cheddar cheese
Major General
No I think the B-29 was clearly the best Heavy bomber, if not the best plane of the war. Lancaster just has it for second place for me, closely followed by the B-24 and B-17.
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
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i'll conceed the B-29 was better than the lanc, there, i said it, i feel so dirty 
BUT it's important to remember it is a generation ahead of the lanc, the lanc saw longer service and the lanc was the best bomber over europe and at night..........
BUT it's important to remember it is a generation ahead of the lanc, the lanc saw longer service and the lanc was the best bomber over europe and at night..........
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Although the B32 was only used for a very short time, Id say it was still superior to the Lanc.
- Thread starter
- #324
cheddar cheese said:
I agree with you, but I dont think the B-29 was the best plane of the war.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
I agree - it had a lot od potential and could have been a close counterpart to the B-29
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Agree - again I'll stand behind an earlier statement, the best plane of the war, overall was the C-47. I know some folks would want to see a fighter or bomber, but the C-47s operational record, longevity and capabilities speak for itself....
Agreed, well said FBJ.FLYBOYJ said:
cheddar cheese
Major General
I was talking in terms of sheer technological acheivement, that perhaps the B-29 was, on paper "the best".
That maybe but what of some of the German designs on paper and the B-36? They were also good planes on paper.cheddar cheese said:
cheddar cheese
Major General
Exactly, but they were "on paper". The Superfortress actually saw good service and proved its worth comfortably.
That cannot be argued on, agreed CC.cheddar cheese said:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'm trying to find information the B-29s WW2 combat record, here's information on its Korean War Record...
When the Korean War ended on July 27, 1953, the B-29s had flown over 21,000 sorties, nearly 167,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and 34 B-29s had been lost in combat (16 to fighters, four to flak, and fourteen to other causes). B-29 gunners had accounted for 34 communist fighters (16 of these being MiG-15s) probably destroyed another 17 (all MiG-15s) and damaged 11 (all MiG-15s). Losses were less than 1 per 1000 sorties.
When the Korean War ended on July 27, 1953, the B-29s had flown over 21,000 sorties, nearly 167,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and 34 B-29s had been lost in combat (16 to fighters, four to flak, and fourteen to other causes). B-29 gunners had accounted for 34 communist fighters (16 of these being MiG-15s) probably destroyed another 17 (all MiG-15s) and damaged 11 (all MiG-15s). Losses were less than 1 per 1000 sorties.
evangilder
"Shooter"
That's a pretty damn good record.
Agreed, especially as it was against the early jets (Mig-15). I would say that it was a pretty awesome record.evangilder said:
- Thread starter
- #334
FLYBOYJ said:
Agreed 100%.
blue swede
Airman
- 28
- Nov 23, 2005
I've always thought the Heinkel 177 Grief was the best overall bomber of ww2.
8)
8)
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
any reasons for that? because many, including myself, wouldn't agree........
- Thread starter
- #337
blue swede said:
And how do you come to that conclusion. Please tell me you are kidding! It was not a bad design but the engines were terrible. It was like flying a coffin with the 2 Daimler-Benz DB 610A-1/B-1. The 2 V-12 coupled to each propeller were very unreliable and it would catch fire easily.
blue swede
Airman
- 28
- Nov 23, 2005
Well, it could do almost everything better than the Lancaster. It was comparable to the B17 and was better in most catagories to the B24. Okay, I'll admit it wasn't as good as the B29, but it had a different role.
8)
8)
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
it had the same role and on paper it may have been better in some respects, but paper doesn't tell you the unreliability of the engines........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
blue swede said:
Compared to a B-29?!?!
- Status
