Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I dontsee why not, It, like the Halifax, was a night bomber, which could carry nearly 8,000lbs of bombs over 2,200miles, It has a better ceiling than the Halifax, is better armed, more heavily armoured...
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
FLYBOYJ said:
the lancaster kicks ass said:
so are the bulk of us agreed on

1) B-29
2) Lanc

:?:

so then, 3rd?

B-17 - The documented evidence of how much battle damage it could absorb is renowned. Even die-hard B-24 drivers will admit the B-17 was a better flier. The B-24 did offer some advantages, but it was the B-17 that took the fight of the USAAF to Germany with the B-24 just a RCH behind....

3) B-17
4) B-24

i'd proberly go along with that, which leaves the halibag 5th?

and pb, you're proberly right however the manchester and lancaster archive says

Each crew member volunteered for aircrew duties. None were conscripted into their jobs.

Agree with the Halibag (Halifax) #5
 
Just because it was considered a heavy bomber initially, doesnt mean it is one.. ;)

The Fiat BR.20 was considered a heavy bomber. Really? Heavy? With 1,400 mile range and a 3,500lb payload? :shock: :lol:
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
i thought this was for heavy bombers?

It started out as best bomber, but you're right we're doing heavies....


Sorry CC - P.108?!?! I'd put the Petlyakov PE-8 in there, at least the thing dropped bombs on Berlin :rolleyes:

The P.108 never reached its full potential and had an astounding loss rate
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
we could be pedantic and go into individual marks of the aircraft already discussed ;)

Yep - we could compare the size of the pilot's seat between the B-17 and Lancaster!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back