Best Allied Heavy Bomber

Which is the best Allied Heavy Bomber?

  • Avro lancaster

    Votes: 9 22.0%

  • B-24 Liberator

    Votes: 3 7.3%

  • B-17 Flying Fortress

    Votes: 3 7.3%

  • B-29 Superfortress

    Votes: 26 63.4%
  • Total voters
    41

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

herman1rg said:
I'm quite sure the RAF was still active in the Far East until VJ day and if a Lancaster had needed to carry an A-bomb I am quite sure that could have easily been achieved.
Click to expand...

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

Could the Lanc carry an atomic bomb? Yes. Could it carry it 1000 miles? No. Could it carry it at 30,000 feet (needed to escape the blast?) Nope.
 
herman1rg said:
Of course the USA's involvement in WW2 lasted form Dec 1941 till Aug 1945 whereas for the UK and it's Allies WW2 lasted from Sep 1939 till Aug 1945. Almost two years longer.
Click to expand...

I don't see where that is relevant - both served in Ww2 and both contributed greatly HOWEVER look at the missions both had to perform. The B-29 carried the same bomb loads over vast oceans at altitudes the Lancaster couldn't touch.
 
i voted for the Lancaster becuase i thought that it was a good bomber and had an impact on the war. The B-29 would probaly be the best, but if you were also adding in affect on the war, and service length like in the top ten shows than probaly the lancaster would win.
 
syscom3 said:
The RAF never bombed Japan. That is a fact. The RAF was concerned with Burma and nothing else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aircraft should be judged on their actual capability and not by chances of timing, ie, war ending before planned operation could be carried out.
 
The B-29 ended the war probably 3 years earlier excluding the atomic bombings. The mission was more treacherous because of the over water route and between the B-29s raids and the allied navies starving Japan, Japan was just about at her knees in August 1945. The -29 got the job done quicker than any conventional bomber of the day could have done, to me that makes up for the "impact" of the war, and again I won't even bring up the atomic bombing.

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

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

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

Dont you think the B29's role in mining the Japanese inland seaways and shutting down the coastal traffic count as having an impac ton the war?
 
So did the B-17
as for service length,

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

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

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

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

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

If you want to go that rout anyhow, the bomber that effected the war the most would not the Lancaster anyhow. It would be the B-17.
 
Lets all be honest here. Lets determine these things.

1. What heavy bomber was the most technologically advanced?

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

3. What heavy bomber had the best defensive armament?

4. What heavy bomber had the best bomb load?

5. What heavy bomber had the best performance?

6. What heavy bomber had the best overall design?

7. What heavy bomber was overall the most capable?

If you honestly answer these questions, you should be able to figure out what the best heavy bomber was.
 
A bit off topic but I have a question. Did they only send three B-29s to Hiroshima because the blast would have been too dangerous for a bigger group? Or was it to lure the Japs into believing it was a recon mission?

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

Kris
Click to expand...

The other two aircraft carried photography and electronic equipment that photoed and measured the blast.
 
I don't think the B-29 can be in the same list as the other three, it was a much later design and cannot really be compared. Lincoln would be a better candidate.

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

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

Kris
 
Civettone said:
Yeah I know. But wasn't it dangerous to send just three B-29s to Japan? Why not a part of a bigger bomber group?
Click to expand...
What I do know is that neither Enola Gay nor Bock's Car (Nagasaki)
triggered an air raid warning, as the Japanese did not regard single aircraft/small formations to pose a great enough threat, although I'm not sure what advantage there is to be gained from catching the Japanese out in the open when the payload of choice is a nuke. A bomber group would have triggered an air raid warning, a swarm of interceptors and a statistical chance at least of Enola Gay being shot down before delivering the goods.
 
little notes

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

adding
Liberator II first mission january '42

i'm looking for Liberator I first mission i think in late '41
 
Last edited:
every bomber discussion goes like this. It's the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this on this forum....
It's a silly question really No doubt the B29 was the best heavy. It's not an interesting discussion at all.
The most interesting part is the one that was next.
The Lanc? Very capable bomber (second best I would say) and very good a/c but as noted too vulnerable with light defence armament and no belly-turret. It also had the nasty habit of keeping crew inside while crashing.
The B17 was better protected by it's guns but then again, it was not as good in bombing (bomb-load that is) as the Lanc. And was this heavy armament very effective? After all itstill needed it's little Mustang friends to keep itself safe. Before that there were tremendous losses.

I could go on about all those heavies. All had their good and bad things and I cannot say which one was best. Except that it surely wasn't the Stirling as it had more bad points then the rest of the lot.
 
Marcell is right. The poll should be what was the 2nd best heavy bomber.

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

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

TO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
924
Vahe Demirjian
  • Locked
  • Poll
best ww2 bomber
Replies
9
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
S
  • Poll
Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito
8 9 10
Replies
186
Views
28K
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register