Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3 (2 Viewers)

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
....In the end, it didn't matter, the increased production in tanks and planes and ball bearings didn't count for squat...For without fuel to power them trains to transport them to the front, they were USELESS!!...They produced some 2500 me-262s....Less then 500 saw combat, (lucky for us!!)...The rest made wonderfull targets for allied fighter-bombers as they sat, fuelless and pilotless, on their tarmacks.....
......I recall reading the account of a grizzled ground vet who'd fought his way, ( with the Big Red One), across N Africa, Sicily and France......He said that he finally realized that we were going to win when he got to France and saw the Germans doing all their transport by horse and donkey cart....The Krauts were out of fuel and it was only a matter of time before they were finished....
......So let's look at what the widely criticized AAF daylight campaign really accomplished:
...........It destroyed the German oil industry...Once that was accomplished Germany was finished.....
.....It destroyed the rail system......
......It played the major role in the utter destruction of the Luftwaffe and it's cadre of experienced pilots.....

.......It caused Speer to hide and dispurse his industry making it less efficeint and hindering production.....
.......Some secondary benefits:
.....Some 10,000 88mm batteries were kept home to defend the fatherland from both day night raids..( There were some 1100 around the giant oil refinery at Merseburg alone),.That's 10K LESS artillary pieces raining shells down on Brit, Yank and Russian troops......
.......Numerous fighter squadrons were withdrawan fron Norway, The Med and the Russian front in the futile attempt to stop the B-17s and B-24s....This allowed the Soviet AF to wrest control of the air from the Luftwaffe and allowed the Storomovicks to slaughter the panzers....( See how nothing occurs in a vacuum?....How would the war have turned out if those nazi fighter squadrons stayed deployed on the Eastern front, keeping the Soviet ground attck squadrons ineffective...What difference would those 10K 88 batteries made if deployed to Normandy, Italy and the Russian Front?)
....So You Seeee!,as modern historians are discovering, when judging the effectiveness of the US strategic bombing campaign, it pays to dig deeper then; " Well! They were producing more ball bearings in 45 then in 41, so the bombing campaign was OBVIOUSLY a failure!"......
 
They produced some 2500 me-262s.

I don't know where you got your for 262 production number from for the Amercans after the war have the number as 1433 with effective production losses being 497.

Actually the German used horses most of the time from day 1.

Messeschmitt was in Regensburg. The main Focke-Wulf factory was Bremen.
 
Some items to compare:

B-17G
Engines - 4 1,200hp
Crew - 10
Wing Span - 103ft
Length - 74ft 4in
Empty Weight - 54,900lbs
Loaded - 72,134lbs
Max TO - 74,000lbs
Max Speed - 300mph
Cruise Speed - 180mph loaded at 25,000ft
Range Max - 3,400mi
Range Typ - 2,000mi With 6,000lb bomb load
Service ceiling - 35,600ft

Lanc
Engines - 4 - Merlin 1,492hp
Crew - 7
Wing Span - 102
Length - 69ft 6in
Empty Weight - 36,000lbs
Loaded - 55,000lbs
Max TO - 72,000lbs
Max Speed - 261mph
Cruise Speed - 239mph at 21,000ft
Range with 10,000lbs bombs 1,040mi
Range with 7,000lbs bombs and aux fuel 2,680mi
Service ceiling - 24,400ft

These two aitcraft are almost Identicle in all respects. Fly a B-17G at night without 3 crewmen ang the chin turret and the weight savings would equal the 7,000lbs at 2,680mi of the Lanc. Fair over the waist positions, remove the armor, and support equipment (oxy, guns, amo) for those positions and the B-17 would exceed it.

The B-17 has a higher ceiling, top speed, is tougher and lower maintenance too. The Lanc has a higher cruise and a better variety of bomb loads. Both planes were equiped for far different roles and did well in those roles. If were going to compare them lets do it in similar conditions. They both deserve the respect given them over the years. 8)

References Lancaster-archive.com and Wakipedia and warbird ally.com

wmaxt
 
I never said the B-17 wasn't a good airplane. What I did say was that the Lanc was better.

You give alot of credit to the US bombing campaign. Yes, bombing the oil facilities was what did the trick in the end, but the goal was to end production. It did not do that, so how could you claim it a great success. It's not just about ball bearings. It's tanks, aircraft, rockets etc. Whole assemblies.

You have completely left the RAF out of the last posts as far as their contribution to the effort, which was much more than you want to give them credit for. The Americans alone did not end the war, whether you want to see it that way or not. It was a combined effort by many countries.
 
evangilder said:
I never said the B-17 wasn't a good airplane. What I did say was that the Lanc was better.

You give alot of credit to the US bombing campaign. Yes, bombing the oil facilities was what did the trick in the end, but the goal was to end production. It did not do that, so how could you claim it a great success. It's not just about ball bearings. It's tanks, aircraft, rockets etc. Whole assemblies.

You have completely left the RAF out of the last posts as far as their contribution to the effort, which was much more than you want to give them credit for. The Americans alone did not end the war, whether you want to see it that way or not. It was a combined effort by many countries.

I agree, though I'm not sure the Lanc was better. The two planes were very close in their size and capabilities but optimized for their rolls and excelled at them. The RAF and the AAF also fought in a complimentary style and together won the war, I have no desire to down play the RAF , the Lancaster or the roles they served in the war.

wmaxt
 
WS, your posts are really hard to read. Can you organise them into paragraphs please?

On the point of oil, Bomber Command dropped more tonnage on oil plants than the US 8th Air Force during November 1944. That is proof enough to show the Bomber Command was dedicating at least some of it's resources towards halting German oil production. No where near enough but some nevertheless.

Bomber Command was operating during the day throughout 1944 in odd raids here and there. During Operation Hurricane the US 8th bombed in the morning, Bomber Command in the afternoon and a second wave from Bomber Command at night. Amongst other nuisance raids from Mosquitos.
 
I've been reading Workingstiff's assertions with interest, myself possessing Hasting's ''Bomber Command'', and other books on the subject. - I guess it's like us all reading the Bible, we would all have our own respective 'tilt' on it....

What really made the Lancaster such a remarkable aircraft, able to carry so much and endure such punishment, was in it's original design parameter as a Manchester, as it was supposed to be able to be versatile enough to also carry torpedos, which led to it's long large bomb-bay [33 ft.]
It was also supposed to be catapult-assisted on take-off, and the projected stresses involved, led to the very strong structure of the initial fuselage/bomb-bay/wing-root section. During production, every 10th Lancaster was dived to 375 mph, as in combat they were often required to corkscrew initially, to throw the attacking fighter off....

This is a far cry from droning-on in a Fort, in formation with other Forts, hosing away with .50's from behind all that armour....Furthermore, once USA decided to get into WWII, Britain couldn't obtain .50's because they were all going into Forts, etc.....
However, many Luftwaffe nightfighter pilots found that 4x .303's fired by alert tail-gunners, also giving the mid-upper a chance of a squirt during the corkscrew, more than enough to stop their props.....

The Fortress was a great aircraft, able to operate better when with escorts, the Lancaster was a supreme Nightbomber, working in great concert with Mosquito bombers, pathfinders and nightfighters....
 

Attachments

  • raf_487__nz__sqn._-_on_the_hunt..._399.jpg
    raf_487__nz__sqn._-_on_the_hunt..._399.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 469
Well hello all I have been gone for some time, and now I am trying to get back. I just finished moving, so things are still slow, and have a new job.

Anywho, this B-=17 Lancaster debate is the best one yet. But i have a question if we use the B-17G for our arguments, what Lanc modle would be the similar time? That would be the best way to get this right.
 
True, the Model III lanc was similar to the previous one in just about every respect. While i like the Lancasters abilities as a bomber, i would just have to go with the B-17G. I love that aircraft, and even the name is awesome, "flying fortress". And dammit it was, ball turret, dorsal turret, chin turret and nose guns, and that awesome looking tail turret, along with windows in the sides of the fuesalague for guns. Theyre both good aircraft, and while statistically the Lancaster may have been a better bomber, in a daylight raid, i would much rather be in a B-17.
 
The B-17 was the best high-altitude day bomber in the ETO. The Lancaster was the best low altitude night bomber in the ETO. It's as simple as that. The B-29 was technically the best heavy bomber of the war, I think.
 
Agreed during WW2 the B-29 had absolutly no equal. Not even your beloved Lancaster Lanc was as good as the B-29. She was the most advanced heavy bomber to be see service in WW2.
 
Agreed.

Here is a short comparison of the 3 aircraft that I think would be up for debate on that. Obviously these will not tell which aircraft was the best but still some interesting figures.

B-17

Crew: 10
Length: 74 ft 4 in (22.7 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft 10 in (31.6 m)
Height: 19 ft 1 in (5.8 m)
Wing area: 1527 ft² (141.9 m²)
Empty: 54,900 lb (24,900 kg)
Loaded: 72,134 lb (32,720 kg)
Maximum takeoff: 74,000 lb (34,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-1820-97 turbo-supercharged radials, 1,200 hp (895 kW)

Maximum speed: 300 mph (480 km/h).
Range: 3,400 miles (5,500 km)
Service ceiling: 35,600 ft (10,900 m)
Rate of climb: ft/min ( m/min)
Wing loading: 47.2 lb/ft² (231 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.0655 hp/lb (110 W/kg)

Armament
13× Browning M-2 0.50 calibre (12.7 mm) machine guns (with optional extra nose armament fitted in glazed nose)
8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of bombs

B-24

Crew: 7-10
Length: 67 ft 8 in (20.6 m)
Wingspan: 110 ft 0 in (33.5 m)
Height: 18 ft 0 in (5.5 m)
Wing area: 1,048 ft² (97.4 m²)
Empty: 52,200 lb (23,700 kg)
Loaded: 55,000 lb (25,000 kg)
Maximum takeoff: 65,000 lb (29,500 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Pratt Whitney R-1830 turbo-supercharged radials, 1,200 hp (900 kW)

Maximum speed: 290 mph (470 km/h)
Cruising speed: 215 mph (346 km/h)
Range: 2,100 miles (3,400 km)
Ferry range: 3,700 miles (6,000 km)
Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m)
Rate of climb: 1,025 ft/min (312 m/min)
Wing loading: 52.5 lb/ft² (256 kg/m²)
Power/mass: .0873 hp/lb 144 W/kg

Armament
10× .50 calibre (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns
12,800 lb (5,800 kg) of bombs

Lancaster

Length 69 ft 5 in 21.18 m
Wingspan 102 ft 31.09 m
Height 19 ft 7 in 5.97 m
Wing area 1,300 ft² 120.8 m²

Weights
Empty 36 828 lb 16,705 kg
Loaded 63,000 lb 28,636 kg

Powerplant
Engines 4 Rolls-Royce Merlin XX piston engines
Power 1,280 hp 954 kW
Performance
Maximum speed 280 mph at 15,000 ft 448 km/h at 5,600 m
Combat range 2,700 miles with minimal bomb load 4,320 km with minimal bomb load

Service ceiling 23,500 ft 8,160 m

Armament
Guns 8 x Browning 0.303 in (7.62 mm) machine-guns in three turrets
Bombs normal 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
special versions 22,000 lb (10,000 kg)

My breakdown is this on which aircraft had the advantage in what:

Speed: B-17
Range: B-17
Service Cieling: B-17
Bomb Load: Lancaster
Defensive Armament: B-17

Based on just these stats each aircraft had its advantages and disadvantages. I go with the Lancaster, B-17, and then B-24 as the 2nd, 34rd, and 4th best bombers of WW2. I still like the B-17 better than the Lancaster though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back