# Best Allied Heavy Bomber



## carman1877 (Nov 1, 2009)

Which do you think is the best heavy bomber, and why? based on payload, defensive armament, etc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2009)

B-29 hands down. Bomb load, performance, defensive armament, internal systems, it was a half of generation ahead of any heavy bomber of WW2. Lancaster is a distant second.


----------



## paradoxguy (Nov 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> B-29 hands down. Bomb load, performance, defensive armament, internal systems, it was a half of generation ahead of any heavy bomber of WW2. Lancaster is a distant second.



I agree, the B-29 is simply a class ahead of the other three. Of the remaining three, I believe the B-17 represents the best combination of performance, payload, durability/ability to sustain damage, and defensive armament.

FlyboyJ--What characteristics of the Avro Lancaster have you ranking it second ahead of the two American bombers? I'm not questioning your choice in any way, I'm asking only from curiosity and a desire to learn more.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

There is no competition here. The B-29 is the best heavy bomber the war period. Other bombers such as the B-17, B-24 and Lanc may have contributed more over the course of the war, but the B-29 was the most advanced bomber built during the war. It could carry the most payload over the farthest distance, best performance and the best defensive systems.

Can't argue it.

If I had to rank them all it would be like this:

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24

Of course the only one that can not really be debated in my opinion is the B-29. Of course you are going to have people come in and say the Lancaster was better than the B-29. I ask them how? Was it a better design? No. Did it have better performance? No. Could it carry the kind of payloads the B-29 could? No. B-29 was hands down the best bomber designed during WW2.


----------



## davebender (Nov 1, 2009)

However it entered service so late in the war that it's hardly fair to compare it to the B-17 which entered service 6 years earlier. Rather like comparing a F4F with a F8F.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2009)

B-29 is w/o doubt the best heavy of war since june '44, but before? this is the question


----------



## davebender (Nov 1, 2009)

The summer of 1942 is the mid point for the European war. Why don't we use that as our time frame for comparison? That eliminates the B-29 as well as late war variants of other aircraft.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 1, 2009)

The B-29 started to enter service in late '43 as I recall.

There is no contest here. The B-29 is hands down the best allied bomber of the war


----------



## herman1rg (Nov 1, 2009)

The Lancaster was the best due to it's adaptability with various bomb loads right up to the 22,000 LB Grand Slam and of course the "bouncing bomb" used on Operation Upkeep.
It served from 1941-1945 in WW2 and then through till 1963 after.

IMHO the B-29 while it may have been more advanced in some areas only came into service into service on 8th May 1944 until cessation of hostilities afterwards it only until 1960. I also believe that the B-29 had a max bomb load of 20,000lbs which is lower than the Lancaster.

My top 4
1. Avro Lancaster
2. B-17 Flying Fortress
3. B-24 Liberator
4. B-29 Superfortress

These are purely my own personal opinions.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2009)

BY picking and chosing which month and year you can probably alter things enough to get one one plane to be the best at any particular time. at least among the 3 older planes.

This might be especially true of the Lancaster which had more variations in power plants than the B-17 and B-24.

Also as time went on the actual mission requirements changed. I am not sure if the Lancaster started out as a day bomber but it's use as a night bomber changed things compared to the American planes.

The increases in defensive armament on the American planes ment that while their "defensive rating" would go up their ability to carry a given weight of bombs over a certain distance goes down making them less effective bomb trucks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2009)

paradoxguy said:


> FlyboyJ--What characteristics of the Avro Lancaster have you ranking it second ahead of the two American bombers? I'm not questioning your choice in any way, I'm asking only from curiosity and a desire to learn more.



Its bomb carrying capability and range. The airframe had room to grow and take on all types of electronic equipment as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> The Lancaster was the best due to it's adaptability with various bomb loads right up to the 22,000 LB Grand Slam and of course the "bouncing bomb" used on Operation Upkeep.
> It served from 1941-1945 in WW2 and then through till 1963 after.
> 
> IMHO the B-29 while it may have been more advanced in some areas only came into service into service on 8th May 1944 until cessation of hostilities afterwards it only until 1960. I also believe that the B-29 had a max bomb load of 20,000lbs which is lower than the Lancaster..



Wrong on several counts. The B-29 actually saw combat service in April 44, entered regular service in 1943. The Lancaster entered combat service in 1942. The B-29 could also carry the grand slam as well as tall boys and was capable of a bomb load in excess of 20,000 pounds. The Lanc dropped the "bouncing bomb," the B-29 dropped the atominc bomb and continued to do so in the post war years. It served in Korea against MiGs and the last one was retired from the USAF in 1960. The B-29 was more advanced in MANY areas - defensive fire control system, better general configuration (it had tri-cycle landing gear as opposed to an out dated and more hazardous tail wheel) and the B-29 carried 2 pilots - better cockpit resource management as well as a built in safety factor. It could fly higher and faster than the Lanc and was pressurized.

BTW - the RAF used 70 B-29s because it didn't have a transcontinental nuclear strike capability during the post war years.

Again, the B-29 was at least a half a generation ahead of any WW2 heavy bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> The Lancaster was the best due to it's adaptability with various bomb loads right up to the 22,000 LB Grand Slam and of course the "bouncing bomb" used on Operation Upkeep.
> It served from 1941-1945 in WW2 and then through till 1963 after.
> 
> IMHO the B-29 while it may have been more advanced in some areas only came into service into service on 8th May 1944 until cessation of hostilities afterwards it only until 1960. I also believe that the B-29 had a max bomb load of 20,000lbs which is lower than the Lancaster.



The B-29 could carry that 20,000lb the same distance that the Lancaster could carry less of a bomb load. It also could carry that bomb load without being modified.

The 20,000lb was just the standard load out for the B-29. What was the standard load out for the Lancaster? If I recall it was only 14,000 lb. In order for the Lancaster to carry that 22,000lb bomb it had to be modified. The B-29s range with max bomb load was farther than that of the Lancaster with a minimal bomb load. 

The B-29 as a matter of fact was modified and used to test the 43,600lb T12 bomb. I believe a B-29 was even fitted with two Grand Slam bombs in testing. 

The B-29 could do more than any other bomber. 

Fact remains, the B-29 was the most advanced and capable of all the heavy bombers.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 1, 2009)

The B-29 was classed as a *very* heavy bomber by the USAAF.


----------



## Timppa (Nov 1, 2009)

In RAF service, even the *successor* of the Lancaster, the Avro Lincoln was replaced by.. the B-29.

The B-29 was a generation ahead of its competitors. AFAIK it is the only plane that was copied bolt by bolt (by the Russians). The popular story goes that even even the bullet holes were copied as "design features" (although Ii don't believe the Russians were that stupid).


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2009)

The first bombing mission of B-29 was in 5th June '44, in april only transfer flying on advanced base in china

For pre B-29 bombers, Stirling it's the first allied four engined bomber that attacked target since the surrender of France (it used her Farman in '40 campaign)

p.s. i'm agree with our US friend that the Fortess are virtually a best bomber


----------



## herman1rg (Nov 1, 2009)

Of course the USA's involvement in WW2 lasted form Dec 1941 till Aug 1945 whereas for the UK and it's Allies WW2 lasted from Sep 1939 till Aug 1945. Almost two years longer.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> Of course the USA's involvement in WW2 lasted form Dec 1941 till Aug 1945 whereas for the UK and it's Allies WW2 lasted from Sep 1939 till Aug 1945. Almost two years longer.



The RAF's contribution to the strategic airwar ended in April 1945. The AAF kept bombing for another 4 months.

And theres one thing the B29 could do that the Lanc couldnt. Carry an atomic bomb to a target 1600 miles away.


----------



## herman1rg (Nov 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The RAF's contribution to the strategic airwar ended in April 1945. The AAF kept bombing for another 4 months.
> 
> And theres one thing the B29 could do that the Lanc couldnt. Carry an atomic bomb to a target 1600 miles away.



I'm quite sure the RAF was still active in the Far East until VJ day and if a Lancaster had needed to carry an A-bomb I am quite sure that could have easily been achieved.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2009)

The Lancaster might not have been able to carry it as far or as fast or as high (only the last presents a real problem.)

The Lancaster might have been able to carry a 10,000lb Atomic bomb about 800 miles from base a bit slower than the B-29. the problem comes in escaping the blast. The B-29s dropped from over 30,000ft and dived away to increese the distance from bomb blast as the bomb fell. 

Perhaps a braking chute on the bomb to allow the Lancaster to get away


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> I'm quite sure the RAF was still active in the Far East until VJ day and if a Lancaster had needed to carry an A-bomb I am quite sure that could have easily been achieved.



The RAF never bombed Japan. That is a fact. The RAF was concerned with Burma and nothing else.

Could the Lanc carry an atomic bomb? Yes. Could it carry it 1000 miles? No. Could it carry it at 30,000 feet (needed to escape the blast?) Nope.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> Of course the USA's involvement in WW2 lasted form Dec 1941 till Aug 1945 whereas for the UK and it's Allies WW2 lasted from Sep 1939 till Aug 1945. Almost two years longer.



I don't see where that is relevant - both served in Ww2 and both contributed greatly HOWEVER look at the missions both had to perform. The B-29 carried the same bomb loads over vast oceans at altitudes the Lancaster couldn't touch.


----------



## carman1877 (Nov 1, 2009)

i voted for the Lancaster becuase i thought that it was a good bomber and had an impact on the war. The B-29 would probaly be the best, but if you were also adding in affect on the war, and service length like in the top ten shows than probaly the lancaster would win.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The RAF never bombed Japan. That is a fact. The RAF was concerned with Burma and nothing else.
> 
> Could the Lanc carry an atomic bomb? Yes. Could it carry it 1000 miles? No. Could it carry it at 30,000 feet (needed to escape the blast?) Nope.



I think historic operations are being confused with historic capability. The British were planning on bombing Japan, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force_(air)

In support of this the British had developed in-flight refueling with equipment already manufactured and several planes already converted to tankers when the war ended. 

If the Atomic bomb had been delayed 4-6 months The British might have very well been bombing Japan. 

That leaves only the altitude problem for the Lancaster which might or might not be solved by using drag chute on the bomb. 

THIs does not mean that the Lancaster was as good as the B-29 and even the British knew this in 1943 which is one reason for the Avro Lincoln (Lancaster MK IV) although this aircraft also is not in the same class as a B-29.

Aircraft should be judged on their actual capability and not by chances of timing, ie, war ending before planned operation could be carried out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> Of course the USA's involvement in WW2 lasted form Dec 1941 till Aug 1945 whereas for the UK and it's Allies WW2 lasted from Sep 1939 till Aug 1945. Almost two years longer.



What does that have to do with what makes the best bomber the best?

Seriously?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> i voted for the Lancaster becuase i thought that it was a good bomber and had an impact on the war. The B-29 would probaly be the best, but if you were also adding in affect on the war, and service length like in the top ten shows than probaly the lancaster would win.


The B-29 ended the war probably 3 years earlier excluding the atomic bombings. The mission was more treacherous because of the over water route and between the B-29s raids and the allied navies starving Japan, Japan was just about at her knees in August 1945. The -29 got the job done quicker than any conventional bomber of the day could have done, to me that makes up for the "impact" of the war, and again I won't even bring up the atomic bombing. 

Service life? The Lancaster fought in one theater in one war - the B-29 fought against Jet aircraft and was the first dedicated nuclear bomber leading the Strategic Air Command into the 1950s. It had at least twice the service life as a front line bomber aircraft than the Lancaster did. Again RAF Bomber Command had to "borrow" B-29s because the Lincoln couldn't do the job in the post war years. Again a half of generation ahead of any of its contemporaries.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> i voted for the Lancaster becuase i thought that it was a good bomber and had an impact on the war. The B-29 would probaly be the best, but if you were also adding in affect on the war, and service length like in the top ten shows than probaly the lancaster would win.



Doesnt dropping two atomic weapons count as having an impact on the war? Did the Lancaster force Germany to surrender?

Dont you think the B29's record of burning out the core of Japanese urban area's count as having an impact on the war?

Dont you think the B29's role in mining the Japanese inland seaways and shutting down the coastal traffic count as having an impac ton the war?


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 1, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> i voted for the Lancaster becuase i thought that it was a good bomber and had an impact on the war. The B-29 would probaly be the best, but if you were also adding in affect on the war, and service length like in the top ten shows than probaly the lancaster would win.


So did the B-17
as for service length,

Avro Lancaster first operational sortie - March 1942
B-17 Flying Fortress first operational sortie - August 1942

in the ETO. We can argue the toss over a couple of months if you want. As for 'top ten shows' well, the Lanc didn't show up for Ploesti, nor any of the daylight Schweinfurt raids that I recall.

In practical terms, the B-17 and the Lancaster were decisive bomber aircraft. It seems a little unfair to leave the B-24 out of the medals but it did seem to have a nasty habit of folding up when hit.

In technical terms, the B-29 was a country mile ahead of the previous generation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> i voted for the Lancaster becuase i thought that it was a good bomber and had an impact on the war. The B-29 would probaly be the best, but if you were also adding in affect on the war, and service length like in the top ten shows than probaly the lancaster would win.



Who cares about effect on the war. The question is best bomber. Not what bomber effected the war the most.

If you want to go that rout anyhow, the bomber that effected the war the most would not the Lancaster anyhow. It would be the B-17.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

Lets all be honest here. Lets determine these things.

1. What heavy bomber was the most technologically advanced?

2. What heavy bomber had the best conditions for its crew?

3. What heavy bomber had the best defensive armament?

4. What heavy bomber had the best bomb load?

5. What heavy bomber had the best performance?

6. What heavy bomber had the best overall design?

7. What heavy bomber was overall the most capable?

If you honestly answer these questions, you should be able to figure out what the best heavy bomber was.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 1, 2009)

A bit off topic but I have a question. Did they only send three B-29s to Hiroshima because the blast would have been too dangerous for a bigger group? Or was it to lure the Japs into believing it was a recon mission?

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2009)

Civettone said:


> A bit off topic but I have a question. Did they only send three B-29s to Hiroshima because the blast would have been too dangerous for a bigger group? Or was it to lure the Japs into believing it was a recon mission?
> 
> Kris



The other two aircraft carried photography and electronic equipment that photoed and measured the blast.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 1, 2009)

I don't think the B-29 can be in the same list as the other three, it was a much later design and cannot really be compared. Lincoln would be a better candidate. 

I went for the B-24 as the basic version was there at the beginning of the war and stayed in production relatively unchanged till the end. B-24 was also a bit more versatile than the B-17.
Lancaster is not an option as it was too vulnerable to fly at daytime because of a weak defensive armament. And even then I would prefer the Halifax as it too was available sooner and was more versatile.



Timppa said:


> The B-29 was a generation ahead of its competitors. AFAIK it is the only plane that was copied bolt by bolt (by the Russians). The popular story goes that even even the bullet holes were copied as "design features" (although Ii don't believe the Russians were that stupid).


It was not copied bolt for bolt. Its design was copied and the protype was probably very much the same. But the production version used Russian parts. Engines to start with.

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Nov 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The other two aircraft carried photography and electronic equipment that photoed and measured the blast.


Yeah I know. But wasn't it dangerous to send just three B-29s to Japan? Why not a part of a bigger bomber group?


Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I don't think the B-29 can be in the same list as the other three, it was a much later design and cannot really be compared. Lincoln would be a better candidate.



Why is that? The question is what was the best heavy bomber? That is clearly the B-29.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 1, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Yeah I know. But wasn't it dangerous to send just three B-29s to Japan? Why not a part of a bigger bomber group?


What I do know is that neither Enola Gay nor Bock's Car (Nagasaki)
triggered an air raid warning, as the Japanese did not regard single aircraft/small formations to pose a great enough threat, although I'm not sure what advantage there is to be gained from catching the Japanese out in the open when the payload of choice is a nuke. A bomber group would have triggered an air raid warning, a swarm of interceptors and a statistical chance at least of Enola Gay being shot down before delivering the goods.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 1, 2009)

little notes

Stirling I first mission february '41
Halifax I first mission march '41
Fortress I first mission july '41
Pe-8 first mission august '41
Lancaster I first mission march '42
B-24D first mission june '42

adding 
Liberator II first mission january '42

i'm looking for Liberator I first mission i think in late '41


----------



## Marcel (Nov 1, 2009)

every bomber discussion goes like this. It's the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this on this forum....
It's a silly question really No doubt the B29 was the best heavy. It's not an interesting discussion at all. 
The most interesting part is the one that was next. 
The Lanc? Very capable bomber (second best I would say) and very good a/c but as noted too vulnerable with light defence armament and no belly-turret. It also had the nasty habit of keeping crew inside while crashing. 
The B17 was better protected by it's guns but then again, it was not as good in bombing (bomb-load that is) as the Lanc. And was this heavy armament very effective? After all itstill needed it's little Mustang friends to keep itself safe. Before that there were tremendous losses.

I could go on about all those heavies. All had their good and bad things and I cannot say which one was best. Except that it surely wasn't the Stirling as it had more bad points then the rest of the lot.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2009)

Marcell is right. The poll should be what was the 2nd best heavy bomber.

In that case, I would vote for the Lanc. It alone could carry the large bombs needed t destroy industrial targets, and actually had a better accuracy rate than the AAF.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 1, 2009)

Marcel said:


> every bomber discussion goes like this. It's the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this on this forum....
> It's a silly question really No doubt the B29 was the best heavy. It's not an interesting discussion at all.
> The most interesting part is the one that was next.



Gotta agree Marcel. There are certain facts that are absolute (B-29 best heavy bomber, C-47 most important aircraft, etc).

TO


----------



## Civettone (Nov 1, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why is that? The question is what was the best heavy bomber? That is clearly the B-29.


Sure sure, I also think it has to be the B-29.

But my point is that with these "best ... of WW2" one is automatically stuck with "the best of 1945" as equipment always improved and the stuff from 1945 is better than that of 1940. 
It becomes a very shallow discussion if one only looks at it that way. The best stuff will be the Me 262, the B-29, Panther G, StG 44, ... all from the end of the war. 
But what does this say about the war as a whole? WW2 as a six-year conflict? What about all the pre-1944 stuff? 

So it depends on how one interprets the question. 

Just compare it to athletes. Who is the best athlete ever? Anyone who holds the current world record? 
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

Marcel is 100% correct.

This is the 3rd or 4th thread about the best heavy bomber. Fact is fact and fact remains that the B-29 was the best heavy bomber built during WW2. Arguing it is futile.

A much better question is what was the 2nd best. That can at least be debated and discussed. I too go with the Lancaster as the 2nd best bomber.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 1, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> little notes
> 
> Stirling I first mission february '41
> Halifax I first mission march '41
> ...


Not as much time between some as I thought. Thanks Vincenzo !

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Sure sure, I also think it has to be the B-29.
> 
> But my point is that with these "best ... of WW2" one is automatically stuck with "the best of 1945" as equipment always improved and the stuff from 1945 is better than that of 1940.
> It becomes a very shallow discussion if one only looks at it that way. The best stuff will be the Me 262, the B-29, Panther G, StG 44, ... all from the end of the war.
> ...



I see what you mean. I think if you really want to discuss the heavies and what is best, you either have to do one of three things.

1. Discuss what is the 2nd best overall in the war. That will make for a fun debate.

2. Break it down by time period of the war. You can say best bomber pre-1941. Best bomber 1942 to 1944, etc...

3. Just discuss certain bombers, i.e. Lanc vs. B-17, etc.

If you are going to talk about the bombers in general, there really is no debate.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 1, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> What I do know is that neither Enola Gay nor Bock's Car (Nagasaki)
> triggered an air raid warning, as the Japanese did not regard single aircraft/small formations to pose a great enough threat, although I'm not sure what advantage there is to be gained from catching the Japanese out in the open when the payload of choice is a nuke. A bomber group would have triggered an air raid warning, a swarm of interceptors and a statistical chance at least of Enola Gay being shot down before delivering the goods.


So I suppose the Americans were already counting on them being left alone. The Japs were conserving fuel and would only oppose American aircraft when really necessary. I even recall reading that in the last weeks they didnt even bother intercepting bombers at all. Saving everything for the invasion.

But I still wonder if it is possible to drop a nuke when part of a larger fleet. I suppose that is my real question!

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

Civettone said:


> But I still wonder if it is possible to drop a nuke when part of a larger fleet. I suppose that is my real question!
> 
> Kris



I don't think you would want to. A large bomber fleet would be more difficult to get away from the blast area.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 1, 2009)

1st - B-29

2nd - Consolidated B-32 Dominator - though it only flew 2 combat missions. 10 x .50 cals, 20k lb bombload, ceiling of 35k feet, 365 mph and a max range of 3,800 miles.

3rd - IMO the Halifax was more versitile then the Lancaster.


----------



## Waynos (Nov 1, 2009)

You might also ask which has the greated design longevity?

Although at first you would say the 1939 Manchester to the Shackleton retired in 1991 (via the Lanc and Linc) is pretty good going, but if you look closely, there is still a trace of the B-29, albeit a faint one, in the fuselage architecture, in the Tu-95 still operated today.

This lineage is more clearly seen by looking at the Tu-80 and then Tu-85 evolution from the Tu-4 starting point, the Tu-95 was essentially a turboprop powered Tu-85 with swept wings 

Also, there was never a hit single about a Lancaster!  (I refer to OMD's 1981 hit single "Enola Gay")


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2009)

To kind of get this into a more realistic discussion (I mean one that might be more interesting than discussing why the B-29 is the best overall) about the other heavy bombers before the B-29. The ones that were already in service from the start of the war up to the B-29.

Here is the thread:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/rank-allied-heavy-bombers-1939-1944-a-21485.html


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 1, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Fortress I first mission july '41


It's probably more accurate to compare full-swing Lancaster operations with full-swing B-17 operations. The RAF took on what? Around 30 Fortress Is? ...operated them at too high an altitude to bomb accurately, too low an altitude to evade the Luftwaffe (even the Bf109E could reach it), missed just about everything they bombed, lost 8 aircraft and withdrew them 2 months later.

By full-swing B-17 operations I mean the daylight bombing campaign initiated by the 8th AF vis a vis the full-swing night bombing operations conducted by the RAF. These were commenced within 4 or 5 months of each other in 1942.

I would hardly call the B-17 decisive or best as a result of its RAF operations.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 1, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why is that? The question is what was the best heavy bomber? That is clearly the B-29.


The B-29 shouldn't considered since it was *very* heavy bomber.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 1, 2009)

Very true that the B-29 is the best overall bomber of the war of that there is surely no question. As has already been said this has been discussed many times before. As for the 2nd best that is an interesting discussion which has also been done in bits and pieces before. I would say it is between the B-32, B-17, and Lancaster, of the three I lean towards the Lancaster but they are all good aircraft in their own way.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 2, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To kind of get this into a more realistic discussion (I mean one that might be more interesting than discussing why the B-29 is the best overall) about the other heavy bombers before the B-29. The ones that were already in service from the start of the war up to the B-29.
> 
> Here is the thread:
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/rank-allied-heavy-bombers-1939-1944-a-21485.html


Nice !


So about the nuclear blast, I was discussing this last year with somebody. You would basically need a lone bomber or a very small formation if you were planning to drop an atomic bomb, right? So that means you would need to have air superiority before you could launch the mission. That is an interesting thought for what-if scenarios, more specifically the one I had with him: allied A-bombs over Germany if the war had dragged on (for instance because the Luftwaffe would regain air control.)


Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 2, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> It's probably more accurate to compare full-swing Lancaster operations with full-swing B-17 operations. The RAF took on what? Around 30 Fortress Is? ...operated them at too high an altitude to bomb accurately, too low an altitude to evade the Luftwaffe (even the Bf109E could reach it), missed just about everything they bombed, lost 8 aircraft and withdrew them 2 months later.
> 
> By full-swing B-17 operations I mean the daylight bombing campaign initiated by the 8th AF vis a vis the full-swing night bombing operations conducted by the RAF. These were commenced within 4 or 5 months of each other in 1942.
> 
> I would hardly call the B-17 decisive or best as a result of its RAF operations.



it's true the RAF have only 20 Fortress I ,afaik they haven't loss in the first mission (but was not a successfull mission many don't find the target). all bomber first mission it's not related at large number of planes Halifax first mission were 6 planes, Lancaster first mission 4 planes.

i add the Liberator II first mission on list, and i'm looking on Liberator I first mission


----------



## Sparbolt (Nov 2, 2009)

I would have to agree that the B-29 was the best allied bomber,once all those engine fires were cured. Wonder what would have happened if all those teething problems of the R-3350 had been cured earlier........... food for thought.
Taking into accout the ETO, if you discounted the B-29's performance in the PTO, I would have to lean toward the B-17, (please all B-24 supporters, don't freak).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2009)

Milosh said:


> The B-29 shouldn't considered since it was *very* heavy bomber.



In World War 2, a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber.

Come on now...



Civettone said:


> Nice !
> 
> 
> So about the nuclear blast, I was discussing this last year with somebody. You would basically need a lone bomber or a very small formation if you were planning to drop an atomic bomb, right? So that means you would need to have air superiority before you could launch the mission. That is an interesting thought for what-if scenarios, more specifically the one I had with him: allied A-bombs over Germany if the war had dragged on (for instance because the Luftwaffe would regain air control.)
> ...



That is a very interesting thought. If the war had carried on more than few more months, that would mean that Germany would have had to regain control of the skies. In that case, I think a bombing might have been to risky.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 2, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In World War 2, a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber.



i'm agree that for our comparation B-29 it' simply a heavy bomber, but milosh it's right was classified very heavy bomber from USAAF


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 2, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In World War 2, a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber.
> 
> Come on now...



Technically he is right, in that the B24 and B17 were designated as "heavy bombers", while the B29 did have the desgnation "very heavy bomber".

Its a moot point though, since 999/1000 aviation enthusiasts would disallow the designation in a debate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2009)

When the B-36 came along the B-29 was actually designated as a medium bomber!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Technically he is right, in that the B24 and B17 were designated as "heavy bombers", while the B29 did have the desgnation "very heavy bomber".
> 
> Its a moot point though, since 999/1000 aviation enthusiasts would disallow the designation in a debate.



I agree, that technically he is correct. For all intensive purposes however it was a heavy bomber.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 2, 2009)

Regardless of how the B-29 was classified
it should not be penalised simply because that was where the technology had gotten to when it arrived. It served in WWII and with distinction. It could walk away with the title to the thread simply by its bringing of Japan to her knees with two specific raids, both raids added together comprising a mere handful of aircraft; compare this to the thousand bomber raids that swept over Germany and still did not (single-handedly) bring about German surrender.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 2, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> It could walk away with the title to the thread simply by its bringing of Japan to her knees with two specific raids, both raids added together comprising a mere handful of aircraft; compare this to the thousand bomber raids that swept over Germany and still did not (single-handedly) bring about German surrender.



I would give the credit to the bomb, but well.... 
For the rest I agree of course that the B29 was the most advanced and capable bomber of the war


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 2, 2009)

Marcel said:


> I would give the credit to the bomb, but well....
> For the rest I agree of course that the B-29 was the most advanced and capable bomber of the war


Other than a B-29
how else would the bomb have reached the target?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Regardless of how the B-29 was classified
> it should not be penalised simply because that was where the technology had gotten to when it arrived. It served in WWII and with distinction. It could walk away with the title to the thread simply by its bringing of Japan to her knees with two specific raids, both raids added together comprising a mere handful of aircraft; compare this to the thousand bomber raids that swept over Germany and still did not (single-handedly) bring about German surrender.



Ditto...


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Other than a B-29
> how else would the bomb have reached the target?



Lancasters with arial refueling

B-32.

Modified Lockeed Constellation.

How long would they have had to plan something else if they knew the B-29 wasn't working?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2009)

The Connie actually started out as a bomber design.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Connie actually started out as a bomber design.




Now that I didnt know. Funny, I was daydreaming just the other day about how effective the Constellation might be as a lat war bomber.......silly I know....., but


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Now that I didnt know. Funny, I was daydreaming just the other day about how effective the Constellation might be as a lat war bomber.......silly I know....., but


Lockheed XB-30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Civettone (Nov 3, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Lancasters with arial refueling
> 
> B-32.
> 
> ...


They could also have the bomber ditch into the ocean on the way back, picked up by subs or Catalina's...


Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lockheed XB-30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Interesting. Small bomb load though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lockheed XB-30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thank you for the link.

A problem the US had with ALL the alturnatives to the B-29 was that they all used the same engine, the Wright R-3350. Since the R-3350 caused a good amount of the problems with the B-29, until it was straightened out none of the alturnatives would have done any better.

The only other powerplant in contention was the Allison V-3420.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 3, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Other than a B-29
> how else would the bomb have reached the target?



Eh...good point...


----------



## riacrato (Nov 3, 2009)

The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2009)

riacrato said:


> The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.



The B29 ended the war.

No matter what the Russians like to say, there was no amphibious capability or doctrine (and training) for them to invade Japan with some measure of success.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 3, 2009)

riacrato said:


> The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.


Sorry
but how do you reconcile failed negotiations for a conditional peace with the ability of your enemies to reduce your cities to ash, in the blink of an eye, from one aircraft as comparable contributors to Japan's surrender? 

Japan wasn't about to surrender, they were about to inflict colossal casualties on incoming US forces as they tried to take mainland Japan - does that sound like a nation on the brink of collapse owing to flaky conditional peace talks? The most that senior Japanese commanders hoped to get from talks with the Soviets was to buy some time until that ground offensive started, they saw the considerable casualties they could inflict on US forces as the real leverage for conditional peace talks.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, next on the list was Kokura Arsenal and then Niigata - Groves was even preparing more targets for the eventuality that they didn't work; Japan surrendered before there was no Japan left to surrender.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

riacrato said:


> The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.



The Soviets were weeks if not months away from doing any serious damage to the japanese mainland. I'd agree japanese leaders had something to worry about, but it was the bomb that brought the Japanese Empire down.

BTW - I don't feel badly about the deployment of BOTH atomic bombs.

Now please stay on topic.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 3, 2009)

I read it was the destruction of the last oil reserves which made the military realize that defeat was inevitable. But then the B-29 still did it ...
http://www.tony-kirk.com/WWIIsecret/main.html


I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??


Kris

edit: if the link doesn't work: http://www.worldwar-two.net/acontecimentos/40/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I read it was the destruction of the last oil reserves which made the military realize that defeat was inevitable. But then the B-29 still did it ...
> 
> I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??
> 
> ...



Because they were made to think that each of their major cities were going to suffer the same fate.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I read it was the destruction of the last oil reserves which made the military realize that defeat was inevitable. But then the B-29 still did it ...
> 
> I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??
> 
> ...



There was only three days between the first and second. 

They surrendered after the 2nd, once the political leaders realized just what was going to happen.


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 3, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??


Hirohito was desperate to end the war
his Army and Navy ministers were just as determined to hold the line. After Hiroshima, they and their senior staff still wanted to play the waiting game on the Soviets. After Nagasaki (and the near-simultaneous declaration of war by the Soviet Union), the same senior figures were split down the middle over the surrender issue; at this point Hirohito stepped in and tipped the vote in favour of surrender.

The bomb was THE turning point, the guy at the top in Tokyo saw that too


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2009)

riacrato said:


> The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.



It was the final nail in the coffin which brought Japan to realize it was better to end the war with out more blood spilled.

I for one do not feel bad about it. I think most people don't either. Hell I agree with the bombings.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 3, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> There was only three days between the first and second.
> 
> They surrendered after the 2nd, once the political leaders realized just what was going to happen.


That I doubt. I think things were very clear from day 1. And why wait still after the second A-bomb???
The fact is that the military leaders turned a blind eye when their cities were being bombed into rubble. The firestorms were almost as destructive as the A-bombs. Sure, you needed an entire fleet for the conventional bombings but for the Japs it was the same anyhow. No, it seems clear to me that the bombing of cities could not have been decisive. Still important but more from a military point of view. Let's also look what would have happened if Germany under Hitler had been hit by A-bombs. Does anyone think Hitler would have folded? No, and most of the military leaders in Japan were just as insane as him. Appaling losses through suicide missions for months didn't seem to bother them. They were all ready to fight the Americans on Japanese soil till the last man.

Only when it became clear that they could not have won militarily, did things start to change. We must be aware not to look at this from a western point of view. For us the A-bomb was the pinnacle of the war. But the real nemesis of Japan was Russia, ever since 1904. When they saw they were going to lose all their territories in Manchuria and after that probably China, they realized the war could never have been fought to a standstill. The cabinet met to discuss capitulation hours after they heard of the Russian invasion. And not on the days the A-bombs fell. That seems to have been what triggered them. 

That brought many of them to a different opinion. The emperor who had always been weak could finally have his say because there was a power vacuum. 

So it was the Russian invasion or more in general the realisation that they could only lose militarily which was the turning point. Not the destruction of any city.

One more time because I want to stress this ... we should stop looking at this from a western point of view. That's like saying D-Day was the turning point in the ETO.
Kris


----------



## carman1877 (Nov 3, 2009)

Not sure if everybody knows this or not, but the B-17 could carry up to 17,600lbs. on short runs. It used special external bomb racks to carry the bombs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

Civettone said:


> and most of the military leaders in Japan were just as insane as him. Appaling losses through suicide missions for months didn't seem to bother them. They were all ready to fight the Americans on Japanese soil till the last man.


But it was the Emperor who called for the surrender and because he was a "living god" the Japanese Military machine was forced to comply, although there were a few who did attempt a coup.

This is text from a site I found, spells it out pretty good...

*On July 26, word arrived at Potsdam that Winston Churchill had been defeated in his bid for reelection. Within hours, Truman, Stalin, and Clement Attlee (the new British prime minister, below) issued their warning to Japan: surrender or suffer "prompt and utter destruction." * As had been the case with Stalin, no specific mention of the atomic bomb was made. This "Potsdam Declaration" left the emperor's status unclear by making no reference to the royal house in the section that promised the Japanese that they could design their new government as long as it was peaceful and more democratic. Anti-war sentiment was growing among Japanese civilian leaders, but no peace could be made without the consent of the military leaders. They still retained hope for a negotiated peace where they would be able to keep at least some of their conquests or at least avoid American occupation of the homeland. *On July 29, 1945, the Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration. *


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> Not sure if everybody knows this or not, but the B-17 could carry up to 17,600lbs. on short runs. It used special external bomb racks to carry the bombs.


That's been discussed here before - it also has about a 300 mile range with the bomb load from what I understand.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2009)

Civettone, Hiroshima was the first ever atomic bomb (forget the trinity test shot). Only a handfull of people knew what an atomic detonation looked like and for the blast information to take a couple of days to filter upwards is understandable.

And answer me this. How was Russia going to invade Japan if they didnt have anyway to do it? The IJA/IJN were not a bunch of dummies and knew exactly who had the capability to invade and who didnt.


----------



## carman1877 (Nov 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 ended the war probably 3 years earlier excluding the atomic bombings. The mission was more treacherous because of the over water route and between the B-29s raids and the allied navies starving Japan, Japan was just about at her knees in August 1945. The -29 got the job done quicker than any conventional bomber of the day could have done, to me that makes up for the "impact" of the war, and again I won't even bring up the atomic bombing.
> 
> Service life? The Lancaster fought in one theater in one war - the B-29 fought against Jet aircraft and was the first dedicated nuclear bomber leading the Strategic Air Command into the 1950s. It had at least twice the service life as a front line bomber aircraft than the Lancaster did. Again RAF Bomber Command had to "borrow" B-29s because the Lincoln couldn't do the job in the post war years. Again a half of generation ahead of any of its contemporaries.



I should have said this in the poll, but I meant only in World War Two. the B-29 did infact have an impact on the Pacific Conflict, but I dont think that many if any B-29s served in the Atlantic conflict, although i dont know much about where the B-29s were stationed. However I belive that I heard the lancaster dropped the most bombs out all allied bombers in the Atlantic theatre. Again though not 100% sure. The British were going to send lancasters over to fight japan after germany surrendered. Also like i said before the lancaster had its flaws too, like blind spots.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 3, 2009)

Flyboyj, there does seem to be a dubious relationship towards the emperor. On the one hand they regarded him as a god and the reason for their own petty little existence. And on the other hand they tried to keep him out of politics as much as possible and run Japan on their own. It is clear that the military was behind the war and the emperor had very little if anything to say about how it was being run.
So that shows that the leaders were hiding themselves behind the status of the emperor, knowing that they themselves or the institutes for which they stood would be preserved if the emperor would remain the nominal head of the "Empire".




syscom3 said:


> Civettone, Hiroshima was the first ever atomic bomb (forget the trinity test shot). Only a handfull of people knew what an atomic detonation looked like and for the blast information to take a couple of days to filter upwards is understandable.
> 
> And answer me this. How was Russia going to invade Japan if they didnt have anyway to do it? The IJA/IJN were not a bunch of dummies and knew exactly who had the capability to invade and who didnt.


Syscom, yes, the atomic bomb was something completely new but after a few hours the size of the destruction was well known to the Japanese leaders. They knew a single bomb had been dropped and that the entire city was gone... You don't need to be a scientist to put one and one together.

As to Russia. I never said Russia was going to invade Japan. I said Japan was going to lose Manchuria and later China to Russia thereby ending the Empire. Only Japan would have been left. Japan still had a million and a half soldiers over there. Japan hoped to keep these parts after the armistice. Realizing that their biggest nemesis, the Soviet Union had now turned on them and had attacked them was a bigger shock than the dropping of the A-bombs. You have to look at the history of Japan and its geopolitical position. Traditionally the Japanese feared the Russians more than the Americans (though of course the latter was much more powerful by 1945).

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> I should have said this in the poll, but I meant only in World War Two. the B-29 did infact have an impact on the Pacific Conflict, but I dont think that many if any B-29s served in the Atlantic conflict, although i dont know much about where the B-29s were stationed. However I belive that I heard the lancaster dropped the most bombs out all allied bombers in the Atlantic theatre. Again though not 100% sure. The British were going to send lancasters over to fight japan after germany surrendered. Also like i said before the lancaster had its flaws too, like blind spots.



The B-29 was never intended to serve in the ETO. Had the war in Europe lasted longer the Convair B-32 was supposed to replace the B-17 and B-24, but the ending of the war plus the plane's delay in production sealed that plan.

Lancasters did drop the most bombs in the ETO - they had the most opportunity to do so, it doesn't mean it was a better aircraft. As pointed out the B-29 was a far more capable aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lancasters did drop the most bombs in the ETO - they had the most opportunity to do so, it doesn't mean it was a better aircraft. As pointed out the B-29 was a far more capable aircraft.



According to some sources the B-17 dropped more bombs in Europe than the Lancaster, by about 5%.

Of course the B-17s might have numbered just few thousand more plane in the ETO.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 was never intended to serve in the ETO. Had the war in Europe lasted longer the Convair B-32 was supposed to replace the B-17 and B-24, but the ending of the war plus the plane's delay in production sealed that plan.


Why did they consider the B-32 for the ETO and not the B-29? I thought their range was about the same as they were designed around the same requirements.

edit: maximum range was 3800 miles which seems to be less than that of the B-29. 
But wasn't the production of B-17 and B-24 to be switched to B-29 and B-32 if the war in Europe had dragged on?

Kris


----------



## riacrato (Nov 4, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Sorry
> but how do you reconcile failed negotiations for a conditional peace with the ability of your enemies to reduce your cities to ash, in the blink of an eye, from one aircraft as comparable contributors to Japan's surrender?
> 
> Japan wasn't about to surrender, they were about to inflict colossal casualties on incoming US forces as they tried to take mainland Japan - does that sound like a nation on the brink of collapse owing to flaky conditional peace talks? The most that senior Japanese commanders hoped to get from talks with the Soviets was to buy some time until that ground offensive started, they saw the considerable casualties they could inflict on US forces as the real leverage for conditional peace talks.
> ...


The red army was the largest army in the world at that point. The Japanese saw a certain possibility to end the war on favourable conditions if the US invasion went wrong. With the second more mobilized and more more powerful super power turned against them that chance was gone. And the invasion of manchuria was a massive defeat in a very short timeframe. That is not soviet propaganda, that is plain truth.

The B-29 did not "end the war". It was a factor in it like many others.

BTW the firebombings of tokio caused more immediate casualties and destruction than any of the atomic bombings, still no surrender.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2009)

> The red army was the largest army in the world at that point.



In the Pacific, logistics was the crucial factor on how powerfull you were. Just because Russia had a large army didnt mean they were in the Pacific or equipped for an amphib war.



> The B-29 did not "end the war". It was a factor in it like many others.



The Atomic bomb ended the war. And it was the B29 that carried it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2009)

Folks, keep this thread on topic.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2009)

Another factor in the B29's favor was its ability to carry two large naval mines far from base. The other three could carry small mines, but not with the range the B29 had.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2009)

carman1877 said:


> Not sure if everybody knows this or not, but the B-17 could carry up to 17,600lbs. on short runs. It used special external bomb racks to carry the bombs.



Very true, but the Lancaster could carry a heavier bomb load over a longer distance than the B-17. Not saying the B-17 was not a fine aircraft. It surely was.


----------



## carman1877 (Nov 4, 2009)

What about defensive armament, the B-29 had the best and obviously the B-24 and B-17 had good protection but what about the lancasters .303s. Was the Lancaster well defended, except for the bottom which again was vulnerable on later models.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 4, 2009)

I also read that the remote controlled turrets of the B-29 were too slow to take on jet fighters over Korea. This is an important element considering that jet fighters were going to become the standard weapon after 1945 had the war in Europe and the Pacific dragged on longer. That could have become a problem.

Oh, but that does mean the B-32 would have become the best bomber, interesting!
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I also read that the *remote controlled turrets of the B-29 were too slow to take on jet fighters over Korea*. This is an important element considering that jet fighters were going to become the standard weapon after 1945 had the war in Europe and the Pacific dragged on longer. That could have become a problem.
> 
> Oh, but that does mean the B-32 would have become the best bomber, interesting!
> Kris



This was true as the increased closure rate did not give gunners a good firing solution, but from what I understand the turrets on the B-36 did correct this.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Nov 5, 2009)

The B-29 was a quantum leap in performance compared to any other bomber. Much the same as the Me 262 was to fighter aircraft.

Each are in a class to themselves, regardless of thier total contribution to the war.

Having a "best heavy bomber" competition almost has to exclude the Superfortress, much the same as the "best fighter" is usually stated "best piston engined fighter". Because once you include the Messerschmitt there is no comparison.

That being said, I would rank the Liberator and Lancaster as near equals, with the Flying Fortress just behind.


----------



## carman1877 (Nov 5, 2009)

Just want to point out something after Flyboy said that the B-29 had tricycle landing gear. The B-24 Liberator also had tricycle landing gear. The Liberator also had improvements over the B-17 and Lancaster in that, the bomb bay doors rolled up to reduce drag. Unlike the B-17 the ball turret could be retracted when not in use to reduce drag, and to protect the turret and gunner during belly landings. becuase of the roll up bomb bay doors the B-24 could keep its high speed while on the bomb run.


----------

