Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[cheddar cheese]

Yeah me too.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah!!!!!!

Actually I meant I agree with you 100%. But oh well.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the way i see it this is the top 5 rundown of the best heavy bombers of WWII

1) B-29
2) lancaster
3 + 4 ) B-24 or halifax, i'm not sure which way around they should go
5) B-17

 

[cheddar cheese]

Id actually put B-17 above the B-24 and Halifax...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

why??

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im with CC on this. It could take more punishment and had a less of chance of the wings falling off in flight than a B-24. B-24 great bomber but the B-17 was the workhorse.

 

[cheddar cheese]

YEah the B-24 wasnt really very tough the Davis wing (?) was kinda weak.

 

[Glider]

The B24 was a little weaker, but it flew higher, further and faster reducing its time over the danger area. It also had a better defensive layout which would have helped.
I admit its close and the deciding factor would be in my view the loss rate of the B17 compared to the B24. There must be a site with this info, does anyone have any ideas?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well here is what I have found. This is only for the 8th Airforce I am not sure of the validity of this but here we go:

B-17: 291,508 sorties, 640,306 bomb tonnage, 4688 losses, 6659 kills

B-24: 226,775 sorties, 452,508 bomb tonnage, 3626 losses, 2617 kills

The B-24 could carry more of a bomb load at a further distance and faster but was not as durable as the B-17.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

YEah the B-24 wasnt really very tough the Davis wing (?) was kinda weak.

The Davis Wing worked well with the -24 when the aircraft was producing maximum lift, level flight, cruise or better power settings, etc. Once you lost an engine and had to trim out through it's vertical axis, the aircraft flew heavy and was a handful. I understand that if either outboard engine went out, both pilot and co-pilot had to really "muscle" the aircraft as the ailerons got really heavy.

The latter end of the -24 design period was hurried by Consolidated staff, primarily by their President, Ruben Fleet, it took 9 months to develop the B-24. This resulted in a less aesthetically pleasing aircraft then first conceived. I think the aircraft Consolidated was really looking for came with the B-32 Dominator, the B-29s smaller counterpart.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well are we atleast decided that the top 5 heavy bombers in terms of ability and combat record were the B-29, B-17, B-24, lancaster and halifax?? and can we also decide that the B-29's first, the lancaster second?? once we've agreed on that we can argue about the order of the others.........

 

[evangilder]

I would agree with that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ditto!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

everyone else?

 

[cheddar cheese]

No


Dont worry, im Joe King (I changed my name... )

Yeah I agree

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed

 

[plan_D]

I've read that the B-24 dropped more tonnage on Europe than the B-17. That would make the B-24 the workhorse - would it not?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No the B-17 dropped more tonnage on Europe. Just look at the 8th Airforce figures I posted up there.

 

[plan_D]

You're forgetting the 15th Air Force, Adler - which fielded more B-24s.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

From my understanding the B-24 dropped more tonnage than the B-17 as a whole in WW2 but the B-17 dropped the most over Europe for the USAAF.