cheddar cheese
Major General
No He-177? To be blunt, it was shit...
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
It was almost French is it shitness...
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
cheddar cheese said:
Why do you say that?
cheddar cheese
Major General
The engines kept catching fire due to their unsuccessful layout, the payload was ok but not amazing, and it was required to do all sorts of ridiculous roles that it was clearly not capale of doing, ie dive bombing...
We discussed this earlier somewhere, the He-274 and -277 may have been contenders if they actually saw service, alas they didnt...
As far as im concered, I can only place the He-177 on a par with the similarly ill fated Manchester...It doesnt deserve a place amongst the elites of B-29's, Lancasters, B-17's and B-24's...
We discussed this earlier somewhere, the He-274 and -277 may have been contenders if they actually saw service, alas they didnt...
As far as im concered, I can only place the He-177 on a par with the similarly ill fated Manchester...It doesnt deserve a place amongst the elites of B-29's, Lancasters, B-17's and B-24's...
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
So did the B-29s engine like to catch fire.
Beginning with the A-3 and the use of DB610 engines, the fires disappeared. A bomb load of 7,200 kg /15,900 lb is not very much I agree.
Beginning with the A-3 and the use of DB610 engines, the fires disappeared. A bomb load of 7,200 kg /15,900 lb is not very much I agree.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B29 engine fire problem was a development problem that was solved.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
syscom3 said:
well the british sent two lancs out to south east asia to see how the lanc performed out there and they found it to be no different from Europe, and so what if it didn't see service out there, the B-29 didn't see service over Europe (well ok one did, but only for PRU) but it's still the best bomber of the war??
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B29 was magnitudes better than the other three bombers.
the Lanc looked like it could handle operations in the PTO, bit it didnt fight in the conditions that the 5th/13th/7th air forces fought in.
As Ive mentioned, having a single pilot, liquid cooled engines and lack of defensive weapons might have had an impact on operations.
the Lanc looked like it could handle operations in the PTO, bit it didnt fight in the conditions that the 5th/13th/7th air forces fought in.
As Ive mentioned, having a single pilot, liquid cooled engines and lack of defensive weapons might have had an impact on operations.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
cheddar cheese said:
The He-177 also had a dive-bombing role. I'd like to see the wing attach bolts on that pig after a couple of hundred hours, if it makes it that long...
I don't care who designs it, how it's built, who flies it - taking large multi-engine aircraft and subjecting it to heavy loads (like dive bombing) is an accident waiting to happen....
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
sys what is you obsession with the fact that it didn't serve in the PTO?? german planes didn't see service in the PTO, does that make them all bad too? whereas the buffalo saw service in tons of places, that must mean it's better than the german planes, they only flew over Europe and africa.........
and what's wrong with taking an extra pilot if you wanna keep on and on giving the same argument??
and what's wrong with taking an extra pilot if you wanna keep on and on giving the same argument??
syscom3
Pacific Historian
We are talking about bombers, not fighters. Plus it was the unique operational requirements for bombers to go on very long range missions in the region. The usual ranges were between 700-800 miles in distance. It was a far different enviornment than Europe.
I suspect that the Lanc pilots would not be able to handle the long ranges required every mission, but also the liquid cooled Merlins would not be able to handle the inevitable damage from Japanese AA and stay running for the time it took to get back to base.
I suspect that the Lanc pilots would not be able to handle the long ranges required every mission, but also the liquid cooled Merlins would not be able to handle the inevitable damage from Japanese AA and stay running for the time it took to get back to base.
cheddar cheese
Major General
The Lanc wasnt designed for use in the PTO. It was designed as a European night bomber, which it performed amazingly well at. If they wanted to design a bomber for the PTO, which at the time was pointless as there was no war in the PTO at that time, then they would have equipped it to be able to do so.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
It only needed a couple of modifications to be able to do it. If that happened, I suspect the Lanc would have been the superior bomber of the PTO.
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Why do people think vertical dives when they see the word dive bombing?
The max dive angle of the He177 was 40 deg. Even PF Lancs marked targets diving at this angle.
The max dive angle of the He177 was 40 deg. Even PF Lancs marked targets diving at this angle.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
KraziKanuK said:
Aerobatic maneuvers are considered any maneuver in excess of 30 degrees pitch nose up or down, and in excess of 60 degrees bank angle. Continual maneuvers as such combined with even limited g loading (+3.5, -1.5) on a large multi engine aircraft is a destiny with doom.
carpenoctem1689
Airman 1st Class
- 285
- Sep 10, 2005
I would have to say the B-29 was the all around best bomber of any of those listed. The lancaster was a good bomber, but i just dont think it could have held its own against the japanese AA, and later war interceptors when the escorts were not there or tied up. The inline engines i believe would have been the main shortcoming, because it had a good bombload and range and defensive armament, minus the ball turret which i would want in a bomber.
- Thread starter
- #437
syscom3 said:
And why do you not think that it would be successful in the PTO?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The lack of heavy MG for defensive purposes and the lack of a second pilot for long range missions.
At the Chino 2005 airshow, I talked with a 5th BG copilot who flew in late 1944 and early 1945. He told me the really long missions were hard on both the pilot and copilot. When there was inclimate weather, which happens quite a bit during the monsoon season, both of them had to be at the controls for the whole flight.
I simply do not think the Lanc would have held up with a single pilot and the lack of defensive firepower.
At the Chino 2005 airshow, I talked with a 5th BG copilot who flew in late 1944 and early 1945. He told me the really long missions were hard on both the pilot and copilot. When there was inclimate weather, which happens quite a bit during the monsoon season, both of them had to be at the controls for the whole flight.
I simply do not think the Lanc would have held up with a single pilot and the lack of defensive firepower.
- Thread starter
- #439
Could have put another pilot in there or modified it. They also could have put more defensive armament on it. If you remember the original B-17 did not have that great of a defensive armament either.
I see no reason why the Lanc would not be successful in the Pacific. Any problems encountered would be fixed, and if needs be defensive armament could be increased and a second pilot added to relieve the first as well to help him to his job. Engine wise while the glycol cooled Merlins would have been a problem if damage was taken, I see no reason why this would of affected its service in the Pacific. Merlins were one of the most reliable engines of the war, I have heard no adverse stories of their use in the Pacific (in the Hurricanes, Spitfires and P-51s that served there), yes the are single engined fighters but the P-51 in particular was undertaking long range escort missions and I've nothing about problems with the Merlin. I believe also that the even if damage to the engines was sustained, the Lanc would make it home. I think I remember correctly Lanc said that it could fly on one engine. I will admit that it would not be ideal but if it gets you home it gets you home. In my opino the Lanc is the second best bomber of the war, closely followed by the B-17 and the B-24.
- Status
