evangilder
"Shooter"
No doubt. I was just thinking it may have collapsed and just slid on the nose. But obviously I can't prove or disprove it. Either way, it was one hell of a pilot to bring it down there!
Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3
Pacific Historian
"ok firstly this particular discussion is for heavy bombers, but it's ok as you proberly didn't realise............ "
- The title of this thread is "Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3"...... nothing about best heavy bomber.
Enough with that. I admire your spirited defense of the Lanc, but it (the plane) still has short commings. It has woefull defensive gunnery for daylight missions, and for it to fly during the day would mean it needed complete and total air dominance to safely fly its mission. Nightime bombing was highly ineffective, except for leveling cities.
The B17 and B24's could fly at night if required, and during the daylight, they could at least make the German pilots think about being shot down. The B17's and B24's did take some dreadfull loss's...... but they did get through.
I ranked the B17 higher than the B24 and Lanc because it had the ability to bring the aircrews home to fly another mission.
A great bomber needs to be able to perform both in daylight and nighttime. Just the fact it could carry a heavy payload doesnt mean it could put all its bombs on target. And just because it could carry those huge bombs didnt make it superior. I doubt the 4000 pound bombs had much of an impact on the war effort.
My ratings for the B17/24/Lanc were weighted by how many bombs it could accuratly place on the target, how well it could defend itself and how hard it was to shoot down.
- The title of this thread is "Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3"...... nothing about best heavy bomber.
Enough with that. I admire your spirited defense of the Lanc, but it (the plane) still has short commings. It has woefull defensive gunnery for daylight missions, and for it to fly during the day would mean it needed complete and total air dominance to safely fly its mission. Nightime bombing was highly ineffective, except for leveling cities.
The B17 and B24's could fly at night if required, and during the daylight, they could at least make the German pilots think about being shot down. The B17's and B24's did take some dreadfull loss's...... but they did get through.
I ranked the B17 higher than the B24 and Lanc because it had the ability to bring the aircrews home to fly another mission.
A great bomber needs to be able to perform both in daylight and nighttime. Just the fact it could carry a heavy payload doesnt mean it could put all its bombs on target. And just because it could carry those huge bombs didnt make it superior. I doubt the 4000 pound bombs had much of an impact on the war effort.
My ratings for the B17/24/Lanc were weighted by how many bombs it could accuratly place on the target, how well it could defend itself and how hard it was to shoot down.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
Good points - That's why the B-29 is the best bomber of WW2, end of story! 8)
"of the Lanc, but it (the plane) still has short commings."
All planes do.
"It has woefull defensive gunnery for daylight missions, and for it to fly during the day would mean it needed complete and total air dominance to safely fly its mission."
No it wouldn't. It would have needed a roaming escort capable of escorting it to the target and back, just like the B-17s and B-24s had.
"Nightime bombing was highly ineffective, except for leveling cities."
No, just...no. The night bombing in the early years with little electronic aid was ineffective but by 1944-1945 the Bomber Command was effective in precision strikes and city bombing. In November 1944, Bomber Command dropped more tonnage on oil facilities than U.S 8th Air Force.
On top of that, Bomber Command diverted thousands of AA guns and hundreds of thousands of men from other duties to defend the German citizens.
So, no, night time bombing wasn't highly ineffective. It was extremely effective.
"The B17 and B24's could fly at night if required, and during the daylight, they could at least make the German pilots think about being shot down. The B17's and B24's did take some dreadfull loss's...... but they did get through."
They got through with the P-51 with escort. The Lancaster never had the luxury of an escort fighter able to take it to target and back during the day. The USAAF was close to cancelling daylight bombing raids due to high losses, the B-17s and B-24s did get through but in extremely small numbers without escort. They were sitting ducks, all the guns in the world wouldn't save them.
"I ranked the B17 higher than the B24 and Lanc because it had the ability to bring the aircrews home to fly another mission."
The B-17 was a rugged and durable machine but the Lancaster and B-24 weren't made of paper. They could take punishment too just like all heavy bombers.
"A great bomber needs to be able to perform both in daylight and nighttime. Just the fact it could carry a heavy payload doesnt mean it could put all its bombs on target. And just because it could carry those huge bombs didnt make it superior. I doubt the 4000 pound bombs had much of an impact on the war effort."
The B-17 didn't operate during the night, it didn't carry the equipment required to operate at night. It had a woefully small payload of 6000 lbs on normal missions. It required 10 crewmen to deliver that 6000 lbs. It only could operate with heavy roaming escort.
You consider 4000 lbs a huge bomb? The Mosquito could carry the 4000 lbs bomb and it would have had impact on the war effort, that's why they used. I believe the bomb you should be thinking of is the 22,000 lbs Grand Slam. Used for demolishing U-Boat bunkers and Atlantic Wall defences. All the bombing in the world from a B-17 wouldn't be able to get through those. So, yes, the huge bombs did have an effect on the war.
"My ratings for the B17/24/Lanc were weighted by how many bombs it could accuratly place on the target, how well it could defend itself and how hard it was to shoot down."
With roaming P-51 escort in heavy numbers, they'd all be just as hard to shoot down. Especially in late 1944 and 1945, nothing could survive the R4/M and MK108 30 mm cannon of the Me-262. The Lancaster could carry more, was faster, had less crew, more manuverable, was in service longer, had more effect on the war...it was a better bomber.
All planes do.
"It has woefull defensive gunnery for daylight missions, and for it to fly during the day would mean it needed complete and total air dominance to safely fly its mission."
No it wouldn't. It would have needed a roaming escort capable of escorting it to the target and back, just like the B-17s and B-24s had.
"Nightime bombing was highly ineffective, except for leveling cities."
No, just...no. The night bombing in the early years with little electronic aid was ineffective but by 1944-1945 the Bomber Command was effective in precision strikes and city bombing. In November 1944, Bomber Command dropped more tonnage on oil facilities than U.S 8th Air Force.
On top of that, Bomber Command diverted thousands of AA guns and hundreds of thousands of men from other duties to defend the German citizens.
So, no, night time bombing wasn't highly ineffective. It was extremely effective.
"The B17 and B24's could fly at night if required, and during the daylight, they could at least make the German pilots think about being shot down. The B17's and B24's did take some dreadfull loss's...... but they did get through."
They got through with the P-51 with escort. The Lancaster never had the luxury of an escort fighter able to take it to target and back during the day. The USAAF was close to cancelling daylight bombing raids due to high losses, the B-17s and B-24s did get through but in extremely small numbers without escort. They were sitting ducks, all the guns in the world wouldn't save them.
"I ranked the B17 higher than the B24 and Lanc because it had the ability to bring the aircrews home to fly another mission."
The B-17 was a rugged and durable machine but the Lancaster and B-24 weren't made of paper. They could take punishment too just like all heavy bombers.
"A great bomber needs to be able to perform both in daylight and nighttime. Just the fact it could carry a heavy payload doesnt mean it could put all its bombs on target. And just because it could carry those huge bombs didnt make it superior. I doubt the 4000 pound bombs had much of an impact on the war effort."
The B-17 didn't operate during the night, it didn't carry the equipment required to operate at night. It had a woefully small payload of 6000 lbs on normal missions. It required 10 crewmen to deliver that 6000 lbs. It only could operate with heavy roaming escort.
You consider 4000 lbs a huge bomb? The Mosquito could carry the 4000 lbs bomb and it would have had impact on the war effort, that's why they used. I believe the bomb you should be thinking of is the 22,000 lbs Grand Slam. Used for demolishing U-Boat bunkers and Atlantic Wall defences. All the bombing in the world from a B-17 wouldn't be able to get through those. So, yes, the huge bombs did have an effect on the war.
"My ratings for the B17/24/Lanc were weighted by how many bombs it could accuratly place on the target, how well it could defend itself and how hard it was to shoot down."
With roaming P-51 escort in heavy numbers, they'd all be just as hard to shoot down. Especially in late 1944 and 1945, nothing could survive the R4/M and MK108 30 mm cannon of the Me-262. The Lancaster could carry more, was faster, had less crew, more manuverable, was in service longer, had more effect on the war...it was a better bomber.
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
syscom3 said:
Tell me about the American precision bombing. It is hard to be precise when the American formation was from ~2400'(early) to ~1500'(late) across depending on the year. It is hard to be precise when all the bombers drop their bombs on the lead bomber's command through the clouds that were normally present in Europe.
early formation
In fact BC was more precise than American bombers most of the times from 1944 onwards
In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)
from http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml which also includes a nice table.
The waist guns of the American heavies were just excess baggage.
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
"Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2
To further what pD said, the USAAF was seriously considering switching to night bombing. Lucky that long range escorts became avaiable and that was to just inside the German border.
Just my HO but most of the heavies should have been replaced by the Mossie in the ETO/MTO. Only keeping enough heavies, ie the Lanc, for when heavy lift was required.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
syscom3 said:
if you'd had taken the time to read through some of the previous posts in this thread, you'd have found that currently we are disscussing the to 5 heavy bombers in WWII, so actually, allot was mentioned about the best heavy bomber, you just couldn't be bothered to read it........
and, allot of people have said this, but just wanna make it clear-
THE B-17 COULD NOT BOMB UN-ESCORTED DURING THE DAY!!
without escort any B-17 would be at the mercy of attacking fighters, all them defensive guns mean absolutely nothing!
syscom3 said:
so does the B-17, so does every single plane, what is your point?? unless of course you're inviting a discussion about the B-17's shortfalls?? which i would be more than happy to have!
syscom3 said:
no, it would not, it, as pD said, would need the same as the B-17 NEEDED, which was allot of escort.........
syscom3 said:
pD has already proved you wrong here, however if you wish to continue with this argument, we'll me more than happy to prove you wrong, again........
this has made me curious, please explain.......
syscom3 said:
so did the lancaster at night...........
syscom3 said:
so now the lanc's a single use aircraft guaranteed not to return?? obviously it's not, well no plane with the possible exeption of the B-29 could take a beating like the B-17 could, i will give you that, however that does not mean that the lanc was, as pD put it, made of paper.........
No, it does not. A great bomber will be able to take the heaviest payload possible as far as possible, it does not matter what time of the day it is, the reason the lanc bombed mostly at night was because that is what she was designed to do...........
now most of you are proberly wondering why i said "the lanc bombed mostly at night" just above there, well, as i stated before, and i again shall write this again to get the point across-
THE LANCASTER DID BOMB SUCESSFULLY DURING THE DAY
no, she didn't do it as much as the B-17, but her 40,000+ daylight bombing missions are not to be ignored..........
syscom3, you appear to be baising your entire argument on a small handfull of points, these being that the B-17 could take more damage than a lanc and, you claim, could deliver it's payload more accuratly than the lancaster, well, here are some of my reasons for stating the fact that the lancaster was a better bomber than the B-17, it is mostly what i've written before, however you seem to have taken none of it onboard so here we go again, and it's in list form this time!
- the lancaster bombed sucessfully by day and night
-the lancaster was faster than the B-17
-the lancaster could carry a significantly higher payload than the B-17
-the lancaster could carry this higher payload considderably further than the B-17
-the lancaster was more manouverable than the B-17
-the lancaster was more versatile than the B-17, as proved by the various roles and bombing missions she performed
-the lancaster remained in service longer than the B-17
-the lancaster was used in more air arms around the world than the B-17
-the lancaster was converted to a very sucessfull long range transport that was used not only as the main british transport in the Berlin airlift but became the personal transport of the prime minister and the King of a large empire, the B-17 however, was not.......
-an evolution of the lancaster wasd used sucessfully as a civilian transport
-the lancaster gave birth to bombers and maritime patrol aircraft that served into the 80's, the B-17 didn't........
-the lancaster bought into service some of the most advanced electronic warfare equiptment around at the time, the B-17 however, did not.......
remember these are just some of the arguments, and they are however proven facts that cannot be argued with.........
i eagerly await your responce........
oh, and FB, the idea of using thousands of mossies to replace the lancs has been discussed and the idea, whilst interesting, would not have worked.......
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
KK said that!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
so he did, thank you, for ignoring the rest of my post and going for the one mistake i made 
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:so he did, thank you, for ignoring the rest of my post and going for the one mistake i made
No sweat Lanc - gotta keep things straight
Good post though!
evangilder
"Shooter"
Well said, Lanc, but I would like to point out that while the B-17 did not "give birth" to other later aircraft, a lot of the lessons learned and engineering for the B-29 came from development of the B-15 and B-17 bombers. So in the American Air Force, the B-17 was an influential design. Also, the B-17 did have a transport version that saw a little use. The reason that it was not used much is because the AAF already had a substantial cargo aircraft fleet and didn't need to convert the B-17.
That being said, I still believe that the Lancaster was indeed a better bomber than the B-17.
That being said, I still believe that the Lancaster was indeed a better bomber than the B-17.
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
B-24 was.......
That was because the Brits did not have any large transport a/c so they had to convert them from old bombers. Winston Churchill used a B-24 as his own transport aircraft. Among the first Liberators to go into British service were six used as transatlantic airliners with BOAC
The US President had much better a/c than some old converted bomber to fly him around.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Yes they were. Some of the C-87s were used in the CBI to fly "the hump".
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes i'm aware of the B-24's use as a transporter, sorry i was just comparing the lanc to the B-17 that time.............
and the Avro York, the transporter evolution of the lancaster in question, was not just any old converted bomber KK, she just had lanc wings, tail and undercarriage, the lanc fusile was replaced with a spacious and sometime luxurious transport fit for a king!! and yes, it was used by a king!
and the Avro York, the transporter evolution of the lancaster in question, was not just any old converted bomber KK, she just had lanc wings, tail and undercarriage, the lanc fusile was replaced with a spacious and sometime luxurious transport fit for a king!! and yes, it was used by a king!
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
All they did was give it a new fuselage so it is still a converted old bomber.
Rather homely and dumpy looking as well. Reminds me of that dud the Botha.
Rather homely and dumpy looking as well.
Reminds me of that dud the Botha.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes she is the civilian airliner i'm on about lol..........
and yes i never said the york wasn't a converted bomber......
and yes i never said the york wasn't a converted bomber......
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B17's and -24's did have distinct advantages over the Lanc.
For one, the -17 and -24 both had ten .50 cal machine guns, compared to the paltry eight .303's the Lanc had. Like I said before, in the daylight, at least the -17 and -24 had a chance to defend themselves. The Lanc would have been a proverbial sitting duck. Much like the Japanese Betty bomber.
Second, although the B17 flew slower than the B24 and Lanc, at least it could fly far higher. Being up there 6 miles up did mimize the intercept times the luftwaffe had, plus, only the heavy flak could fire that high.
Third, the B17's and B24's had the pilot/copilot design. An extremely important consideration when you think of it. How many Lancs didnt complete a mission or return to home because the only one who could fly the plane was incapacitated? Moreover, that long range of the Lanc wouldnt help much as the pilot would be fatigued from all those hours he had to stay alert and fly.
Fourth, I'd rather have radial air cooled engines in a bomber far more than a liquid cooled engine. Air cooled engines dont leak glycol when theyre damaged.
Fifth, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than nightime bombing. No way the avionics of that era could give you the same accuracy as actually seeing your target below you. The Lanc needed that heavy bombload cause it needed to drop them all in hope of hitting its target. Bottom line, better to have a smaller payload and actually hit your target than a heavy payload and miss.
I still say that the best bomber of WW2 was the B29, followed by the B17, and then possibly a tie between the B24 and the Lanc
For one, the -17 and -24 both had ten .50 cal machine guns, compared to the paltry eight .303's the Lanc had. Like I said before, in the daylight, at least the -17 and -24 had a chance to defend themselves. The Lanc would have been a proverbial sitting duck. Much like the Japanese Betty bomber.
Second, although the B17 flew slower than the B24 and Lanc, at least it could fly far higher. Being up there 6 miles up did mimize the intercept times the luftwaffe had, plus, only the heavy flak could fire that high.
Third, the B17's and B24's had the pilot/copilot design. An extremely important consideration when you think of it. How many Lancs didnt complete a mission or return to home because the only one who could fly the plane was incapacitated? Moreover, that long range of the Lanc wouldnt help much as the pilot would be fatigued from all those hours he had to stay alert and fly.
Fourth, I'd rather have radial air cooled engines in a bomber far more than a liquid cooled engine. Air cooled engines dont leak glycol when theyre damaged.
Fifth, daylight bombing is inherintley more accurate than nightime bombing. No way the avionics of that era could give you the same accuracy as actually seeing your target below you. The Lanc needed that heavy bombload cause it needed to drop them all in hope of hitting its target. Bottom line, better to have a smaller payload and actually hit your target than a heavy payload and miss.
I still say that the best bomber of WW2 was the B29, followed by the B17, and then possibly a tie between the B24 and the Lanc
- Status
