Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

Discussion in 'Old Threads' started by cheddar cheese, Feb 5, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    Continued from old topic, now in archive forum.
     
  2. Gemhorse

    Gemhorse Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    So, with all the previous posts packed away, we're agreed then, that because of the Lancaster's superb design, rapid development, very reliable performance and economy of materials, fuel, firepower and crew, and the lengthy and deadly service it performed, bombing the German War Machine to rubble,... exemplary, in fact, that's why it's a bloody legend,.... that it EARNED the title of '' BEST BOMBER ''........

    I mean, they were all set to fly off to Japan after that, as ''Tiger Force'', to bomb them to dust too, but it took from 1940 until June 1944 before a B-29 was built and starting to drop a bomb there, but using RAF Bomber Command tactics, B-29's started to get the job done, and then they decided to try out a couple of nukes, and that was the 2nd World War over...........
     

    Attached Files:

  3. DaveB.inVa

    DaveB.inVa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    Dude, just because the thread is locked away and gone does not mean that the Lancaster was the best bomber of WWII. An assumption like that is a bit naieve.

    I will give you that it was a great design (although it needed a copilot).

    When Tiger Force would have been involved in the Pacific it would have been operating off of Okinawa and eastern India. The Lancasters destined there had an 1800 liter fuel tank installed in the rear part of the bombbay and were limited to just over 7000 pounds of bombs to enable them to get the range to make it to Japan.

    While I'm sure the effort would have been greatly appreciated and sucessful, the PTO wasn't the area where the Lancaster would have excelled, especially compared to the B-29.

    You state that the B-29's only started to get the job done until they switched to firebombing. This is only about half true as I submitted in the last thread that even when firebombing was adopted it was only used about 50% of the time. I know you can bring up the Yawata mission and how it failed but I think you assume that all high altitude GP/HE missions were a failure as well when this was not the case.

    I'll give you that the Lancaster was best bomber of the ETO at night, but nothing more.
     
  4. Gemhorse

    Gemhorse Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yeah, I accept the Lancaster was the ''Best Night Bomber in the ETO'', although I feel it did pretty well later in the War as a Day-bomber too, with escort....
    - The bombing-radar worked well in the daytime too, and defensive armament was moving into .50 cals in the rear, and the real shine on the coin was that Allied air supremacy was finally making the 'Strategic Bombing Offensive' a successful campaign......

    I feel that Lanc would accept that....?...........

    I accept that the B-29 was much more advanced with greater capacities, and that it's service in destroying the Japanese ability to further wage war was it's accolade.........by the end of the War, it was the biggest, most advanced bomber of the War.......some would say it should therefore be the 'Best Bomber'......

    In saying that, about the only thing these two aircraft had in common was they both had 4 engines and were bombers......

    I feel that the Lancaster and Bomber Command's whole contribution should be recognised for it's overall advancement to the Strategic Bombing Offensive, because the big lesson was learned by the British early, doing daylight raids, and the 8th's supreme effort may have been at less cost if Air Supremacy had been established first.....Germany could not have sustained a successful night defence for long if both Allies night-bombed;..... even initially just for awhile, while the day-fighters continued to draw up the Luftwaffe fighters....The volume of Allied fighters would have run them down, despite the Luftwaffe's incredible production, that was what was being bombed.....

    This is all great in hindsight, I guess, it was a shame that getting the B-29 on stream took so long......plans were even made to base a heap of them in N.Ireland for the ETO, but they were never ready in time.....
    US Aircraft development was ever advancing, there were other excellent aircraft that could've been on stream quicker, and may have greatly shortened the War, I believe.....the A-26 in mumbers, for example........or there was one called a Republic 'Rainbow', that was a fast 4 engined bomber design, although not of the B-29's capacity.......

    And capacity was the one other thing the Lancaster and B-29 had, that made them 'Best', in their theatre's, respectively,........
     

    Attached Files:

  5. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    we agreed the lanc was the best bomber in the ETO as a whole and the most successfull having the most impact on the war................
     
  6. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
  7. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    I think in terms of significance and impact though that the B-17 runs in pretty close.
     
  8. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    perhaps but not in ability..............

    it's not in the running for best bomber of the war.........
     
  9. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    I think the Lancaster was better but I think it is in the Running...I dont see why it shouldnt be...
     
  10. mosquitoman

    mosquitoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Saffron Walden/Sheffield
    Home Page:
    A Mosquito could carry a B-17s bombload over short distances- and the mossie's a LIGHT bomber
     
  11. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    B-17's normal bombload that is...it couldnt carry 17,600lbs.
     
  12. mosquitoman

    mosquitoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Saffron Walden/Sheffield
    Home Page:
    in kilograms please
     
  13. DaveB.inVa

    DaveB.inVa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    When they talked of stationing the B-29's in North Ireland I always wondered why they'd want to do that. Why not place them closer and load them with more bombs.

    The Rainbow was the F-12. It was meant to be a fast recon aircraft. It was powere by 4 R-4360's and had a top speed over 450mph. Pretty slick aircraft!!

    http://www.air-and-space.com/Republic XF-12.htm
     
  14. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    Nice! 8)

    You work in Kilos MM? I cant stand metric...
     
  15. DaveB.inVa

    DaveB.inVa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    Mosquito just divide by 2.2 to get pounds into kilograms.

    17600/2.2=8000kg
     
  16. mosquitoman

    mosquitoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Saffron Walden/Sheffield
    Home Page:
    Thanks, I'm just used to metric
     
  17. DaveB.inVa

    DaveB.inVa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    Heres a picture of a Tiger Force Lancaster with a 1500 gallon tank faired in behind the cockpit.
     

    Attached Files:

  18. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
  19. Nonskimmer

    Nonskimmer Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    8,848
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Naval Electronics Technician
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Interesting. 8)
     
  20. Gemhorse

    Gemhorse Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Thanks Dave, for the website on the Republic Rainbow....I've just a small article on it in a book, but it's specs greatly aroused me, as also it's nice sleek lines....it did have real potential, even as a light/medium bomber too, perhaps, especially indicative of some of the great ideas going on the US Aircraft industry.....just a shame they took so long to produce.....

    As to the B-29's in N.Ireland.....In Aug. 1943, they had the Quadrant Conference in Quebec, where Arnold submitted his 'Air Plan for the Defeat of Japan'...- This document contained the first reference in strategic policy for the B-29. - Up to that time a rather vague proposal for committing the new bombers to Europe had existed, and it was envisaged that 12 Groups would be stationed in N.Ireland, and 12 more would be stationed near Cairo, in Egypt....- Arnold's plan though, was much more specific, proposing the deployment of the 58th Bombardment Wing [Very Heavy], newly activated under Wolfe's command, organised to contain 4 Groups of B-29's, to the CBI by years end.... Only one B-29 went to the UK, as mentioned, on the way to the CBI, to confuse the Axis Intelligence as to the actual theatre of operations.....

    In regard to Bomber Command Mosquitos;.... RAF 139 Sqn. wasn't actually a Pathfinder Sqn. but due to 5 Group's [Cochran] depletion of some of the Pathfinder Force's Sqn.'s, they did the target-marking for the Pathfinders Mosquito 'Light Night Strike Force', as they were fitted and trained with H2S....Alot of folk thought they were just a 'nuisance-raiders', but with about a 100 Mossies each carrying 4000 lb 'cookies', their average raid on Berlin dropped about 400,000 lbs on the German Capital. After the War, it was discovered that Berliners regarded these attacks as anything but 'nuisance raids', realising also that it wasn't 'Main Force' either, but still nonetheless, genuine heavy raids.....

    AVM Don Bennett, the Commander of Pathfinder Force commented in his book....'' The experts on the Air Staff who turned down the Mosquito as a type, in the early days, might be interested in the argument which subsequently became current, to the effect that one Mosquito was worth 7 Lancasters....For those mathematically-minded, here is the exercise :...... A Mosquito carried a little over half the bomb load of a Lancaster to Berlin. It's casualty rate was about 1/10th of that of a Lancaster. It's cost was 1/3rd of the Lancaster, and it carried two people in it's crew instead of seven....'' Bennett went on to say it's a little hard to get an exact mathematical result from those figures, but it was quite clear that in value for War effort, it was certainly well in favour of the Mosquito, compared with ANY other aircraft ever produced in the then history of flying......And the still sobering thought, that ALL Bomber Command and No.1409 Meteorlogical Flight Mosquitos were totally UNARMED.....At the late stages of the War, the Met. Flights were often intercepted by Me-262's, that could always out-pace them, but never out-manoevre them......there was nearly always a Met. Flight in the air, 24 hours, around the clock, keeping weather updated for the bombers.....brave, consistent, reliable men........
     

    Attached Files:

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page