# Best Bomber



## horseUSA (Dec 12, 2003)

Which bomber do you feel was the best of WWII. Choose from the options or state your own aircraft and reason.


----------



## Crazy (Dec 13, 2003)

I'm going to have to go generic on this one and vote B-17. From what I've seen, she's a very stable bird, could take a lot of damage, and it was near suicide to attack one alone. 


My .02




S!

Crazee


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 17, 2003)

She's the best bomber no doubt


----------



## trackend (Dec 20, 2003)

I suppose that logic dictates that by rights any aircraft that was designed later in the war should be an improvement on previous ones. in terms of heavy bombers the Superfortess should come out on top however my personel choice is the Avro Lancaster as until the advent of the Superfortess no other bomber could carry the same payload (this reached 22000 lbs when hauling the grand slam as used against the Tirpitz) and at the end of the day before the advent of smart/guide ordenance it was weight of payload that was everything.
The losses incured by the daylight raids mainly carried out by the USA only was eased by the introduction of the truly great Mustang enabelling close fighter air cover right to the target. Mr James Stewart once said that the german fighters would pass so quickly that the best a gunner could hope to do was to put some lead in his way and hope he flew into it. 
Reading between the lines i think Mr Stewart didn't think lots of guns helped a great deal when confronted with a fighter aircraft that was twice your speed. 
My mothers cousin served on lancs as a tail gunner but unfortunately never made it through the war being shot down in 1942.
Perhaps our own national pride may sway us if the choice is tight between one aircraft or another but i can honestly say that i have not let this cloud my choice in this matter. 

All the best guys Trackend


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2003)

obviously, my name kind of tells you what i think allready, but I'm gonna tell you bout it anyway. the first great thing about the lanc. has little to do with the plane it's self. How many planes as sucsessfull as the lancaster have been pulled out of the ashes of a, to be blunt, crap plane? The lanc. is one of them, as it came out of the hugely unsecsessfull avro manchester, they just made the fusilage bigger, put on bigger wings, and a couple more engines. delivered in 1941 it took on the role of night bomber, where it exelled. Very few planes have ever been so decisive in a war before as the lanc. ofcorse it's claim to fame was when 19 aircraft of the newly formed 617 squadren took part in the "dambusters" raid, provind how great the planes were, and indeed how skillled the crew were, even if the mission wasn't much of a sucsess from a tactical point of view.


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 11, 2004)

The B-17 was by far the best bomber, no questions asked. It was a normal sighting over Europe, and a feared one at that.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2004)

the b-17 would be nothing without the escort of the mustangs.........


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2004)

It has to be the Lancaster, with the B17 and Mosquito close behind


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 16, 2004)

My grandfather flew B-17 Bombers in the "Bloody Hundreth" and statistics show that the B-17 was the best bomber in the European theater but it would be nothing without the North American P-51 Mustang escorts (He admits it!).


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 16, 2004)

You've got a good point......


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2004)

Erich Hartmann said:


> You've got a good point......


I has to be the B-17!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2004)

I mean is impervius


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 19, 2004)

i go with b29 because 1. it could carry any bomb of the war even grand slam if modified to 2. thou not used much it could amazingly outrun jap fighters and if it had made it in time for eto those nazis would have been smashed in maybe half the the time with half the planes but the problem is since its bigger than b17 it would be an easier target for me262 but i go with b29 and on a side note:it looks awesome


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 19, 2004)

but for attack bomber i go with B-25H Mitchell for its AMAZING load of 1x75mm cannon 8xforward facing .50cal brownings 2x.50 in dorsal turret 2x.50 cal in waist on each side 2x.50's in tail 8x127mm rockets under wings and a torpedo or 3,000lbs of bombs


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 23, 2004)

Lancaster I'm afraid, Feller's 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2004)

yup for me its the lancaster again, i was tempted to go with the the ju 88 cos i kinda like german planes, but from what ive been told the lancaster was great so it wins my vote


----------



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

yes, my name doesn't permit me to say other wise, but it was the lancaster

btw, i think i'm the one that told cheddar chesse all the info bout the lanc. oops:


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2004)

The lancaster was great for the early war years and was still far supirior to anything the germans had. But logic (and statistics) dictate that the later the bomber was designed, the better it should be. And the B-29, with its remotly controlled turrents, pressurized cabin, huge bomb load, fast speed and not no mention big boy and fat man, it is easily the best bomber of the war.

anyone saying the the ju88 is better than that is an idiot (no offence to whoever voted for it)


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 29, 2004)

Let's just say the B-29 was one of the best 8) 

Hot Space


----------



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

the best american one at least


----------



## Archer (Jan 30, 2004)

The problem with the Lancaster (and all the other planes listed in the poll) is that they can't land on carriers. I'd have to say one of the best bombers was the SBD Dauntless. It turned the tide of the war in the Pacific at Midway (due to lots of luck and the sacrifice of a lot of torpedo bomber crews).


----------



## Crazy (Feb 4, 2004)

+






=


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2004)

brilliant


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 4, 2004)

Love the last Pic, Crazy 8) 

Hot Space


----------



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

ha! you can't fool me, that wasn't a lancaster (quick heh)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2004)

i dont care lanc, the pic WAS funny 

anyway, ive had enough of the b-17 and the lancaster hogging the limelight, so i challenge your well known and respected allied bombers with a little known and unrespected italian bomber, the p-108


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 9, 2004)

the lanc has to win the votes cause it is the best. dan


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2004)

as i doubt the lanc noticed that im not embarrased, who posted it anyway?


----------



## Mike Rotch (Feb 12, 2004)

I voted B-17 as best heavy bomber. Largely because I have read it could take awful amounts of hammering and still fly - like the case of a B-17 based in Amendola that had an 8 by 8 foot gap blow in its waist by flak over austria. It made it home, and then broke in half only after landing. 

Also the Lanc was too vulnerable to be sent out in daylight raids, the B-17 not so.

As for light-bomber, a toss up between the Mosquito and the B25. Although the Mossie was more figher and the B25 more bomber...


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 12, 2004)

I would say for Light Bomber Role, the Mossie 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Andrew (Feb 12, 2004)

Although I voted for the Lanc , the B29 was a very impressive machine , but it was not released into service early enough , to make much of a difference .
Andrew


----------



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

well, the little boy and fatman were used after the war in europe was over, so they wouldn't be much use.........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 14, 2004)

really? i didnt know that! thanks for pointing it out for me lanc! o yea if u wanna know y im an ass right now its cuz im getting annoyed at ur repetetive b-17 smashing im not that fond of it but still be quiet for a while about it and if germany hadnt been defeated as early we would have nuked them for sure so thats y i said that


----------



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

yeah, the war in the pacific went on for a few months ofter the war in europe finished, and if it wasn't for the atom bombs, would have proberly gone on allot longer


----------



## Crazy (Feb 15, 2004)

The thing is, Japan was ready to sacrifice every last citizen before it surrendered. We had them beaten back onto the mainland, and they weren't going anywhere. But instead of saving a lot of lives by surrendering, they were prepared to fight to the literal death of Japan. So, to avoid disasterous losses, we nuked them. Took 2 nukes to do it, too. They still were ready to fight after Hiroshima. Having it happen AGAIN finally convinced them that their fight was over.


----------



## Crazy (Feb 16, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> i have it patched up and i have no skill whatsoever so its ok unless :FI: sucks too... but i can only play with stalls disabled or else its no fun for me



We range from totally unskilled pilots, to ok pilots, to aces who can rip up the skies. If nothing else, the comradeship and sense of community is worth it. In my opinion, you'll learn a lot more flying with a group of guys ya know, who can tell you what you're doing wrong. I've learned countless tips and tricks from them. I think you should check us out  

As for stalling out, spend an hour or so with stalls enabled with airstart on, and fly about. The key to not stalling is keeping your energy up. Lose your energy, and you'll drop like a rock. Something to try would be to fly in a TB-3 to get the feel of it, then work your way down to a stall-fest like the P-40. 


My .02


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 16, 2004)

tb3 flies very nicely i was messing around in a game and its fun VERY STRONG strangely the guy i was playing could shoot me down when i had a 109 and mustang but he couldnt bring down the tb3 i even managed to shoot him down using the guns a few times


----------



## Knight hawk (Feb 20, 2004)

The best bomber is the "B-29" it drop the "1st aerial nukes"  I'm having a jolly good vecation in the philippines


----------



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

i must say the B-29 is my second faveourite plane


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 23, 2004)

Did anyone else know that a Dehavilland Mosquito (a smaller plane made of wood) could carry the same bomb load as a B-17? and still outrun anything else in the sky? now THATS impressive


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

no i didnt know that, interesting 8) and lanc, i though the mossie was your second favourite plane?


----------



## RAF_Loke (Feb 27, 2004)

This poll should have been divided into Heavy Bombers and Medium Bombers. Ain't right to compare a B-25 with a B-29, they played each their role.
Also I don't see any Italian, Japanese or Russian bombers there??

I'll add a little story about a bomber:

April 29th 1944 2:19 pm.

B-24H "GYPSY QUEEN" #41-29479 

448th Bomb Group, 715th Bomb Squadron. 

Target: The Big "B" - Berlin.

The Bomber crashed near Poulsker, Bornholm

3 POW, 6 EVD and 1 KIA

"Gypsy Queen" participated in this mega raid on Berlin - approx. 2,000 planes were involved in the mission. However, during the bomb run, the plane was hit by FLAK and the bomb bay doors could not open and had to be opened manually and shortly after the bombs were dropped. On the return flight, the plane got serious enginetrouble and only one engine was running 100%. 
So they turn North heading for Sweden on 1 engine slowly desending.
Over the Baltic Sea they were so low that the Pilot gave the order to bail out, as soon as they were flying over land again. Only 9 chutes were sighted. The Top Turret Gunner, SGT Harry J. Ambrosinis chute did not open and he died, when he hit the ground. Three other airmen were wounded in connection with the landing and they were all taken POWs by the Germans. Two other airmen were slightly wounded but were able to continue their escape. Five airmen were taken to Sweden by a Danish fishingboat and the last one, the Pilot, 2nd LT Orland T. Howard, also managed to escape to Sweden, onboard the S.S. "CARL".

So this B-24 actually flew from Berlin to Bornholm on one engine, not bad I'll say .


----------



## Archer (Feb 27, 2004)

On the mention of parahutes failing, I read an article in Flight Journal a couple months ago I believe about incidents where there were "problems" bailing out/ejecting. A couple cases were bad or no parachutes. One Allied bomber crewman fell from 10k+, through the skylight of a train station, onto the platform, and then a German doctor started treating him. There were several other incidents along these lines. Also, one of an Aussie (I think) who jumped from his bomber without a parachute or had it fail, part way down he bumped into another crew member, they held on to each other and both landed with minor injuries - broken bones and such. Another interesting one was a Indian or British plane in the Indian Ocean IIRC, it was taking off from a carrier but didn't have enough speed. Went underwater and I believe the carrier passed over top before the pilot ejected and was picked up. Some people are just really lucky.


----------



## Andrew (Feb 27, 2004)

> Did anyone else know that a Dehavilland Mosquito (a smaller plane made of wood) could carry the same bomb load as a B-17? and still outrun anything else in the sky? now THATS impressive



One of the first jobs for the ME262 , was to catch and shoot down the Mosquito Bombers, as Germans had no Piston Engined Fighter fast enough to shoot them down .

Andrew


----------



## Flying_Fortress (Feb 27, 2004)

everyone knows that the best one was the b-17


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

i didnt know that, i always thought the lancaster was better.....


----------



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

Flying_Fortress said:


> everyone knows that the best one was the b-17



open your eyes to the power of the lancaster people................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 29, 2004)

we have. we see it every time we see one of your posts since were not blind and all...


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 29, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Flying_Fortress said:
> 
> 
> > everyone knows that the best one was the b-17
> ...



Remember the B-17 was JUST as good as the Lancaster, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 6, 2004)

Anonymous said:


> the b-17 would be nothing without the escort of the mustangs.........


WICH US BRITS MADE BETTER WITH A ROLS ENGIN


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 6, 2004)

Yeah this topic has come up several times (usually by me  ) there were several American planes that were made better by the Brits


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2004)

very true 8)


----------



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

notably the corsair (and interestingly the ME-109 to a cirtain extent, as the early prototypes were fitted with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine)


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)

How was the Corsair made better by the Brits??


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 7, 2004)

Why just by *being* Dear Chap, just by being!

Kiwimac


----------



## Crazy (Mar 7, 2004)

Ego's are just a bit swelled there.... especially since we could have you Brits out on your asses to defeat the Axis alone.... so hmph. Would have too, if the Japs hadn't 'awoke the sleeping giant'


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)

If the Japanese Army had been competent and listened to the Japanese Navy the US wouldn't have been be pissed off which led to the war.

Also, if the US translators understood the diplomatic style of Japanese they wouldn't have made some really bad translation errors. After the war, one of the US proposals saying the Japanese should pull out of China was clarified to have not included Manchuria when it said China, several high ranking government officials and cabinet members said after the war that had it been made clear, the government would have agreed (and used the influence of the military members in cabinet/government to control the military). The US wouldn't have been mad or imposed trade restrictions and Japan would've been quite happy (happy enough to not go to war).


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> notably the corsair (and interestingly the ME-109 to a cirtain extent, as the early prototypes were fitted with a Rolls Royce Kestrel engine)




Bloody hell - i didn't know that


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)

i did 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2004)

how do you know i didnt tell him....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 12, 2004)

because you always complain about your aeronautical stupidity so THAT is doubtful =P

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



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

i know you didn't tell me, also a 'lil worryingly, the JU-87 was fiyyed with the kestrll to begin with *JU-87, shudder*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

but i did actually know about the bf-109s engine before he told me, so poo on you


----------



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

no you didn't, you were really shocked when i told you..........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

i wasnt  i was shocked about the 87, not the 109 8) i knew about the 109 8) next you'll be saying that the bucker bu.181 was the plane used in the great escape when really it was the messerschmitt me-108 8)


----------



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

it was so the 181.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

no, it was the 108!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

no, it was the 108! (jj1982, bronzewhaler, this wil be a demonstration of my superior argument skills)


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 23, 2004)

For the Love of the Bomber if the Italians would have convinced the germans they needed a true 4 engine heavythey had it with the p.108! Yes it is a little like the b-17 but the p108 would have been great if it could have been produced in mass. The raids in the med and North africa prove it had promise. But it was made in small numbers and so it was lacking! but it could have chased the russians over the mountains and really got the RAF in trouble!

But for me no hard pic B-24


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 23, 2004)

A point for the thought that Japan would not have gone to war with the US is just that a thought! They wanted to have what the europeans had land power Empire! They did that by going into china, Korea and south east Asia. To do that was to get the USN out of the water! They did for the time that Yamamoto had predicted. 

As for all you B-29 lovers it was designed for the ETO and would have been used there, but to say that the atomic bombs would have been dropped in Germany that is a fuzzyer question. But Japan might have surandered with out the bombs, all we had to do was let general LeMay burn it to the ground, he hearly had already. We might have had to fight until 1946, but that was sooner the the planned invasion of the home islands.

As always the B-24 was best 4 engine Heavy!


----------



## Piaggio108 (Mar 23, 2004)

What type of bomber? A mosquto is better than a B-17 in some respects, but it probibly had less of an effect on the war.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

They didn't need to bother with B-17s they should've sent in formations of Mosquitos - after they dropped their payload they could've got away without that many being shot down because of their amazing speed


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2004)

thanks mp willow, you sound likea chp who has his head screwed on 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

Erich Hartmann said:


> The B-17 was by far the best bomber, no questions asked. It was a normal sighting over Europe, and a feared one at that.



I think all enemy bombers are a feared sight over europe  

Could the fact that it was such a normal sight over Europe be put down to the fact that they built so many of them??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)

> Yes it is a little like the b-17



NO. IT. IS. NOT  8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

Or maybe it's that the B-17 formations were bombing during the day but the Lancs were smartly bombing at night so they didn't get seen...until the spotlights were put on them and then the 88 and 105 mm Flak shells were flying up..and well yeah. :evilbat: Some of these emoticons just don't mean anything...

Anyway, I like the B-25 and I don't know why..maybe the doolittle raid has something to do with it..  HA it's a sperm...why? oh why?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

i think horse just got a pack of those "1000 smileys" and added it to the site


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

They are pretty cool, make me laugh anyway and I'm not easily amused...ahaahaha...look at that mouse....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

i aint really loked at the smileys, ive just learnt the codes fr the ones i might need, eg 8)         :rolling:


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 3, 2004)

For some reason people think the B-17 was an amazing aircraft. What they forget is the B-24 carried a higher payload and flew longer distances. 
The best bomber of WW2 has to be the B-29. The B-29 was capable of carring a heavier bomb loads and longer distances then any other aircraft at that time . When Lemay had the B-29 aircraft stripped all of the guns off of to carry more bombs Japan was in serious trouble. The B-29 also discovered the Jet stream while flying to and from Japan at high altitudes. Because of the jet stream causing mission problems they decided to remove the armament and fly lower over the targets. After the war the B-29's were converted to B-50's and the WB-50's and the B-50's were used to bomb targets in the Korean war. The WB-50's were being used as weather reconissance aircraft until the early 1960's 
The Russians even copied the B-29 design but there is no record of any nation copying any of the English designed bombers.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 4, 2004)

Very true, but the thing is about the Korean war is that the B-29s were soon made obselete by the Mig-15, very soon. 
No one would copy the British bombers since they were early war designs and lasted the whole War, and afterwards of course they'd be out-dated. The B-29 was late war and of course would last a few years afterwards, although, as I said it was soon made obselete by the Mig-15s. 

The Russian copy, the Tu-4 'Bull' was exactly the same, copied off crashed B-29s in Sibera, the only change was 23mm cannons instead of 12.7mm guns. This isn't really that great of an achievement, to have a design copied because the Russians would of copied the only thing they had avaliable, they needed a new heavy bomber.


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 4, 2004)

The Mig 15 was a great aircraft but the F-86 had more experienced pilots. If there had not been so many politics to keep the F-86 from following the Mig-15's to their bases. The F-86's would have cleaned the clocks of the Mig 15's. The B-29's had bombed most of their targets in Korea into the stone age and as a result they did not have a mission. If Truman had given General McArthur permission to win the war. We would have taken care of the "problem in China" and who knows maybe the USSR would not have been a major power like they turned out to be. General McArthur had the right idea but....


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

I am sorry chaps. The single best bomber of WW2 was the JU88.

Why? Because I said so!  

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

no no, the P.108 WOULD have been the best had it been given a chance, but i say the best plane on that list is the b-29 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

Please note,

I have *finally* worked out how to put a graphic in my signature. Damn I'm slow sometimes!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

should have just asked someone


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

The best bomber of WW2 was the DH Mosquito - the B-17 was a crap plane compared to the Mossie 8)


----------



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

best bomber, the lancaster easily......................


----------



## brad (Apr 12, 2004)

lancaster all the way if it had some more time itwould have killed berlin.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 12, 2004)

I'd have to say the B-29 because it was, but it was a newer design than the Lanc. The Lanc was a lasting design and very good, but the B-29 was just better.


----------



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

didn't have the same appeal though did it................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

yeah the b-29 easily tops that list for me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

it's very close between the two................


----------



## brad (Apr 18, 2004)

wow some one vated for the do 47


----------



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

some-one voted for it too..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

no someone voted for the do-17 8) (just to clear up all the typos  )


----------



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

joke's on you, in correcting our "typos", you made one yourself, it was the Do-17, not the do-17...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 24, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> joke's on you, in correcting our "typos", you made one yourself, it was the Do-17, not the do-17...............



a correctiong error is not a typo if the word in question is spelled correctly so in other words, it can be do-17 because its the same letters and same plane!!!


----------



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

that's not we get tought here in England, we get taught english english, you get taught american english.................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 24, 2004)

you dont get "tought" English English, you get taught English English


----------



## plan_D (Apr 25, 2004)

It is funny when an American has to correct an Englishman on his spelling of his own language.


----------



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

i know, i can spell words in french that i can't even spell in English..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

> joke's on you, in correcting our "typos", you made one yourself, it was the Do-17, not the do-17...............



using that incorrect theory, there are several typos in that message


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 29, 2004)

> joke's on you, in correcting our "typos", you made one yourself, it was the Do-17, not the do-17...............


Joke's on you, in correcting our typographical errors/"typos,"/, you made one yourself, it was called the Dornier Do-17, not the do-17... is the correct version of that sentence (yes, Joke's does INDEED have an apostrophe as it's an abbreviated version of the words "The joke is...") and yes, plan_D, it is quite humorous when a Brazilian-Dutchman corrects an Englishman's English (it's even funnier when you find out that English is my second language technically, as I learned Portugese first-which I taught myself how to read and write in, i may add-but in actual reading, writing and speech, it is my first language indeed)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

A Brazilian-Dutchman living in California, how interesting.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 30, 2004)

Danke Schon!


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2004)

Thank you very much?

What's the thank you for?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

C.C. said he's really regretting using his vote on the lancaster now............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

yeah i am, the b-29 was the best bomber of the war, if id have voted for that it would be winning


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

1) the lancaster was better than the B-29
2) it would only but the two level................


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

The B-29 was better...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

thankyou 8) look, the 2 are level now


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I know, I finally used my vote after being swayed to the B-29. Although I was already thinking the B-29 was better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

ah, good choice 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The B-29 (although not my favorite) was the best bomber of the war. No other bomber could match its combination of speed, range, payload, and defensive firepower.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 4, 2004)

We are comparing two bombers that are very differnt, and the B-29 was developed after the Lancaster. My vote was with the B-24, yes it is very fa behind and was to be replaced by the B-29s, but the B-24 made all that B-29 stuff posible. With out the B-24 in the PTO preparing the way it would have been a lot worse.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The B-24 was certainly the most important American bomber and quite possibility the most important Allied bomber. But the fact remains that the B-29 was the BEST bomber to see service during the war. And I never even really liked the B-29!


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I like the B-24 more than the B-29 as well, but as Lightning said the B-29 was the best bomber to see service.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 5, 2004)

Plan_D, that is a nice B-24 pic. Is it a J model? I am surprised you would change your sig pic, but thanks.

As for all this talk of the B-29 yes is probable was the better, but it was also newer. Well I am just overly passionate for the b-24, maybe like Lanc  thanks for the good Liberator support, it has been slow in comming. 

Question, would the B-29 be the best if it did not have the P-47 and P-51 escourts?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I think it is the J, I don't actually know.  

I've changed my sig twice now, first it was a Spitfire in American markings, then a Swallow, and now the Liberator. 
Yes, the B-29 still would be the best.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 5, 2004)

A spitfire in UAAF colors? Question how long did the Yanks fly spits? I have not read much on that.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

That was my first sig, I heard they were flying them since 1942.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

spits dont look right in USAAF colours


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

I believe that the US mostly used fighter marks of the Spit in Africa and Europe but I think that was mostly earlier in the war since the Spit didn't have the range for the escort missions. Recon models may have been in service longer, but I'm not sure there either.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 7, 2004)

thanks all. C.C I would agree a spit looks a bit off with USAAF star. But then how meny US made planes had other flags on them? Say the P-39, a nice but problumatic project that surved for the Russians, almost the whole production went to Russia.  For that matter how about the Navey in 1940 sending destroyers to the British?


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

Have you seen the Mosquito in American colours, Willow?

Also, the Hurricane in Soviet colours, with the Spitfire in Soviet colours.


----------



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

the mossie in USAAF colours is crap, and that's not somthing i say easily about the mossie..............


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Yes, I think we agreed on that in some other thread.


----------



## brad (May 9, 2004)

lancaster by a long way


----------



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

thank you brad..............


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

: : : : : : : ;;;;;;;; ; : ; :


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

it was the b-29!


----------



## MP-Willow (May 10, 2004)

Plan_D, i have not seen the Mossie in UASSF colors sorry. wha made it so bad? 

C.C, what about the B-29?


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

It think he's saying the B-29 was the best, in which I agree with him on. 

Here's the DH Mosquito in US colours:


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

get the damn american mossie away! ahhh, much better, i think well all agree 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

He dropped his load..


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I think the Americans mostly used the Mossie for photo-recon. Maybe a few nightfighters but that's about it. And the B-29 was easily the best bomber of the war.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, you are exactly right on all comments there Lightning.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Hey, I appreciate being agreed with finally.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 12, 2004)

C.C. you should change your flag, or be posting more Ruggian aircraft! Say an A-20 with a read Star 

This is a bomber thread so why that fighter being shown? Yes it was needed, but you could replace it with a bomber, even a Lanc 
Sorry I just read, you did but one up, but it missed.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

What fighter? My pictures were a Mosquito and B-2 Spirit. 
I've agreed with you in the past Lightning.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Just not so much lately. So I appreciate that. Thanks.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, well, we can't agree all the time.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

> C.C. you should change your flag, or be posting more Ruggian aircraft



Nope, im sticking with the soviet flag  always have, always will...


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

He's a Red, with his Soviet flag held high, he'll...what will he do?







I don't know...







..neither do I


----------



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

> And the B-29 was easily the best bomber of the war.



no it wasn't!!!!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

what was? and dont say the lancaster because it wasnt


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

The B-29 Superfotress was the best bomber of World War 2. The End.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Better speed, range, altitude, bomb load, bomb sight, and defensive armament than the Lanc. And, by the way, was pressurized. B-29 was the best of the war.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Agreed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



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

the lanc carried better electronic eqipment..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

The B-29s were already carrying H2X. And that equipment was required to fulfill the Lanc's mission. The B-29 was a daybomber and didn't require all the gizmos.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 15, 2004)

The B-29 was the newest so yes it could be the best. But then it also did not have to fly through a lot of the fighters that the B-24s had to in Japan. I would have loved to see how it could have worked say in 1943 when the B-24s were fighting off fighters. 8)


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

who is that woman in mp-willow's sig


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

its eleanor roosevelt i think


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 16, 2004)

It is Mrs. Roosevelt. I think the B-29 would have handled itself very well in the raids of 1943. In had more (and more accurately aimed) guns. I'm not claiming it could have flown into Fortress Europe unescorted without losses, but it would have done at least as well as the B-17 and B-24.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

which in the B-17's case, isn't actually that good.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

nice to see you getting nostalgic lanc


----------



## Crazy (May 16, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> which in the B-17's case, isn't actually that good.................



not this again....


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

B-17s shot down alot of German fighters. Note, I am not claiming that they could properly defend themselves OR that they were winning air superiority but they were inflicting considerable casualaties on the Luftwaffe. Look at all the wacky ideas the Luftwaffe tried to use against them for proof. And it is a matter of fact that the B-17 was shooting down more German planes per sortie than the B-24.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I wouldn't say the losses were considerable. The B-17 was inflicting them, but they couldn't defend themselves. The B-29 would have done a lot better, flying higher out of the Flak and at very high speeds.


----------



## bader (May 17, 2004)

Go the mossie all the way! it was a versatile wooden wonder that could outrun most enemy planes but i think the poll should have a look at the vickers wellington


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

No it shouldn't. The Wellington doesn't compare to the B-29, which was the best bomber of the war.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The Wellington was probably the best the RAF had until the deployment of the B-29 but Plan_D is right it can't compare to the B-29.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

That last post should have read until the deployment of the Lancaster. My finger were getting ahead of my brain. Sorry bout that.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

Brad, the pic is the great Mrs. Elenore Rosevelt. I hope you will take a little time to read about her, the quote goes with her pic. She helped run the country and the war while FDR was sick!

As for this bit on the Wellington, I agree it was a very good plane and could do it all, then came the Halifax! Lanc, I was reading that the Halifax played a big role in the Terpitz going down


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

It's spelt Tirpitz.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

Thanks sorry for that. Spelling and typing are not my strongest skills.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

It's ok, you're one of the better spellers on here. I just needed a reply.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

I've never heard of the Halifax being used on the Tirpitz missions.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

Neither have I, an explanation is in order.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

I know the RAF used "special planes" to search for electronic holes in the Norwegian radar coverage. Could those have been Halifaxes?


----------



## MP-Willow (May 18, 2004)

A I was looking around the web for some Halifax information i came across a site that says they were used in the spring of 1942 to try and bomb the battleship in port in Norway. It did not work that well and missions against here went on until 1944, when yes the Lancaster did drop the 12,000lb bombs to end the ship.

The site is an interesting one dedicated to an RAF pilot. It has helped with some information and is a nice spot to look for more material. Here it is: mysite.freeserve.com/archie_bombercommand


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

1942 makes sense. But I'm not sure I would describe that as being a major role in the sinking of the Tirpitz.


----------



## bader (May 19, 2004)

I'd go the lanc


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

it was b-29  i think the top 3 in that poll are in the right order


----------



## brad (May 19, 2004)

lancaster no question


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

The Lanc couldn't begin to compare with the B-29. Speaking of B-29s, the only one in the world still flying is in town and I'm going to see it tomorrow.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 19, 2004)

Lightening, I just brought the Halifax up because it did fly missions against the battleship. The fact it was in Norway tied up numbers of ships and aircraft.

As for this bit about B-29s, they would be the best Heavy, but how about the B-25 or Wellington for best medium range 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

B-25 was used more as an attack plane than a true medium bomber. I think the B-26 would have to get that nod. It actually ended the war with the lowest loss rate of any American bomber.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

The B-17 doesn't deserve to be in the top 3, the B-24 was better for a start. 

And it was better that the Tirpitz was in Norway than out in the Atlantic where the Germans really wanted it. And I hope you all know why it had to stay in Norway, the Tirpitz I mean.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

lightning guy, the only b-29 left is called fifi aint it?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Yep. Opperated by the Confederate Air Force and I am going to see it today. I think the Tirptize stayed in Norway because of the heavey attention given it by the Royal Navy as well as American naval forces under Royal Navy control.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

No, the Americans actually had nothing to do with the Tirpitz staying in Norway, and the North Sea. 
The Tirpitz was restricted to the North sea because of the daring raid the British Commandos conducted on the St. Nazaire dock in France, in 1942. The only dry dock big enough to take the Tirpitz on the Atlantic side. This meant that the only place the Tirpitz could be repaired was in Norway and Northern Germany. Hitler did not want to lose his pride and joy and ordered the Tirpitz to stay out of the Atlantic, out of harms way.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

And part of that "harm" were units of the US Navy that have been temporarily transferred to the Royal Navy. That is what I was referring to.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 21, 2004)

Ok thanks. Lightening, what show is it? Will you be getting any photos? Or what other planes are you hoping to see?


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

The Americans had nothing to do with the Tirpitz staying in the North Sea, if the Americans weren't there it still would have stayed in the North Sea. If the Americans were there and the Commandos hadn't destroyed St. Nazaire dock it would have gone out into the Atlantic. 

Americans have their own WW2 achievements, the Tirpitz is all Britains.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 22, 2004)

I never tried to claim it otherwise.

But if the ship was so devistating and Hitler really wanted to use it and show how strong it was why not turn it loos like Bizmark and the other big capital ships?
I understand that he was affraid of it being hit in the Atlantic, but holding it in port is not sinking transports. Or am I again missinformed and she did sail? If I am wrong please forgive me, I am just trying to understand things.


----------



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

the tirpitz on ever fired 2 shots in anger, they were against a coastal target, pathetic really.............


----------



## plan_D (May 23, 2004)

The Tirpitz was the Bismarcks sister ship, the Bismarck being released into the Atlantic one year before the St. Nazaire raid. This meant that the Bismarck still had a place to get repaired on the Atlantic side. So, it getting hit meant it could go to France and get repaired. 

The Tirpitz while in the North Sea lost the only port big enough on the Atlantic side, to repair it, the St. Nazaire dockyard. If the Tirpitz was in the Atlantic and got damaged it had no where to be repaired except back in North Germany, or Norway that meant sailing through the Channel or over Scotland, both very hazardous.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 24, 2004)

Ok, but still if this great ship was ready to go it still could have been used in the North Sea against the convoys going the Russia! I find it a bit sad that a big capital ship would be reduced to sitting in port. Yes loosing the drydocks in France would be bad as would the trip around Scotland or the channel, but I just cannot see it sitting there in port waiting for its death.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

The B-29 was on a tour by itself. We got a few pictures but sadly were not actually allowed in the plane. I did learn alot of neat stuff about the B-29 and had several of my questions about the plane answered.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

Hitler did not want to risk any damage, the Royal Navy had the North Sea blockaded. And sailing out would have left it open to the Coastal Commands aircraft as well.


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

lancaster is the one we should all choese


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

but the b-29 was better


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

The Lancaster clearly was inferior to the B-29 and there is a lot of argument about how well it compared to the B-17 and B-24.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 26, 2004)

Sad that you could not get into the b-29. We to love to debate the B-24/Lancaster/B-29/B-17 use and vertues. Well that is what we should do. Untill we can have some controled study. What about useing a flight sim to try and get a direct compairision?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I've never been one to put much trust in flight sims. I have tried running some tests using them before and found that the results just didn't match up with my well-researched books.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

i wouldnt really trust flight sims either


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Why should you have to test it, the B-29 could do everything the Lancaster could, and do it better. The B-29 was the best bomber of the war, better than the B-17, better than the B-24, better than the Lancaster...the BEST BOMBER!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

yup, i dont see any way in which the lancaster out performed it.


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

the b-29 walked all over the lanc but the ;anc walked all over the b-17 and evey thing walked all over b-24


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I really don't see how you can make that statement. The B-24 carried a larger load than the B-17, to a greater range, and at a faster speed. If the B-17 can be argued to have been better than the Lanc (and this site had shown that it can) that clearly it can be argued that the Lib was better than the Lanc.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

I believe the B-29 was the best, with B-24 and Lanc drawing in second and the B-17 hanging behind in third. The B-24 was certainly not walked over by anything.


----------



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

i think the lanc was better than the B-24..............


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

yhea true


----------



## MP-Willow (May 29, 2004)

Well said Plan_D even if I do not like the B-29. 

I mentioned the Sim only to have fun in flight, not to base hard facts from the true aircraft. The sims are just fun to fly with friends.


----------



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

it would be interesting to have a bomber dogfight on a flight sim...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 29, 2004)

Been there, done that...


----------



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

how'd it go, what were you in, who won??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

ive done it too. i was the TB-3 and i was against a 111, the TB-3 won


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2004)

A bomber dogfight, Interestign. Now that CC says the P-38 was better, ans this opening a big can of worms, but put it agains the Mossie 

We will need to limit that to the bomber versions of both say the level and Divebombers. I forget the version marks for the P-38 think it is the J that could do it, but the "Snoop Nose" was a clear nose for level bombing. Just a thought to talk about bombing


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

It was called the Droop Snoot. Several J and L versions were modified by rooming the guns, adding a bombardier/navigator station, bombsight, and considerable armor ballast to maintain the center of gravity. They flew at least a few true strategic bombing missions. Results were promising but the idea of there were simply too many B-17s and B-24s being produced not to use them.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

The Mosquito was the superior of the two, it's combat record surely show it. They weren't bombing the target, they were bombing the parts of it. 
Amiens Prison: West Wall, canteen, soldiers barracks and gate house....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

I would be careful including those missions because (to me) they fall under the catergory of attack missions rather than true bombing missions (weren't they flown by FB marks anyway?). Anyway, the accuracy achieved had more to do with the profile of the missions that any particular attribute of the Mossie.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

No, they are bombing missions. They dropped bombs, and didn't strafe or use rockets. The aircraft has to be able to do the mission, and the Mosquito did. And might I add with only one loss which was to a scrambled Fw-190.


----------



## rcristi (Jun 1, 2004)

If we think about the "best" bomber that should be B29 but unfortunately he appeared kind of too late. So my vote goes to the work horse B 17 followed very closely by the mighty Lancaster.

Cheers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

the b-17, b-29 and lancaster were all great, im surprised the b-24 didnt get thatthat many voted.


----------



## rcristi (Jun 1, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> the b-17, b-29 and lancaster were all great, im surprised the b-24 didnt get thatthat many voted.



Maybe because it wasn't so tough as the already mentioned?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

The B-24 wasn't as tough as the B-17 but was probably tougher than the Lanc. The B-24 was a great airplane (better than the B-17 in many respects) but never received the press it deserved (maybe because it didn't have the looks of the B-17).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

i think the b-17 looks incredibly modern for a plane of that era


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

The B-24 was certainly superior to the B-17. It could carry more, further. The B-29 was the best...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

Yep; 2nd B-24, 3rd Lancaster, 4th B-17 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

The B-24, B-17 argument had been going on ever since the war. The B-24 had range, bombload, and (apparently) speed. The B-17 had more firepower, more durability, more altitude, more stability (easier to fly, more accurate gunnery and bombing platform). I personally would go with the B-24, but both sides can be argued fairly convincingly.


----------



## brad (Jun 2, 2004)

> it would be interesting to have a bomber dogfight on a flight sim...............
> _________________
> 
> "reminds me of the time i sank the Tirpiz" comments a spitfire pilot "one pass of course, old boy"
> ...


just what i was going to say german mine was lanc vs b24 b24 won


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

lots of silly stuff to quote there old bean


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 4, 2004)

*De Haviland Mosquito was the best bomber...*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2004)

nah i think B-29 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 4, 2004)

We all agree that to not agree makes for great debate. What we can agree on is that each of these aircraft had it's place in the great air war. now I will say that the B-24 might not have the looks that the B-17 did, but it did look better then the Lancaster. But we are not talking about the other 4 engine bomber, the unsung Halifax. I would think that some one other then me would have thought of it? The Halifax is third on the list before the B-17 I think.

As for the B-17 being the "Work Horse" well look at the bomb totals droped and missions for the B-24.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

We aren't talking about the Halifax because it was almost completely phased out by the Lanc as a bomber and that's what this thread it about.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

was useful as a glider tug though


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

It was useful as a tug (so was the Sterling) and perhaps more useful as a Coastal Command patrol plane but none of those are BOMBER roles.


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 5, 2004)

HMMMM..... B-17 dont ask me why! i just thought id vote for it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

no need to ask why - it was an excellent plane 8)


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 5, 2004)

ive always wanted to be a ballgunner


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 5, 2004)

Luca, a ball gunner great!!!  But you know as a ball gunner you better be the smallest in the crew and it is a lonly spot but my pick close to the action. Also pilot, both on B-24. Nice to have you on board.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

Not to mention next to impossible to get out of if you had to bail out. I've always wanted to be in the nose as a bombardier.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

i just learnt this weekend that my cousins dads friend knows someone who was the tail gunner on a lancaster, ill have to find out more


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

I know a gentleman who was a top turret gunner/engineer on a B-24 in the PTO. He had one Zero shot down and a total of 52 combat missions flown.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 7, 2004)

LG- 52 that is a lot for a 24 crewman. When did he serve/ what plane?
I am trying to find info on B-24s the flew more then 35 missions and it is a slim list, but I have only started. The RAF information hunt is a little more interesting and needs time.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

I have a rough draft of the memoirs he wrote somewhere but I believe they are stored away somewhere. He says it was not uncommon for them to fly 16 hour missions, taking off at 2 AM bombing the target at 10, and returning to base at 6 PM.


----------



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

wow, that's almost two tours isn't it??


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 12, 2004)

WHY ISN'T MY BELOVED JU-87 HEY??????


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

I don't think the USAAF in the PTO held to the 25/30/35 mission tour as rigorously as they did in the ETO. The PTO was being fought with leftovers in terms on men and material and it wasn't feasible to just release crewmen like it was in Europe.


----------



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

> WHY ISN'T MY BELOVED JU-87 HEY??????



becuase it wasn't the best.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

there is the option of "other"


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 14, 2004)

LG, thanks. I tend to forget that the PTO was fr most of the war until 1943 or 1944 the second to fight. 

The Ju-87? Over spain maybe but it was showig its age, like the bf 109 by 1941.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

Anytime during WWII that the Stuka was forced to fight with anything less that complete German air superiority it was decimated.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

But why then did it continue on well after it should have been phased out? I have the same grip about the P-40. I understand the the Stuka was needed and replacment development was slow, but it and the 109 were showing the years early on after 1940 and 41.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2004)

On the Western Front the Stuka would be obliterated in the skies, but you have to remember that they mostly went to the East. Air superiority was gained quickly over Russia. 

The 109 never truly showed its age, all the way up to the end of the war it was dogfighting with the best of them.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, in one since the 109 was showing it's age. After, the Fredrich or so, the engine power was really beginning to produce more power than the small wing of the 109 could handle. And their was also the inevitable weight gain. All of that resulted in markedly decreased handling.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

Opps forgot the East. LG- the Ks were to adress the the G problums and were to be the step off for the 209 project.


----------



## David m Card (Jun 16, 2004)

The Handley Page HALIFAX Bomber was the best!!!!!Just ask my Grandfather who flew 33 sorties over Germany piloting one...He also had the oppertunity to fly Lancasters,Wellingtons and a American Plane witch we will not mention because the American bombers took way to much glory away from R.C.A.F R.A.F bombers.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Welcome to the site. Halifax wasn't even the best British bomber. An every advantage that has been named for the B-29 over the Lanc it also holds over the Halifax. Those would include, speed, range, ceiling, armament, payload, pressurization, and just about whatever else you would want a bomber to have/do.


----------



## David m Card (Jun 17, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Welcome to the site. Halifax wasn't even the best British bomber. An every advantage that has been named for the B-29 over the Lanc it also holds over the Halifax. Those would include, speed, range, ceiling, armament, payload, pressurization, and just about whatever else you would want a bomber to have/do.


I agree with you statistically, however, in my opinion....the Halifax was still the best. Maybe I'm just prejudiced since my Grandfather flew them and is a war hero earning a DFC...and the plane did bring him home 33 times.Very few can beat that.I quess the boys in the B-29s got the cadillacs and the boys in the HALIFAXs got the Buicks.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 17, 2004)

The B-29 isn't my favor either (in fact of the Allied heavies it's probably my least favorite). But it terms of ability, it was head and shoulders above anything else that served during the war.


----------



## David m Card (Jun 18, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The B-29 isn't my favor either (in fact of the Allied heavies it's probably my least favorite). But it terms of ability, it was head and shoulders above anything else that served during the war.


What is your favor?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

Probably the B-24. It was built in greater numbers and saw more widespread service than any other bomber in the war. I liked it's turrets, particularly the nose and tail turrets (man turrets always seemed cooler to me than remote ones).


----------



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

in terms of performance the lancaster would also beat the halifax..................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 18, 2004)

David m Card, welcome aboard to this flying circus at times. I am a great fan of the B-24 and the Halifax  They both flew in all theatures and were also able to be adapted for a lot of uses. Sadly the B-29 was by the proforance numbers the best, but with out the Liberator to help get the airfields it would have had a hard time.

I think that the Halifax is very mush under loved and overshadowed by the Lanc  Also the Hali's did great for Coastal Comand!


----------



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

> welcome aboard to this flying circus at times





you know me to well.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 20, 2004)

I'm going to take 'flying circus' as a compliment since that was what the Red Barron's unit was known as and was later applied to the team of Bong and Lynch in the Pacific.


----------



## David m Card (Jun 20, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > welcome aboard to this flying circus at times
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank-You MP-Willow it is nice to know that some one on this site reconizes a Halifax,very refreshing getting sick of hearing about lancs all the time!!!!!


----------



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

what was th point in quoting my last post there??


----------



## David m Card (Jun 21, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what was th point in quoting my last post there??


Sorry,was trying to quote MP-Willow,still getting used to using site.  My point also being that there were other bombers in the war that also deserve reconition,The spanky Lanky has enough already.The pilots and crews of Hali's ,Whimpys,stirlings,hamps,were on the same damn airfeilds to!!!


----------



## David m Card (Jun 21, 2004)

David m Card said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > what was th point in quoting my last post there??
> ...


OH,and by the way your quote on engine power between a Hali and a Lank ,Bristol Hercules 1800hp lank 1280hp but i will do more research on the RR Merlins,all of my data is packed away till July(moveing).I am sure those little devils packed more punch.At least i would hope so,i mean with all there greatness and reconition and all!!!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

The Merlins on the Lanc produced around 1,460hp depending on altitude. David, the Lanc gets the praise it did because of its numbers, its performance, and its impact. The Halifax was a good aircraft and the Wimpy was the best the RAF had to start the war with. I don't think the Stirling and Hampden should even be mentioned however.


----------



## David m Card (Jun 22, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The Merlins on the Lanc produced around 1,460hp depending on altitude. David, the Lanc gets the praise it did because of its numbers, its performance, and its impact. The Halifax was a good aircraft and the Wimpy was the best the RAF had to start the war with. I don't think the Stirling and Hampden should even be mentioned however.


Thank-You sir i agree 100%!!! \/


----------



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

most merlins used on lancs (Mk.XX and XXII) produced 1,800+hp, and if you think the hurcules would have been better on the lancaster, have you heard of the Lancaster Mk.II, i wouldn't be supprised if you haven't, they were the same as the Mk.I but with hurkules engines, they gave a lesser ceiling, less range, less payload, they were only made because they were worried about a shortage of merlins, but their fears weren't recognised, so they went back to the Mk.III, esentually a Mk.I.....................


----------



## David m Card (Jun 22, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> most merlins used on lancs (Mk.XX and XXII) produced 1,800+hp, and if you think the hurcules would have been better on the lancaster, have you heard of the Lancaster Mk.II, i wouldn't be supprised if you haven't, they were the same as the Mk.I but with hurkules engines, they gave a lesser ceiling, less range, less payload, they were only made because they were worried about a shortage of merlins, but their fears weren't recognised, so they went back to the Mk.III, esentually a Mk.I.....................


Hmm shortage of merlins,must be because they kept blowing up.Yes i have heard of the lank with herc's,just goes to show they belong on a HALIFAX!!!!! \/


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 22, 2004)

Lac I read of the Mk II it was an experiment that thankfully was not needed. 

Hamptens were good for the little bit but by 1940 they were a lost cause. But did surve with Costal Comand and Trasport. The stirlings are never realy talked about that much. I think it was a program that needed ore development and one of the poor Short Brothers designs.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2004)

Did he just have a swipe at the Merlin?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

As I understand it, the only difference between the Mk.I and the Mk.III was that the Mk.III used Packard-built engines. That was the real reason the Mk.II wasn't needed. The Packard company and industrial might of America allowed the British an almost limitless supply of Merlins.


----------



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

> Lac I read of the Mk II it was an experiment that thankfully was not needed.



not quite, they were more than a experiment, they made 303 of them and saw quite a bit of action, but they weren't as good as the merlins................



> Yes i have heard of the lank with herc's,just goes to show they belong on a HALIFAX!!!!!



i take it you knew that merlins were used on some halibags too??


----------



## David m Card (Jun 23, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Lac I read of the Mk II it was an experiment that thankfully was not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes! MKI&MKII's Just Jokin with you.CHEERS


----------



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

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


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 25, 2004)

Stuff made in Aerica and Canada, let us not forget, must get to you in England, that is still a very tricky thing. The tonage lost in 1914 and 42 to the Fw-200 was mind blowing, over 300,000. Yes I was reading up on this interesting plane.


----------



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

but it was more for directing U-boats onto the convoys..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

That was its primary role. The Fw-200 wasn't suited to combat particularly well. It's bombload was rather small for a plane of its size and it wasn't as robust as one might expect a four-engined plane to be.


----------



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

it's payload wasn't that great becasue it didn't need to be as bombing wasn't it's primary role, as you said.......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 28, 2004)

True but it did bomb shipping early in the war and like the other great 4 engine programs given the time it might have developed into what the German's needed. The Lanc, B-17, and even the B-4 al ent through a lot of changes ad developments so I am shore that the Fw-200 would have it given the time. It just never had time, priority, or funds


----------



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

actually the lanc stayed prettymuch unchaged throughout the whole war..................


----------



## Dan (Jun 28, 2004)

for one thing it certianly isn't the Do-17 because they stopped making it after the battle of britan


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 28, 2004)

The basic Lanc was unchanged, but it was modified to serve a lot of different roles. I think the Fw-200 would have required more that just a few changes. It was, basically, a civilian aircraft converted to military purposes and that rarely worked out well. Just look at the Do-17.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 29, 2004)

But the Lanc could have done with some more work. Armore, and range, but that would make it more a daylight platform yes?

I never said that the Fw-200 would have been a quick fix, but that it had the potential.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

In my opinion, the only things the Fw-200 had going for it were its size and range. The Luftwaffe was better off trying to design a real 4-engined bomber.


----------



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

why did the lanc need more range??


----------



## Dan (Jun 29, 2004)

i would easly say it was the b-29 superfortress that was the best bomber in world war 2; though the b-24 was built to replace the b-17 it wasn't as superior as they origionaly thought it would be: why? well let's just say that the b-24's wings weren't as strong as the b-17


----------



## Dan (Jun 29, 2004)

now that i think about it the Lancaster looks alot like the Ju-390 except that the junkers had 6 engines instead of 4


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

Dan, the B-24 was superior to the B-17 in just about every category of performance.


----------



## Dan (Jun 30, 2004)

meh, i guess what i heard was wrong


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2004)

Dan, the B-24 was very advaced for its time. And that Wing Mr. Davis designed it for long range and crusing. The bomber would have replace the B-17 in peace time a lot faster then in the war setting ad the B-24 was itself going to be replaced by the B-29 as it was under design in the early war years, the date eludes me now. Dan it is ok that you have bad info on the B-24 most people seem to be jadded about it, because the B-17 has a lot of press.


----------



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

I'm still waiting for an answer, why did the lanc need more range MP??


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 2, 2004)

More range is always good!!! But for the Lanc it would have been more range for daylight ops. but really I sould have said a ball gun  Also the range would have let it hit the iol and ball factories in Eastern Europe at night! but then it did have a good range and load, but the armore and guns were lacking, the ball again


----------



## Dan (Jul 2, 2004)

well this might be true or not but i heard that the B29 was built to replace the B24 AND the B17 so hah! in your face!!!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2004)

How is that in anyones "face"? The B-17 was surpassed by the B-24 and the B-24 was surpassed by the B-29.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 3, 2004)

it's all very well you saying that MP, but i could easily say that the B-17 needed more range, and the lanc had better range than the B-17 anyway.............................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2004)

Lanc -true, maybe they both had the nich they needed, but the Lanc seemed to be developed more after the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2004)

after the war the lancaster evolved into the lincon, which it tern led to many more more bombers, the last of which, the shackelton, is still in servise today, but to be honest the lanc was never really changed at all throughout the whole war.............................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 6, 2004)

Would you say during the war it developed more or less then a B-24?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 6, 2004)

i can't say as i don't know enough about the development of the B-24.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 8, 2004)

ok, it was a shot to ask. Basically the B-24 got more guns armor bombs, and fuel as it developed. I wanted to know if the Lancaster developed similarly. Any sugestions where I could read up on the Lanc.


----------



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

not from the internet, i get most of my infromation from books...................

and not the lanc wasn't chaged at all really, it carried the same ammout of fuel and same payload throughout the whole war (excluding the Mk.II, but we don't really think of that as a lancaster)......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

Most of the changes to the Lanc involved changes in the electronic gizmos being carried.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 9, 2004)

Shackleton, in service, where? Probably as a transport, or a AEW for some poor country. The Shackleton was the RAFs first AEW. And there used to be a static one in Cyprus RAF base (with a name I can't spell) where my dad was stationed several times with the Lightnings.


----------



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

some still are used in that role, they're obviously not used for bombing..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

Not with this country they aren't. We don't have any Shackletons in service anymore, doing anything.


----------



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

did i say in this country??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

You said 'still being used', I said not in this country. And with that I was expecting some form of list with the countries using it. Without that, I assume you meant this country.


----------



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

perhaps i should have made myself more clear.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 11, 2004)

Have you got any name of a country still using the Shackleton?


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 12, 2004)

Lanc the Mk II was the same just with different engines. From what I have read the RAF made more changes to the fighters like Mossie and Spit then to the Bombers. That is not fully true because the twin engine bombers did go through a lot but that was mostly after the Halifax and Lancaster were on the line.


----------



## MichaelHenley (Jul 29, 2004)

B-17 still rocks!!!


----------



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

> Lanc the Mk II was the same just with different engines



where did you get the impression i didn't know that??



> B-17 still rocks!!!



it sucked...................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 2, 2004)

He is well just drawn to the mass marketing and he pritty looks of the B-17. It is forgivable. One should spend some time with the B-24!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2004)

that's all very well for american bombers, but if he wants a real bomber to love, he should spend some alone time with the lancaster.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 3, 2004)

We will always be at ods over this topic yes? 
As a compromise we could try to find a bomber of a third nation to agree to love.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 3, 2004)

Me...I'm the bomber of a third nation. Or the Pe-8.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 4, 2004)

The Pe-8 wasn't even that effective was it? I didn't think it compared well to any of the Western bombers in most realms of performance.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2004)

Well seeing as MP said they need another one that isn't American or British, I threw in the Pe-8.


----------



## demlik_poseti (Aug 4, 2004)

Ar-234 is the best bomber...Faster then others.Have a higher altitude...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2004)

It was a lighter bomber than the bombers mostly discussed. It had less effect on the war than all the bombers discussed, and it wasn't even that good at bombing. Although it can lay claim to the Remagen Bridge.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2004)

lancs could blow a bridge into the air intact, then while it's in the air, put a grandslam straight down the middle......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 5, 2004)

I suppose the Ar-234 could lay claim to the Remagen bridge (it did finally crumble) but it took several raids to do so and it was never destroyed out right.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 5, 2004)

I know, LG! I said I SUPPOSE it could lay claim, since it collapsed on a Ar-234B raid.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 5, 2004)

Stress~The Result Of Not Getting Laid...







Only joking, mate...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 5, 2004)

he won't like that.......................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 5, 2004)

Oh, GrG. You cheap whore...and you're only 13. That was dirty, and officially below the belt. Now I'll have to try extra hard on Friday night to....'relieve my stress' so to speak.


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 5, 2004)

Ok the Pe-8 can work. It is really nice and as for the area of the war was not quite what was needed. It was never able to fly from a secure and save base. 13 is a bit youn to be talking of such things yes? 

But then to put it in perspective you would noly be a few short years from being the age of most of the young men in the war.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 6, 2004)

Plan_D I fail to see the word 'suppose' any where in your post? Were you refering to an earlier post not on this page?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

I can't remember...GrG has clouded my vision with rage.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

are you sure it's rage, you know what they say about masterbation making you turn blind..............



> 13 is a bit youn to be talking of such things yes?



you wouldn't say that if you'd heard about these 13 year old girls i know, we;ll just say some of the stuff they've done is to rude to put on this site...................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

If that's the case, Lanc. We call those kinds of children, dirty scrubbers that I would touch with a barge pole, ever.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

ah, the things those girls could do with a barge pole....................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2004)

but yes i would call them sluts aswell.........................


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 13, 2004)

I was inclined for the Lancaster, mainly due to the dambuster raids, But wasnt the B-29 the plane that dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima? Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I have voted for.


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 13, 2004)

Yes the B-29 dropped both the Atomic bombs! Please remember two were droped the other on Nagasaki (poorly spelled?) from the B-29 BoxCar?


----------



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

> I was inclined for the Lancaster, mainly due to the dambuster raids, But wasnt the B-29 the plane that dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima? Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I have voted for.



darn you, and i was so close to getting a lancaster loving apprentise.....................


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 13, 2004)

They dropped 2? Wow, I didnt know that, thanks.

Dont get me wrong, i like the Lancaster, but isnt this topic called "Best Bomber" and not "Favourite Bomber?"


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 13, 2004)

MP is right, the second atomic weapon was dropped from Box Car and not The Great Artist as some sources reported.


----------



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

and we've established that the lancaster could carry an atomic weapon, but we won't go into that again...................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 14, 2004)

It was actually "Bock's Car".


----------



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

i can never remember the name of the second atomic bomber, gotta remember it this time.................


----------



## johnny (Sep 21, 2004)

I suppose it would depend which theatre of the war u were talking about.
In 1939/1940 it would probably be the HE111 or the Wellington.Later in the war there were only 2 bombers in europe worth talking about namely the B17 and the Lancaster.In the pacific the B17 seemed to fail badly, but the B29 succeeded.
The best daylight bomber would have to be the B17 and night bomber the Lancaster.


----------



## johnny (Sep 21, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the best american one at least


What about the poor devils who had to bomb in a Fairy Battle?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 21, 2004)

I think we have reached the decision that we are discussing the best bomber in any arena at any time. Based purely off of technology or ability, it would have to be the B-29. Nothing else in service came close to it.


----------



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

i came to an agreement with CC t'other day that i'd admit to the B-29 being the best bomber of the war so long as he admited that ther lanc was no.2 and no.1 in europe and at night...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2004)

you didnt say at night at the time...but ill agree to that too.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 21, 2004)

I won't agree to the Lanc being number one in Europe. Probably number one at night, but I prefer the American bombers.


----------



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

what because of their huge payload...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 22, 2004)

Because of their accuracy.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 22, 2004)

apart from the B-29, im not really into bombers at all. i prefer heavy fighters and interceptors


----------



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

that's true, he thinks anything with two engines and isn't a P-38 is a He-111.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2004)

thats so not true, where did you get that from?  the 111 is the easiest twin engined plane to remember apart from the P-38


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

B-29 hands down.

Its fast sustainable cruise of 342 mph would make it almost impossible for prop fighters to intercept, especially at 30,000 feet.

The Lancaster is a close 2nd, and carried similar bombloads, but with a top speed of almost 100 mph slower, and a service ceiling almost 10,000 feet lower, it was much more vulnerable. And its round trip range of 2500 miles is about 1000 miles less than that of the B-29A. Finally, the 8 x .303 guns in 3 manned turrets of the Lancaster cannot compare with the 10 x .50's in 4 computer assist remote turrets (using a computing gunsight and fire select system) plus 2 x .50's in the tail. The B-29 had the best defensive armament setup of any bomber in WWII by a large margin.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

The Piaggio P.108 Bombardiere had a similar gun arrangement 4 years earlier...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Piaggio P.108 Bombardiere had a similar gun arrangement 4 years earlier...



It was the first bomber with remotely controlled gun turrets, but that is hardly the same. The key to the B-29 gunnery system was the analog computer and computing gunsites. The gunner entered the wingspan of the enemy fighter (most were very similar), put the pipper on the target, he twisted a grip to keep the recticle sized to the wings, and he fired. The computer used the changing position of the pipper and the changing size of the recticle and calculated the necessary lead, and up to 3 of the 4 remote turrets would fire at that target at once. It was a deadly gun system not matched by any other country in WWII. The B-17 chin gun used the same technology, but only for the one turret. The A-26 had a simplifed version for its two turrets.

The P.108 had the external remote turrets, which was quite innovative. But these were still manually aimed, not assisted by an analog computer and computing gunsights like on the B-29.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

But this was 4 years earlier and by a country which had far less resources...I think the P.108 could have been the best bomber of the war had it been further developed and not seen as a joke by the Germans.


----------



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

dude that's a load of steaming shit............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

How? It probably could have been.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> But this was 4 years earlier and by a country which had far less resources...I think the P.108 could have been the best bomber of the war had it been further developed and not seen as a joke by the Germans.



Well, it could certainly have been a better bomber than anything they had. Hiter's requirement that all bombers be dive bombers was a huge blunder.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## germanace (Nov 25, 2004)

i must go with the B-17 
it was defenily the best


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 25, 2004)

Nah....

That title definetly belongs to its son, the B-29 Superfortress!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Indeed it does!


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 11, 2005)

I know this is an old poll but I do cast my vote for the B-29. Besides being my favorite aircraft of all time, I believe it also was the best bomber of the war. It had good range, speed, altitude, bombload and armament, plus pressurization. Others indeed had a mix of these features but never had all of them in one package.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 11, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> I know this is an old poll but I do cast my vote for the B-29. Besides being my favorite aircraft of all time, I believe it also was the best bomber of the war. It had good range, speed, altitude, bombload and armament, plus pressurization. Others indeed had a mix of these features but never had all of them in one package.



Pressurization was a mixed blessing. If they expected they might get into combat, they'd depressurize the cabin. Sometimes they didn't, and we hear stories of 1 meter holes being blown in the skins of B-29's as a result!

=S=

Lunatic

PS: I agree, the B-29 was the best heavy bomber of WWII.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 11, 2005)

Most times Ive read of and talked with vets they only were pressurized when not over target. However like you said some chose to ignore the possiblity of an explosive decompression. One veteran I talked to said that they didn't depressurize during the run and were hit producing a hole right above the guys head in the forward compartment. He said to plug the hole he threw his gloves up and they were caught in the hole!! He also said they're were a few other holes and these were plugged by putting small pieces of cardboard over the hole and the pressure differential would hold them there.

On an interesting note did you know the B-29B was equipped with more than tail guns. The B model was basically a stripped bomber with only the tail turret remaining, all sighting blisters were faired over. However in the rear pressurized area there was a provision for firing flexible hand held .50 caliber machine guns out of the sighting blister holes. I dont know much more about it though except that it was a provision, Ive never read if it was used or if the extra .50s were even carried!


----------



## Viper (Feb 4, 2005)

id say the best would be the 29 followed by the 17, i just wouldnt feel safe in a lancaster


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Me neither. Perhaps if it had more armour and guns...


----------



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

and loose the manouverability that saved it from so many NFs?? just out of interest how many B-17s were shot down during the war??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Lots...but there were more of them.


----------



## Devin Dilley (Mar 23, 2005)

hey the B-29 rocks and all but you have to look at other countries because germany was close behind in building a good bomber


----------



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

well not really


----------



## Devin Dilley (Mar 23, 2005)

If the Lancaster had better handling qualities ................and a better armour i would fly it. In other words screw the lancaster cuz the b-29 is better


----------



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

hey the lanc was the most manouverable four engined heavy out there.........


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 23, 2005)

Devin Dilley said:


> hey the B-29 rocks and all but you have to look at other countries because germany was close behind in building a good bomber




All of the Germans bombers were short range, unless you were referring to that great toaster of the skies called the He 177 Greif. Very handy if you wanted to make toast - just give the engine ONE second to warm up!!


----------



## Mosin (Mar 26, 2005)

I dont know guys but I think the JUNKER 88 is the best because of its many roles. Yes it had a light bomb load and shorter range than most but it was a good design.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 26, 2005)

Mosin said:


> I dont know guys but I think the JUNKER 88 is the best because of its many roles. Yes it had a light bomb load and shorter range than most but it was a good design.



I think that It certainly was the best twin engined Bomber the Germans had, and was also an effective nightfighter. But due to the Lancasters range bombload the Lanc still does it for me!


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and loose the manouverability that saved it from so many NFs?? just out of interest how many B-17s were shot down during the war??




EXACTLY!! I Never heard of a B17 doing a corkscrew Manouevre before.

Many Lancaster veterans said that the Lanc handled more like a fighter it was very responsive on the controls. The only thing the B17 could do was stay in its tight combat wing formations for the combined firepower of all the ships together!!


----------



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

which didn't even work!! thanks for sticking by me con...........


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

No harm in telling the truth old boy!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

Yeah, God save the king! Or O' Canada, or whatever the hell I'm supposed to say at a time like this!

Go Lancaster!


----------



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

well you can say "God save the Queen"..............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

I was just keeping in the spirit of WWII with "king".


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

As long as it wasnt for prince charles Dogface - YUK


----------



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




----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

Never!!! 

Btw, I like the siggy Concorde.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

thanks.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 27, 2005)

Couldn't agree Concorde, I never thought Charlie would marry one of his mum's corgi's


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

he saves money on choclates - he buys her winalot dog biccies instead!! 

It gives her such an glossy coat


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Mar 27, 2005)

The B-17 was the best bomber.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

BountyHunter15 said:


> The B-17 was the best bomber.




In terms of Bombload, The Lancaster was better, as was the B29 thought it did come in later in the war.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

The Lancaster and the B-29 were both wartime designs.

The Lancaster entered service in March 1942. The B-29 entered service in April 1944 (though it was actually ready for service about 3 months eariler but there were no suitable bases ready in reach of Japananese stratgetic targets). So the Lancaster entered service after Britian had been at war for 3.5 years, where the B-29 entered service after the USA had been at war for 2.5 years.

*Lancaster specs - max speed:* 287 mph @ 11,500 feet *max. continuous cruise:*234 mph @ 21,000 feet, 200 mph @ 15,000 ft *ceiling:* 24,500 feet (nominal) *defensive armament:* 8 x .303 mg's *bombload:* 14,000 lbs normal bombs. *range:* 2,530 miles with 7,000 lbs bombload, 1730 miles with 12,000 lbs bomload, 1550 miles with 22000 lbs grandslam. (I believe all ranges are at 11.5k - 15k) 

*B-29A Superfortress specs - max. speed:* 357 mph @ 30k *max. continuous cruise:* 342 mph @ 30k *ceiling:*33,600 feet *defensive armament:* 12 x .50 hmg's *bombload:*20,000 lbs normal bombs. *range:* 3200 miles with 5000 lbs bombload @ 25k, or 12000 lbs at 15K.

Clearly, the B-29 is the superior bomber.

By comparison, the B-17, which was a pre-war design, had the following specs:

*B-17G Flying Fortress - max. speed:* 287 mph @ 25K *max. continous cruise:* 182 mph @ 25k. *ceiling:* 35,800 ft *defensive armament:* 12 x .50 hmg's *bombload:* up to 17,600 lbs. including ext. bombs, 9600 lbs. internal max, 6000 typical. *range:*2000 miles with 6000 lbs bombload.

It should also be noted that the B-17 did not utilize four engines that could otherwise be utilized in fighters. B-17's with Merlins or R-2800's or R-2600's would have performed much better, but it would have had a cost in fighters. Every Lancaster cost four Spitfires or P-51's!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

but every lancaster cost the enemy more than the fighters...............

and you've given the stats for a wartime varient of the B-17, if you're gonna say 



> the B-17, which was a pre-war design, had the following specs:



you should atleast give the specs of a pre war varient..........

and just because britian had been in the war longer than the americans, did the americans only start to think of the B-29 the day war began for you guys?? before that date there was nothing of a B-29 or similiar?? no, there were designing it pre-war as well...............

and the B-29 had several problems on entry into service, the lanc however, had none..........

and a bomber that came along in 1944 would have been useless in Europe, no matter how good it was, simply because of the fact it came in 1944, the lanc was there from the beggining of the offensive in Europe............


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

Plus the lancaster was designed when there was a surplus of the merlin engines available. We all know its forerunner the Avro Manchester was a flop, which is why Roy Chadwick, Avros designer came up with the Lanc. the Merlins just couldnt be spared for the bomber.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but every lancaster cost the enemy more than the fighters...............



You miss the point, which is that the B-17 did not impose such a cost in fighters.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and you've given the stats for a wartime varient of the B-17, if you're gonna say
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, that is not true. All pre-war designs go through evolution in wartime. But the fundimentals of their design are still pre-war. Usually, the later variants are very much bound by the constraints of the original design, which defined the producition facilities. For the B-17, this was certainly the case.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and just because britian had been in the war longer than the americans, did the americans only start to think of the B-29 the day war began for you guys?? before that date there was nothing of a B-29 or similiar?? no, there were designing it pre-war as well...............



Well, sure there was some consideration of what would follow the B-17. But it didn't really solidify into a feasability study until late 1940, and it didn't really become a serious project until late 1941.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and the B-29 had several problems on entry into service, the lanc however, had none..........



Well, I'd not say "none", but very few. But then again, the Lancaster was an offshoot of the Manchester, which had many problems.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and a bomber that came along in 1944 would have been useless in Europe, no matter how good it was, simply because of the fact it came in 1944, the lanc was there from the beggining of the offensive in Europe............



And the evidence is that the night bombing campaign had almost no real effect on the German war-making ability. Only very select strategic bombing missions - those targeting petrolium, aircraft production, and communications/transportation centers, had any appreciable effect, and these were not generally carried out by night bombing missionsl... with a few exceptions starting in mid-1944. Even then, as it turned out, the USAAF fighter attacks probably had more effect on the German war machine than the heavy bombers.

Besides, why does it matter? You seem to think the ETO was the "real war". It was not, the PTO was just as real as the ETO. It was just not as imporant to you Brits. Ask your Aussie cousin's if it was a "real war".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

> Besides, why does it matter? You seem to think the ETO was the "real war". It was not, the PTO was just as real as the ETO. It was just not as imporant to you Brits. Ask your Aussie cousin's if it was a "real war".




It WAS a real war to us, but we had to finish the war on our front doorstep first!! We lost a lot of good men ships in the pacific, dont forget that!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

> the lancaster kicks ass wrote:
> and you've given the stats for a wartime varient of the B-17, if you're gonna say
> 
> Quote:
> ...



so you're saying that the B-17G is similar to the B for example?? you're saying the B was little different to the G??


----------



## red admiral (Mar 28, 2005)

The line in bomber evolution goes B17 -> B24 -> B29

US bombers were designed for war over mainland europe mainly, even the B29. For daylight bombing raids, all these bombers were/would have been monumental losses. The sole reason they were not shot out of the sky with even more frequency was the abundance of escort fighters. These bombers were not designed with escort fighters in mind. As such their designers made a very large mistake. Have a look at the US raid on Ploesti oilfields, that was a resounding success wasn't it?

The Lancaster was designed as a day bomber but quickly switched to night bomber, a role in which it was much more effective. A Lancaster would have performed as well as the B17/B24 at day bombing, but was clearly superior at night.

The B29 was the most technically advanced bomber to see service but best? It had 2 separate bomb bays which restricted it from carrying the larger bombs at the end of the war. It has roughly twice as much power and 2-3 years more technology than the Lanc, why should it not be better. The technical innovations introduced with the B29 were actually out of date, remote controlled turrets having been in service with the P108 from 1940-41.

Who cares if the Merlin engined Lanc meant that you couldn't put those engines in fighters? There was no shortage of engines in the first place.

For the ultimate Lanc that compares to the B29, look at the Lincoln or Shackleton bombers instead.

Altogther, although the B29 was a better aircraft, it wasn't there when it was needed.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 28, 2005)

The Lancaster airframe was used into the 90's. That just shows it's use. Shackleton's were used in the AEW until we got Boing Sentry AWACS


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 28, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> The Lancaster airframe was used into the 90's.


Really? Where?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 28, 2005)

As I said, in Shackletons


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 28, 2005)

Oh yeah, so you did. Sorry.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so you're saying that the B-17G is similar to the B for example?? you're saying the B was little different to the G??



I'm saying that the G was derived from B airframe. This defined the design. Sure it underwent improvements over time, but by the D (the war-entry variant) it was pretty much defined as an airplane.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 29, 2005)

but you couldn't stick a D into combat (although the C is actually the first war-going varient with the RAF's 90Sqn) and it's do the same job as a G??


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but you couldn't stick a D into combat (although the C is actually the first war-going varient with the RAF's 90Sqn) and it's do the same job as a G??



Well, yes and no. It carried a 4800 lbs bombload and could tackle the same missions. But few were produced. By the time the war started for the USA, the E model was the B-17 with which combat units were generally outfitted, except a few Pacific units where the C's and D's were used mostly as recon planes. The USAAF never considered the C's or D's ready for combat, having purchased a relatively small number (about 70) for training and evaluation. The B-17E had already been specified and ordered in the Spring of 1941, and was the first volume production model.

The B-17E carried 8 x .50's plus one .30 in the nose, and up to 8000 lbs of bombs. Modifications from that point on were relatively minor.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

but the E isn't a pre-war varient..........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but the E isn't a pre-war varient..........



Actually it was. It was designed before the USA entered WWII. It was even in production and I think units were delivered before the USA entered WWII.

The point is the design was pre-war. Pre-war designs had more constraints than war-time designs. What could be done with an existing design was limited by the design and the production facilities. Usually those changes are relatively minor.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

it just so happens that in the case of a B-17 they were quite large changes...........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it just so happens that in the case of a B-17 they were quite large changes...........



How so? The wingspan remained about the same. The length remained about the same. The engines were the same. The major change was in armament, adding the top and belly turrets.

And besides, all this got done before the USA entered the war. From the E model on there were practically no changes of major significance other than increasing the structrual strength of the landing gear to support heavier payloads. Arguably, the G model was a step backwards - while it had a superior nose and (in later models) tail gun, it was 35 mph slower than the F model, and 55 mph slower than the E.

The B-17 is clearly a pre-war design, and it had no major modifications during its service life.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)

i still think if you're gonna say "the B-17 was a pre war design" you post stats for a pre-war varient.............


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i still think if you're gonna say "the B-17 was a pre war design" you post stats for a pre-war varient.............



Well, most "stats" relate to the E model, which was "pre-war" and the F, which was in production in the first months of the war and was almost identical to the E.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)

but you gave stats for the G..............


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but you gave stats for the G..............



You're making a big deal out of nothing. The stats for the E/F are actually better than for the G except in terms of maximum short-range bomload (very infrequently used) and in terms of the chin and tail turrets, which we know were not really very effective anyway. What would you rather have, a slightly better nose and tail armament or 55 mph higher speed? Most B-17 crews stated they preferred the F over the G because it was faster.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 31, 2005)

Some trivia from 'Gunner'

Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret > dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose > dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils

For the B-24 it was:

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret > dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret > dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

I'm not sure how to interpret that KanuK. Can you explain what the data means?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

yes it's a bit strange.........


----------



## acesman (Apr 4, 2005)

> The Lancaster was designed as a day bomber but quickly switched to night bomber, a role in which it was much more effective. A Lancaster would have performed as well as the B17/B24 at day bombing, but was clearly superior at night.



Actually, the switch to night bombing/area bombing was a necessity, not a matter of superior technology. The US forces would have had to switch to night bombing too, if the fighter escorts had not been available later in the war.




> Altogther, although the B29 was a better aircraft, it wasn't there when it was needed.



Hmmm, the B-29 did not have any bases to fly from till 1944. And, ironically, most of its work was done as a mid to low level night bomber. They tried daytime high altitude bombing, but the extreme jet stream over Japan made that totally ineffective. Night bombing with incendiary bombs was not "nice", but it was very effective, just ask the citizens of Yokohama (most of the city razed to the ground by bombing/firestorms). B-29's also performed very effective mining missions, sinking over 200,000 tons of shipping in April 1945 alone.
As a personal view, each bomber is made with certain missions in mind, and it is not a slam that a aircraft is does not perform a mission for which it was not intended. The requirements for the B-17, B-29 and Lancaster were each different, and the designers approached them in a different fashion. I also believe the poll should not lump 'tactial' and 'strategic' bombers together, since the missions that they can perform are much different. Can you imagine a Lancaster/B-17 trying to perform as a torpedo bomber?


----------



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

no but the lanc did oparate in the maritime patrole role..............

and as a matter of fact the night bombing policy was adopted before the lanc entered service, the lanc was designed around the nightbombing role........


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2005)

Continued in a new thread

Kiwimac


----------

