# Favorite Bombers



## JCS (Aug 8, 2004)

What are your favorite bombers of the war?

Im not much into them but here are the few that I like;
Mitsubishi G3M, G4M, B-17, B-25 and, although its not a ww2 bomber the B-36.


----------



## toffi (Aug 8, 2004)

For sure it will be Vickers Wellington, Bristol Blenheim, Bristol Beaufort, Short Stirling, Handley Page Halifax and Handley Page Hampden.


----------



## JCS (Aug 8, 2004)

I forgot to mention the He111 and the Ju88...



> Handley Page Halifax



Thats one of the few british planes that I actually like (besides the Spitfire, Hurricane and Mosquito)


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 9, 2004)

B-17- Definitely!!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 9, 2004)

I like the B-24, B-26, Wellington, Lanc, SBD.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 9, 2004)

Mosquito, B-25, B-24, Ju-88, Lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 9, 2004)

lancaster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



> B-17- Definitely!!



how dare you!!


----------



## Maestro (Aug 9, 2004)

B-17, B-25, Lancaster, B-24.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 10, 2004)

especaily-b-17,stuka,he111,ju88 and every thing ealse. whats not to like in bombers ? pretty much they are all the same.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 10, 2004)

No, not at all.

You misproved yourself there.

The Stuka is NOTHING like the Ju-88, the Ju-88 is a different class than the B-17...


IL-2 is like the Stuka, the Battle was crap, the Me-262 bomber was too fast and in turn ineffective, the P-38 was a very unique bomber, the Mossie was one of a kind...



They are not at all the same...


Look at the Ju-88 itself, _Jager, Nachtjager, Bomber_(Bomber is Bomber in German),Maritime attack, tank-buster, ground-attack...

Same with the Mossie.


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 10, 2004)

Ok for Heavies: B-24 8), Halifax, G4M, H8K "Emily", P-108
Medium, Welington, B-25, B-26, He-111
Light, P-38, SBSC Helldiver, PBY, and PBM.

Bombers were great! Mobern bombers have nothing on these ones. I have more but I wil keep it short! B-24


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 10, 2004)

> Light, P-38



the P-38 was a fighter bomber when it carried bombs.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 10, 2004)

But there were the versions carrying a Norden sight or a BTO radar that were definitely bombers.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 11, 2004)

what is this stupid consept in ww2 thet biger is better ???


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

The bigger the bomber, logically the more it can carry. So the more it can destroy on the ground. It wasn't stupid in those days because the restrictions were on the engines, until jets came a long.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

just look at the B-29.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

OK...I will.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

fine, be like that........................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

So how far has that stick gone now?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

"You wouldn't understand"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

i take it you meant the stick as in the B-29......................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

No...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

i'll leave it there then....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Ok. Well it was that stick up your arse, but we'll leave it there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

proberly for the best.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

so your ok to leave it there??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

...where? Over there?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

i think you know where..............


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

What are we leaving again?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

i'm under the impression the stick isn't going anywhere...............


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Oh k... ... ... lets just leave whatever IT is right here.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

ok.....................

but where do we go from here.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

To France?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

there's a WWII day at pendennis castle, looks like fun??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Nice... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 11, 2004)

and, in the unlikely event that we go, there should be a flypast by a spitfire, so it'll be better than culdrose airday...............


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 11, 2004)

Back to bombers: P-38s could be Fighter-Bombers or just bombers that is what made them great planes. Engines were limitig, but not that bad. The B-29 was a bestly monster, that was foud to do great hords of distruction when flown low over Japan.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

B-29s did do a lot of damage, very true.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 11, 2004)

B-29's don't do damage, bombs do.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

Unless you crashed the B-29 into the target.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 12, 2004)

Well then it's the pilot's fault...


But still the B-29's damage...

Put it this way: we're both right.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 12, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The bigger the bomber, logically the more it can carry. So the more it can destroy on the ground. It wasn't stupid in those days because the restrictions were on the engines, until jets came a long.


 if u have a big bomber you need big engins than you need more fule, but you need to propel that fule so there are limetations thet ww2 people did not understand.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

They did understand, they weren't stupid. But as you can see from all the World War 2 bombers bigger could normally carry more. The B-29 could carry more than the B-17 because it was bigger.


----------



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

and it could carry it futher because the larger engines, whilst using more fuel, allowed more fuel to be carried.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

Yes, there's always a balance. A normally that balance can be moved further with a bigger bomber, if that makes sense.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 13, 2004)

not really.........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 13, 2004)

I think he means there are practical limits to how large a bomber can be. That being said, in general, the bigger the bomber, the bigger the payload and the longer the range.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2004)

And of course, the forever-non-forgettable larger target for enemy missles and fighters...


----------



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

modern bombers have ECMs to counter the threat of missiles, although they don't really work if the missile's fired from short range, but your right, bombers will always be vunerable to fighters....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

But, as the famous saying goes, "the bomber will always get through."


----------



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

unless it gets shot down..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

Well the saying isn't a reference to a single bomber. The basic idea is that bombers will always be a viable weapon.


----------



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

that is true but they're stil vunerable................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 15, 2004)

the age of the bomber hsa past, the leading air unit today is the halicopter. the bombers will still be used but not like in ww2.


----------



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

bombers will always be needed, and how's the helicopter the leading air unit today, yes it's vital for logistics, but aeroplanes will always be needed to get and maintain air superiority..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 17, 2004)

And helicopters pose almost zero threat to jet aircraft while the helicopters are extremely vulnerable to enemy fighters.


----------



## Maestro (Aug 17, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> And helicopters pose almost zero threat to jet aircraft while the helicopters are extremely vulnerable to enemy fighters.



I think bombers and fighters will always be needed, but I want to point out something...

Helicopters are extremely vulnerable to ennemy fighters, but they are very, very heavily armed. I heard a veteran of the Gulf war (a fighter pilot) saying that, if a helicopter can lock a missile on you before you can see it, you're already dead !

Helicopters are a threat to everything, even jets (mostly because of their missiles (and the load of them they can carry)).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some helicopters can carry up to 30 missiles. So if the first miss you, the second won't... And (when they can carry that much missiles) they don't realy bother to fire a second one.


----------



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

the apahce can carry up to 76 missiles, only 4 are Air-to-Air.................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 19, 2004)

well thets enough.how much you need ? 2 full patriot sites ?


----------



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

someone said that helicopters can carry tons of missiles so if you miss with one you have lots left, i'm mearly saying that no more than 4 of the missiles it carries are Air-to-Air................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 19, 2004)

Can we please come back to BOMBERS!

Ju-88


----------



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

the 88 was good but not as good as the mossie....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 20, 2004)

The Piaggio P.108 is a fantastic bomber  and as much as i despise the mossie...i must agree


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

what's not to like about the mossie........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

no idea, i just dont like it, i never have. but lets not go there again eh?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

one good reason you don't like it and i'll leave it alone................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

because it just seems so boring, no one aspect about it interests me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

not even the fact that it was the fastest plane of the war for three years, the fact that it was so fast that it didn't need armourment, it was the first plane to bomb berlin by day or the fact that with good pilots they could a particular room in a particular tower after flying to the target below tree top height?? none of that gets you??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

nope


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 21, 2004)

Sorry for the link not working. I Hope it will but the time is not good to fix it. But on the Ju-88 Lanc you would tell me that it was bad? It did a very good job for the war. I would say the He-111, but you all would say Good early then poor to rotten. So then the 88.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2004)

The 88 was a good plane, theres no denying that.


----------



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

i never said it wasn't, i said the mossie was better, which it was.............


----------



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

this might be interesting to restart, what's your favourite bomber then?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2005)

From ww2? The B-29, Post war? B-58 and the Canberra.


----------



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

mine, of all time?? the lancaster 

post war it's the vulcan or canberra though........


----------



## trackend (Aug 3, 2005)

Having had a closer look at them in the flesh I really like the B25


----------



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

you know i'm sure we could let the swordfish slip in as bombers this once


----------



## trackend (Aug 3, 2005)

Right Lanc in that case my favourite bomber Stringbag Stringbag Stringbag and..... oh yes Stringbag.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> mine, of all time?? the lancaster




OH MY GOD I'M SO SHOCKED - AHHHHHHH! I THINK I'M HYPERVENTILATING!


----------



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




----------



## Gnomey (Aug 3, 2005)

My favourite WW2 is probably the Lancaster, the B29 or the Mossie, they all have pros and cons and I can't decide between them.

Post-War - B-52 or one of the V-bombers (Vulcan or Valiant)


----------



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

good choices........


----------



## Glider (Aug 4, 2005)

Close. I think mine would be the 
B29, the best heavy bomber
Mossie the best medium bomber
Victor Best Post war bomber The only difference


----------



## jrk (Aug 9, 2005)

de havilland mosquito xvi

a fantastic all round bomber.

2 stage merlin engines,bulged bomb bay and pressurised cockpit.

b.xvi 1200 of these were used for high level nuisance raids with 4000lb bombs.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 10, 2005)

Piaggio P.108 my favourite bomber, B-29 2nd and 3rd maybe the Stirling.

Post War I like the B-52 and XB-70


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 15, 2005)

Has to be the Mossie, closely followed by the Lanc
Postwar I'd say the Vulcan


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 18, 2005)

B-24 and Halifax, I like the Underdog 

Post war, The Soviets Bear or Backfire!


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 18, 2005)

Forgot about the Lib and the Hally, they come 3rd and 4th for me


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 23, 2005)

So sad, the Liberator was and is a grand sight to see.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 23, 2005)

i'm rather fond of the bear myself...........


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

WW2: B-17, B-29, B-36 Peacemaker (never got a chance to prove itself), 
He-177 Grief (would have been better with redesigned engines).
Post WW2 and Modern: Flying Wing, Avro Vulcan, B-52 Stratofortress, 
F-117 Nighthawk, B-2 Spirit, F-111 (okay not strictly a bomber but I 
like it).

On the subject of the AH-64D Apache Longbow they do carry two AAMs on each side of the small weapons platform and 16 ASMs per side. Heaven help the opposition if someone ever converts all those hard-points to carry AAMs. Goodbye half the opposition airforce, especially if you hovered near the opposition airbase and took them out as they were taking off.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2005)

P.108B P.108B P.108B


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

The B58 Hustler was a cool looking bomber.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b58.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 11, 2005)

it looks ugly and stupid.......


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

Better than anything the brits had

hehehehehehe


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2005)

Except the Vulcan...

Jeez lanc what are you smoking?! The B-58 looks awesome.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

It was better than the Vulcan for Nuke strike.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it looks ugly and stupid.......


I'm not going to hold anything against you Lanc, but you like WW2 French Bombers, so ultimately your view doesn't mean anything. The B-58 looks cool although the Vulcan looks even better!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > it looks ugly and stupid.......
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2005)

You said it Gnomey! lancs opinions on looks are all void, I just hope he doesnt have a similar preference in girls


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

well atleast you didn't make a moonface joke


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 23, 2005)

Why should a bomber need to look good? Now flying at night and not wanting to be seen on radar thy all look a bit ugly.

But then the B-52 will still be flying untill they fall out of the sky


----------



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

you kidding me! the B-58's so ugly it'd even look ugly on radar


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2005)

Im sorry but I will not tolerate this slating of the B-58, it looks great.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 26, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Im sorry but I will not tolerate this slating of the B-58, it looks great.


Agreed and radar doesn't bring out the best in most planes, the all look like ugly blobs or blimps that move. A bit like French bombers in a way  ...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 27, 2005)




----------



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

but what the hell is up with that underfusilage pod!!


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2005)

I never said that it is a pritty airplane, only it will be around for a long time. I think that all this stelth and low radar cross section stuff has its limits, we are pricing ourselves out of an airforce


----------

