cheddar cheese
Major General
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...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
the lancaster kicks ass said:but the halibag proved itself extensively in combat........
the lancaster kicks ass said:i thought this was for heavy bombers?
cheddar cheese said:Well the P.108 wasnt supposed to drop bombs on Berlin.
the lancaster kicks ass said:well the stirling has the longest combat record.........
Maybe a big B-17, not even close to the -29!cheddar cheese said:I agree though it was underdeveloped. The B-29 is everything the P.108 could have been.
the lancaster kicks ass said:yeah we really are short on heavies now
the lancaster kicks ass said:we could be pedantic and go into individual marks of the aircraft already discussed