Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[cheddar cheese]

I dont...B-17 or B-24....

I thought you liked Twin tails? What up with that?

I dont like ugly faces A bird may have the biggest control surfaces in the land but thats all gone to waste with an ugly face

 

[Smokey]

The Lancaster seems to be more maneuvrable (corkscrew) and has a larger bombload, the B17 seems to have an extremely tough airframe and tough radial engines, and is better armed

So they seem about equal

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You got a point!

 

[mosquitoman]

B-17 has a much smaller bombload though, I always thought that the point of a bomber was to get bombs to a target so more bombs in a plane= a better plane

 

[Smokey]

to get bombs to a target

The B17s extreme toughness and good armament help alot here

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes but what's the point in getting there, if you're gonna do barely any damage??

yes, the lanc couldn't take as much damage as a B-17, but she'd take you further, slightly faster and she'd cause more damage! and if you think all them defensive guns made her invincible, you're wrong

 

[cheddar cheese]

yes but what's the point in getting there, if you're gonna do barely any damage??

Send more of them!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

there is no logic in sending numerous B-17s to do the same job as a single lancaster, when some of the B-17s will be lost anyway........

 

[wmaxt]

The planes have to return after the raid to. I heard on 1 documentary so I take it with some skepticizum, that the worst loss of the Lanc was 103 planes one mission and the B-17 was 60 on 1 mission.

One thing though at night the target could not be located so area bombing of infrastructure was the focus. During the day the targets could be identified and strategic targets could be hit. Bombing in general had other problems to:
1. Bomb drift, Todays bombs are only capable of 6mil accuracy or +/-6ft per thousand feet dropped. At 22,000ft thats 120ft in any direction. WWII bombs were much worse.
2. Variable drift from winds.
3. Bombsight/Bombadier accuracy.
4. Mass drops, All bombs in a group were dropped at the same time as the leader so any error in the lead drop was magnafied by the relative position of the bombers in a group.

Thr resources available would not support both RAF and AAF bombers flying either night or day missions together.

My questions are
a. which was more effective in destroying a specific target, Night mass bombings or Daylite Strategic bombing.
b. Which aircraft/strategy was more productive towards ending the war.
c. What would have been the best way to utilize both aircraft in ending the war.

wmaxt

 

[evangilder]

I think both were used effectively and with good reason. Having the RAF bomb at night and the AAF by day made the raids round the clock, thereby denying any respite to bombings. Daylight bombing with the technology of the day was better for specific accuracy, but it was far from perfect. For specific, pinpoint targets, the Mosquito was the plane for that time. HIgh altitude heavies, day or night, were more area bombings.

 

[Gnomey]

Here is top 5:
1)B-29
2)Lancaster
3)B-24/B-17
4)Halifax
5)Mosquito

 

[wmaxt]

I think both were used effectively and with good reason. Having the RAF bomb at night and the AAF by day made the raids round the clock, thereby denying any respite to bombings. Daylight bombing with the technology of the day was better for specific accuracy, but it was far from perfect. For specific, pinpoint targets, the Mosquito was the plane for that time. HIgh altitude heavies, day or night, were more area bombings.

In general thats how I feel though I don't think area bombing of civilian areas ever ammounted to a signifigant strategic advantage. Bombing civilians really made people suffer, and get madder but the effect was far less benifical than the effort warrented. I feel this is true weather it was Britain, Germany or Japan getting hit.

wmaxt

 

[evangilder]

If you are bombing an area that contained factories, I could see where it might effect the morale of the factory workers getting their homes bombed.

 

[KraziKanuK]

The planes have to return after the raid to. I heard on 1 documentary so I take it with some skepticizum, that the worst loss of the Lanc was 103 planes one mission and the B-17 was 60 on 1 mission.

Out of how many that set out?

 

[evangilder]

The dates of those missions might have also been a factor. And were those Lanc losses in daylight or night-time raids? There are a lot of variables there.

 

[plan_D]

I don't believe 103 were lost on one mission. I think the highest loss percentage on any mission was something like 17%. I'll go find the exact number later on. The Mosquito had the lowest overall loss percentage for any bomber.

The fact is between B-17 and Lancaster, the Lancaster will take more, faster and with less crew. The B-17 is rugged but they'll still get shot up and the defensive armament doesn't save the bomber. That is also why I think the B-24 was better than the B-17.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and i thought this was solely for heavy bombers?? that's why i aint got the mossie in my list, besides, she's in a class of her own...........

and, before you all start to doubt the value of the bombing, read this:

Assessment of the Campaign

Bomber Command airmen flew operations on almost every day or night of the war. Their task demanded sustained and repeated acts of courage from individual aircrews in lonely and dangerous situations.

The bombing campaign was the only way by which Britain could hit back at an aggressive enemy who had invaded most of Europe, had bombed British cities from Glasgow to Plymouth, had taken the first steps to invade the UK by an aerial assault in the Battle of Britain and who represented the greatest danger Britain had faced for centuries.

The RAF's bombing campaign also had important political value. It helped Churchill convince the Americans that Britain could strike effectively at Germany and therefore it was worth investing a substantial amount of the USA's own airforce effort in the European war. Having been bombed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour, there were many Americans who wanted all the USA's military strength targeted at the Pacific War. Had this happened, it would have been disastrous for Britain.

Bomber Command's efforts also played a crucial role in Britain's alliance with Russia. After Russia was attacked by the Germans, Stalin repeatedly demanded that Churchill open a second front to divert German forces. He wanted an invasion launched across the Channel as early as 1942 and accused Churchill of cowardice. Churchill knew it would up to two years before this was possible, but he argued that the RAF's bombing of Germany already was a second front and this helped to convince Stalin that the British were committed to attacking Germany. Had he not believed this, Russia might have felt forced to agree a truce with Germany. This would have been extremely dangerous for Britain, for Hitler could then have turned all his military force towards a second attempt at invading Britain itself.

Statistics show that German industrial production was not affected as badly as might have been expected by sustained bombing. However, for much of the early part of WW2 German war industry was not operating at full capacity and many German factories continued to produce domestic goods.

Without the bombing campaign, German industry would have been able to increase war production capacity many times over if required. Bombing disrupted production and held the full potential of the German industrial machine in check. Equally importantly, bombing attacks on the German homeland forced the Nazis to divert over one million men and 55,000 artillery guns to anti-aircraft defence within Germany itself. German aircraft production had to focus on fighter production for defence against bomber attack, rather than, as Hitler desperately wanted, be able to produce more bombers for offensive use. These resources were urgently needed elsewhere, particularly on the eastern front fighting the Russians, who were finally able to overcome the Germans and force them into a retreat.

Historian Professor Richard Overy had studied the bombing campaign at length. He writes: 'The critical question is not so much "What did bombing do to Germany?" but "What could Germany have achieved if there had been no bombing?"…... Bombing was a blunt instrument. It was a strategy that had a long and painful learning curve. But for all its deficiencies the 125,000 men and women of Bomber Command made a larger contribution to victory in Europe than any other element of Britain's armed services.'

Albert Speer, Hitler's Armaments Minister, knew more than anyone else in Europe about the true effect of the bombing campaign. He summed it up thus: 'It made every square metre of Germany a front. For us, it was the greatest lost battle of the war.'

i believe they make some very good points.............

and the greatest lancaster losses for a single raid were, i believe, 66 lost with 2 crashing on their return out of a total of 572 sorties (a loss rate of 11.5%) to Nuremberg on the night of 30/31 March 1944...........

 

[Smokey]

Here are some relevant sites

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html (loss figures)

http://www.historicwings.com/features98/lancaster/

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i wouldn't trust a great number of the "facts" on the historic wings site.........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well here is how I would go:

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17 (solely off of historical value over the B-24)
4. B-24
5. Hallifax