B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Easy one; Had the B-17 and B-24 been able to bomb in daylight, without fighter escort, as was planned, then they would have been the best. However they couldn't, consequently the Lancaster was best because it
carried a far larger bombload to the target, and its range was good also.
The role of the bomber is to get maximum bombload on the target.

SpitTrop said:

Easy one; Had the B-17 and B-24 been able to bomb in daylight, without fighter escort, as was planned, then they would have been the best. However they couldn't, consequently the Lancaster was best because it
carried a far larger bombload to the target, and its range was good also.
The role of the bomber is to get maximum bombload on the target.

Click to expand...

You have a point but the reason why the strategic bombing campain was eventually successful was because of ROUND THE CLOCK bombing. Although I believe the Lancaster was superior to the both the B-17 and B-24 in its bombing ability, its not to say it did take devastating losses while operating in a potentially more dangerous environment. Not one bomber could be singled out as the "best" in the ETO - they all had their attributes and negatives and all were responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany...

Now as far as the "Best" bomber of WW2 - hands down the B-29....

I'd say the B32 was on the verge of being the 2nd best bomber. Unfortunatly for "it" (but good for the aircrews), the war ended before its full potential could be demonstrated

syscom3 said:

I'd say the B32 was on the verge of being the 2nd best bomber. Unfortunatly for "it" (but good for the aircrews), the war ended before its full potential could be demonstrated

Click to expand...

And I agree!!!

I fail to see how the B-32 would be any better than the lancaster Mk.VI (1943, btw) or Lincoln.........

the lancaster kicks ass said:

I fail to see how the B-32 would be any better than the lancaster Mk.VI (1943, btw) or Lincoln.........

Click to expand...

The B-32 carried just about the same bomb load farther and faster than any mark of the Lancaster or Lincoln (sorry to say it lanc). It was maybe a quarter a step behind the B-29 in capability and advancements......

Specifications (B-32)
General characteristics
Crew: 10
Length: 83 ft 1 in (25.3 m)
Wingspan: 135 ft 0 in (41.2 m)
Height: 33 ft 0 in (10.1 m)
Wing area: 1,442 ft² (132.1 m²)
Empty weight: 60,000 lb (27,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 100,000 lb (45,000 kg)
Maximum gross takeoff weight: 111,500 lb (50,580 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 Cyclone radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,600 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 310 kt (357 mph, 575 km/h)
Cruise speed: 252 kt (290 mph, 467 km/h)
Range: 3,000 miles (1,300 km)
Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (11,000 m)
Climb rate: 658 ft/min (3.4 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.3 lb/ft² (341 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.088 hp/lb (0.15 kW/kg)
Armament
Guns: 10× .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) of bombs

Specifications (Lancaster)
General characteristics
Crew: 7, pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners
Length: 69 ft 5 in (21.18 m)
Wingspan: 102 ft (31.09 m)
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)
Wing area: 1,300 ft² (120.8 m²)
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg)
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (28,636 kg)
Maximum gross takeoff weight: lb (kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX piston engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 280 mph at 15,000 ft (448 km/h at 5,600 m)
Range: 2,700 miles with minimal bomb load (4,320 km)
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m)
Climb rate: ft/min (m/min)
Wing loading: lb/ft² (kg/m²)
Power/mass: hp/lb (kW/kg)
Armament
8x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets
Up to 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) of bombs, typical load 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)

Lincoln General Specifications
Wingspan: 120 ft (36.58 m)
Length: 78 ft 34 in (23.86 m)
Height: 17 ft 34 in (5.27 m)
Weight: 43,400 lb (19686 kg) empty, 75,000 lb (34019 kg) max take-off
Powerplant: four 1,750 hp (1305 kW) Rolls-Royce Merlin 85 piston engines
Maximum speed: 295 mph (475 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4750 m)
Range: 1,470 miles (2,400 km) with maximum bomb-load, 3,580 miles (2,200) unladen
Service ceiling: 30,500 ft (9295 m)
Armament:
Twin .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns in nose, dorsal and tail turrets,
alternatively twin 20mm Hispano cannon in dorsal turret
Up to 22,000 lb (6350 kg) of bombs
Crew: 7,
front gunner / bomb aimer
pilot
flight engineer / co-pilot
navigator
wireless operator,
dorsal gunner
rear gunner

Range: 3,000 miles

Click to expand...

with what load?

and note also i said lancaster Mk.VI, for what i assume will be most of you that are un-aware, that's 350mph with a sustained cruise of 310+ mph- in 1943!! if she'd seen more service (she flew more than the, i believe it was 11 combat missions that the B-32 flew in WWII syscom said?) then imagine what she'd be like by 1945!

besides i don't really see what this has to do with the -17/-24/lanc argument.........

the lancaster kicks ass said:

with what load?

and note also i said lancaster Mk.VI, for what i assume will be most of you that are un-aware, that's 350mph with a sustained cruise of 310+ mph- in 1943!! if she'd seen more service (she flew more than the, i believe it was 11 combat missions that the B-32 flew in WWII syscom said?) then imagine what she'd be like by 1945!

besides i don't really see what this has to do with the -17/-24/lanc argument.........

Click to expand...

And the B-32 also had sustained speeds of over 350 mph and reached altitudes of 39,000 feet, and carried the same bomb load as the B-29, there's no comparison - I could agree with you when comparing the Lanc to the B-24 or B-17 but the B-32 was just about the same class as the B-29.

But in comparing the Lanc to the -17 and -24 yes it was(is) the superior aircraft....

And the B-32 also had sustained speeds of over 350 mph and reached altitudes of 39,000 feet, and carried the same bomb load as the B-29, there's no comparison

Click to expand...

i do understand your point i'm just trying to get you to picture what a 1943 plane that could kind of match the 1945 B-32 would be capable of with the extra years of development the -32 had............

the lancaster kicks ass said:

i do understand your point i'm just trying to get you to picture what a 1943 plane that could kind of match the 1945 B-32 would be capable of with the extra years of development the -32 had............

Click to expand...

Point taken however the first B-32 reached speeds of up to 375 mph with a 2000 pound ballast load - that was in 1942/ 43. The program got so screwed up and there were so many changes, the first B-32s didn't reach the Pacific until 1945...

B-32 reached speeds of up to 375 mph with a 2000 pound ballast load - that was in 1942/ 43

Click to expand...

point taken also, however the Mk.VI's figures would taken with full combat load (including fuel + bombs), again in '43........

however i don't think we can argue for either one being second best, neither saw enough serivce to prove themselves (that's the Lanc VI, not the other lancs...........)

the lancaster kicks ass said:

point taken also, however the Mk.VI's figures would taken with full combat load (including fuel + bombs), again in '43........

however i don't think we can argue for either one being second best, neither saw enough serivce to prove themselves (that's the Lanc VI, not the other lancs...........)

Click to expand...

Agree...

which makes the lanc the second best heavy bomber of WWII!!

Agreed, lanc.

SpitTrop said:

Easy one; Had the B-17 and B-24 been able to bomb in daylight, without fighter escort, as was planned, then they would have been the best. However they couldn't, consequently the Lancaster was best because it
carried a far larger bombload to the target, and its range was good also.
The role of the bomber is to get maximum bombload on the target.

Click to expand...

Well the B-29 is actually the best bomber of WW2 but between the 3 I agree with you that the Lancaster is better however your logic does not make sense here.

You say if the B-17 and B-24 could bomb without fighter escort they would be the best, and therefore the Lancaster is better? That does not make sense. Do you really think the Lancaster could do that during the day? No it could not, why do you thinkt he RAF Bomber Command stopped bombing during the day, because of the losses.

Even though all of the above were excellent:

B-17 could take punishment.

B-24 had a long range.

Lancaster the greatest pay load.

The B-29 ended the war with just 2 aircraft

In my opinion, biased though it may be, the lanc is first, Let me explain.
I have only 1 first hand story of each type of plane here in NZ.
B17, this aircraft albeit piloted [apparently] by a drunk crew took off from the hobsonville airbase, and promptly self destructed. ergo; loser.

B24. This aircraft came down in a tidal mangrove swamp north of the aforementioned airbase, with only the engines and guns being recovered. { there was also a rumor of p.o.w's being on board, but no mention if they were also recovered.} ergo; loser.

Lanc;
Of the three aircraft, flying around Nz this is the only one to survive up till today. I have seen this plane and apparently, apart from having a cracked mainspar [ according to rumor] it is in 1 piece. ergo; we have a winner!

Therefore my conclusion, with extreme logic is that the Lanc wins hands down, It is the only one left!

yes there is a complete Kiwi Mk.VII, she doesn't fly though.............

B-24 had a long range.

Click to expand...

the lanc had greater payload-to-range abilities.........

the lancaster kicks ass said:

yes there is a complete Kiwi Mk.VII, she doesn't fly though.............



the lanc had greater payload-to-range abilities.........

Click to expand...

As we have discussed before, the payload/range discrepancy is due to mission profiles and defensive set-up, not aircraft capabilities. However the large size of the bomb bay and ability to carry a much wider range of ordinance does give the Lancaster the edge in an environment like the ETO. So I'll accept the Lancaster as the second best bomber in WWII for it's real virtues.

wmaxt

But the Lanc wouldnt have been able to perform as effectively in the PTO like the B24 could.