did that night.........


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > You're saying the Lancaster could? From altitude? Bahhh!
> 
> 
> 
> that's exactily what 617 and 9 Sqn did, apart from the dambusters bit but the B-17 didn't have a hope in hell of doing what the lancs did that night.........



The bombsights on the Lancaster were in no way superior to those of the B-17. Asside from the ability to carry more bombs than the B-17, and to carry the huge bombs, it had no advantage for such a mission.

Besides, I was never comparing the B-17 to the Lanc. The B-17's only advantage over the Lanc was its toughness.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 3, 2005)

I'm not saying the Lancaster was a bad aircraft at all. Not in the least, but I am saying that the B-29 was superior in speed, ceiling, range and load carrying capability plus it had a co-pilot and pressurization. 

As far as bombsights I dont know. I only know a little about the British sights used. Most if I remember right required the bomb aimer (see I'm sensitive to British terms) to call out course corrections to the pilot to get things on target. Whereas the Norden when dialed in was flying the aircraft through the autopilot. 

I do seem to remember one of the British sights was capable of withstanding a fair amount of evasive action during the bomb run without disrupting its gyros. I do know you didn't want to do that with the Norden.


Lanc I really think the whole 617, 9 Squadron stuff was more about crew training than anything else. I really don't believe you could pull just any old crew out of any RAF or USAAF unit and expect them to do what those squadrons did. Although I do believe you could give a competently trained and albeit brave aircrew from any airforce that job and with the proper equipment pull it off. The Lancaster wasnt the only aircraft that ever could do it though.

Heres a quote I found on a website comparing bombsights.

"In 1943 the Norden M-series was delivered to the USAAF. It is estimated that this version was 6 to 8 times more precise than the Mk XIV bomb-sight used by the Royal Air Force. It is estimated that the RAF was capable of putting only 5% of its ordinance within a mile (1.61 km) of their aiming point under combat conditions. In contrast, the 8th Air Force was believed to be able to put 24% of their bombs to within 1,000 yds (914.4 m) of their targets. By 1944 this figure would rise to 40% to within 500 yds (457.2 m). The Norden bomb-sight enabled Allied bombers to fly above the flak and still hit their target with reasonable accuracy in clear weather. The daylight bombing strategy became a viable option to take the war to Germany and bring the war to a quick end."

Sorry bout that: http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/nord.htm


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

Can you give the url for the site from which you got the quote? In general, when quoting it is good form to give the source.

Thanks,

=S=

Lunatic

PS: I'd like to save the link


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 4, 2005)

For a start, the formation of RAF 617 Sqn., and also with the specialist 'pathfinder' RAF Sqn.'s, was selected from the cream of Bomber Command aircrew, on a volunteer basis.....

And although RAF BC had the Mk.XIV Bombsight, that was entirely adequate when used in conjunction with the various navigational bomb-aiming radar that the RAF developed and used....being an established fact that they were THE leading exponents of this....why, they even bent the German's 'Knicklebein' bombing-radar for them.....

In the ETO, it wasn't really fair, the 8th really only had the Norden.....the RAF BC had the primo equipment and tactics, suited to their designated night-time bombing technique, working hand in glove with Mosquito Pathfinder and Master-bombers, able to put hundreds of bombers over a pin-pointed factory or such in like 15-20 minutes....along with Mosquito Nightfighters floatin' around....
With ' Oboe, Gee, Gee-H, H2S etc., ' along with all the accessory ones like 'Monica, Perfectos and Serrate,' etc., they worked their style into a truly massive and cohesive bombing campaign....

And a great deal of that technology assisted the B-29 campaign in Japan..

The point I'm trying to make is as 'Best Bomber', the assumption that because the B-29 was futuristic, faster, of greater capacities etc. and BIGGEST bomber of the War, and dropping the nukes certainly embellished that, it's effective War-time service spanned from June 1944 to August 1945....period.
The Lancaster flew from March 1942 through to April 1945...it broke in all the night-flying tactics and associated equipment....it effectively proved to be the Most successful Heavy Bomber in the ETO.....

The B-17 B-24 if adopted for the night-bombing in the ETO would've been very successful using the RAF tactics and equipment, although not quite the same bomb-tare...and with at least 4 less guns.....

But their daylight missions in Europe DID greatly contribute to B-29 development....it being so plagued with problems, and taking so long to get sorted-out............


> '' In addition, as work on the B-29 prototypes progressed, the AAC insisted upon a phenomenal number of design changes, totalling nearly 900 between mid-1940 and late '42, in light of lessons emerging from the war in Europe''...
> ....which especially entailed the development of the Sperry/General Electric turrets and fire-control systems.....
> 
> When they finally sorted-out the Wright R-3350 engines, the props and all the aircraft's other problems, starting crew training in late '43, using returning B-24 crews from the ETO and N.Africa, that volunteered, they were practising in old B-17's for a spell, of a near 100 B-29's then made, only 16 were flyable.....
> ...


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 4, 2005)

Hey... it only took a year 

How bout we say the Lancaster was the best bomber of the war... in Europe... at night.


So are yall sorta curious as to what Jimmy's B-29 did?? I'll tell!!


----------



## Erich (Feb 5, 2005)

you are of course aware of the US 15 AF special missions group that did fly all black B-24's at night during 44-45 ? bombing, leaflets and dropping of agents and getting shot down by NJG 100's Ju 88G-6's......

E ▼


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 5, 2005)

Ive only read a little about them and saw a few pictures. I always thought the black B-24's looked really cool. I didnt know they did any real bombing though!! Do you have any more details on that??


----------



## Erich (Feb 5, 2005)

yes I'll be back with more goodies for everyone


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 5, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> For a start, the formation of RAF 617 Sqn., and also with the specialist 'pathfinder' RAF Sqn.'s, was selected from the cream of Bomber Command aircrew, on a volunteer basis.....
> 
> And although RAF BC had the Mk.XIV Bombsight, that was entirely adequate when used in conjunction with the various navigational bomb-aiming radar that the RAF developed and used....being an established fact that they were THE leading exponents of this....why, they even bent the German's 'Knicklebein' bombing-radar for them.....
> 
> ...



This is the RAF spin on the success of the radar bombing campaign. What it leaves out is that each radar bombing technique took over a year to develop, in most cases more than two years, and was typically defeated in less than 3 months by German counter-technology.

For a short time each technology (Oboe, Gee, etc...) was relatively effective, then its effectiveness was negated and the next technology had to be brought on line. The figures typically quoted for accuracy of British night bombing concern a few specific raids where the technology was working well and the Germans had not yet had time to counter it. There was a documentary on THC or DWINGS recently that went into the night bombing technology war between the British and the Germans in great detail.



Gemhorse said:


> And a great deal of that technology assisted the B-29 campaign in Japan..



"Some" is a more accurate description. Most of the British methods were not usable against Japan for a number of reasons, mostly having to do with the distance from friendly transmitter stations and the lack of any "underground" assistance. The whole "pathfinder" system depended on friendlies on the ground to point out where the targets really were so the Mossie's could mark them - that was not available against Japan!



Gemhorse said:


> The point I'm trying to make is as 'Best Bomber', the assumption that because the B-29 was futuristic, faster, of greater capacities etc. and BIGGEST bomber of the War, and dropping the nukes certainly embellished that, it's effective War-time service spanned from June 1944 to August 1945....period.
> The Lancaster flew from March 1942 through to April 1945...it broke in all the night-flying tactics and associated equipment....it effectively proved to be the Most successful Heavy Bomber in the ETO.....
> 
> The B-17 B-24 if adopted for the night-bombing in the ETO would've been very successful using the RAF tactics and equipment, although not quite the same bomb-tare...and with at least 4 less guns.....
> ...



How long the plane served is not the issue. "Best" means in a head to head comparison which was better for the same job? You are arguing for what bomber was the "most significant" of WWII, a different topic. I would agree that to be considered the plane in question should have been used in reasonable quantities during the war, but I think there is no question the B-29 meets this criteria.

Had the B-29 only been tasked with the job of the Lancaster, most of the problems you've pointed out in its development would have been avoided. It was designed to take on a much more difficult mission. The B-29 could do anything the Lancaster could do, but the Lancaster could not do everything the B-29 could do. In my view, that makes the B-29 "best".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 5, 2005)

OK I'll tell about Jimmy Doolittles B-29.

It was a B-29B assigned to him when the 8th AF transferred to Okinawa in July 1945. 

The aircraft was named The Challenger and in May 1946 it established a record by carrying a 24,200 pound internal load to 41,561 feet.

Later on May 15, General Frank Armstrong's B-29 named Fluffy Fuzz IV reached 47,910 feet (Major Ross as AC) with an internal load of 2,200 pounds.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Hey... it only took a year
> 
> How bout we say the Lancaster was the best bomber of the war... in Europe... at night.
> 
> ...



the lanc was comfortably the best in europe..............

and LG has made a good point, even me, a British Lancaster lover has admited that technicly the B-29 was the better bomber, but the Lancaster was far more significant...........

but what you're saying about the B-29 being able to do more than the Lanc, it's important to remember the lanc was out there in '42 doing it's thing, the B-29 didn't do anything until '44, and it's a completely different generation of bomber, the B-29 would have been useless in Europe purely because it came late, if it was around in '42 it would have been useless because of all the problems it had...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Yes lanc ill agree with that. The Lancaster was easily the most successful/significant bomber of the war, but that does not mean best (look at the Swordfish, for example). By 1945, when the Superfortress' problems were ironed out it was comfortably 'the best'.

If the B-29 was around in '42, then it would only really take until late '42/early '43 for its teething problems to be sorted. Then it could lay claim to the best bomber of the war, in all circumstances.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

well no if it was around in '42 it wouldn't have the engines or allot of technology it had in '44 as they weren't around and if they were there in their primative forms they'd have loads of problems................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Yes that is true, what im saying though is that if the B-29 was in the exact form it was in in '45 in '42/'43 it would have been the best, no contest.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

yes it would, but it wasn't, the two bombers were of a completely different generation, you have to take into considderation that it wasn't around in '42 and if it was it would have sucked........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Yes I know that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

good, know it's getting to the point we have to finish the argument and give a sort of statement for each one...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Yep, so how about this.

B-29: Technically the best bomber of the war, but too late to make a real impact.

Lancaster: The most successful and signifacant bomber of the war, Done the job it was supposed to do very well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

take the "by far" out of the B-29's.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Yeah I was toying around with putting that in, I thought id do it to annoy you 

Edited out now though...


----------



## evangilder (Feb 5, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> B-29: Technically the best bomber of the war, but too late to make a real impact.



Too late to make an impact, CC?? It carried more weight farther than anything else the Americans had. It was used for the firebombing of Tokyo and to drop the 2 nukes on Japan. It had a huge impact on the war in the Pacific. B-29s accounted for 24% of all bombs dropped by the allies on Japan!


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 5, 2005)

The B-29 was king of the PTO bombers, the Lanc was the king of the ETO bombers. I still prefer the Lanc to the B-29 though


----------



## evangilder (Feb 5, 2005)

I think that is probably the best way to put it. The Pacific and Europe were very different missions for heavy bombers. I would agree, B-29 for PTO and Lancaster for the ETO. But neither of those is my favorite bomber, which is the B-17.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

oh god not annother one.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Nothing wrong with B-17's...

My favourite bomber is the P.108...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

i am a cheese eating surrender monkey with cooties and a passion for romanian fighter-bombers............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

You just copied and pasted your other post


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

actually no i didn't, i retyped it, please4 note there's a comma in my second post.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Not for long there isnt  ~edits it out~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

you're not so good at the whole editing thing are you??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

I never bothered doing it 

Happy now?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

extremely, i happen to like cheese.............


----------



## Medvedya (Feb 5, 2005)

Do you? Does he know about this, or have you been meaning to tell him for a while?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

As do I...I also like romanian fighter bombers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

i've always thought they look a bit like corsairs from the side/an angle like that...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

You know, I agree with you for once! They do


----------

