Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

• Mar 27, 2005

• #161

A

Anonymous

Guest

LOL - it's never gonna happen! Unless, that is, we suffer a serious dark ages, enough time goes by for the spent oil under the ground to be reformed, and then somehow humans again rise to the technology of WWII.



Lunatic

 

• Mar 27, 2005

• #162

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

 

• Mar 27, 2005

• #163

A

Anonymous

Guest

Umm... the age of sub-sonic prop driven combat aircraft is over!



Lunatic

 

• Mar 27, 2005

• #164

K

KraziKanuK

Banned

792

4

Jan 26, 2005

Found this map for range/bombload for the Lanc.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/range.jpg

Only a couple of miles short of Budapest with 12,000lb.

 

• Mar 27, 2005

• #165

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

yes i too have found that map and find it extremely interesting.......

 

• Mar 28, 2005

• #166

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,241

15,779

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Dont take me wrong in all this argument above, I think the Lanc was a wonderful bomber.

 

• Mar 28, 2005

• #167

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

because she was........

 

• Mar 28, 2005

• #168

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,241

15,779

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

No argument here, I just dont think she was the greatest thing since Bread and Butter.

 

• Mar 29, 2005

• #169

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

well no that's peanut butter..........

 

• Mar 29, 2005

• #170

wmaxt

Staff Sergeant

1,200

11

Dec 5, 2004

Boise, Idaho

The real problem with this thread is that There were many bombers that were very good at what they did. At face value The Best Bomber can only be the B-29 but there were many truly excellent bombers that did everything asked that contributed to the war.

 

• Mar 29, 2005

• #171

M

MP-Willow

Staff Sergeant

894

2

Jan 16, 2004

Saco, MAINE!!!!

Lanc or B-17, why not say the B-24

aS for the A-26 beig the fast atack bomber or B-25 and B-26, of the three the B-25 was the oldest, and the B-16 and A-26 had design problums. I have no dout that the B-24 could have been your fast tour engine bomber if the P-38 program for escorts were used from the start, but operation Torch, needed them more. And the Air Core had a bad idea they were not needed. Yes the USA could put out more aircraft then any other but they two were gettig hit with horific loses in crews. 100,000+ bomber crewman were being held by wars end.

I was watching Tora. Tora, Tora and had to be sad for the B-17s flying into that mess with now guns and no gas. They got mostly riped appart as they were desperate to land.

 

• Mar 29, 2005

• #172

A

Anonymous

Guest

The TU2 was a very good attack bomber too.

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Mar 29, 2005

• #173

G

Gemhorse

Senior Airman

622

26

Mar 6, 2004

New Zealand

Yeah, I agree wmaxt....I still gripe about the huge losses initially incurred with the B-29's introduction, but it was it's service that neutralised Japan, and for that we're all grateful.....it does puzzle me why the US didn't get it's first jet-bomber into WWII, it was capable of doing it, and it was the answer in many ways to RG's and my discussion of a 'Fast Bomber'....it's only bomber-competition was the Ar-234, the Bf-262 was a far better interceptor than a bomber....What do you reckon ?........

And Willow, my favourite is the B-24, if it was a choice between the B-17 or B-24...much better range...and it did great Maritime work, indispensable in fact.........


Gemhorse

 

• Mar 29, 2005

• #174

A

Anonymous

Guest

Jets were still too new when the B-29 project was started. A big part of the motivation behind the B-29 was to have something capable of delivering the A-Bomb to any target necessary. This required a range in excess of 3000 miles - something no jet design could hope to achieve within the WWII timeframe.

Actually, the B-29 was very fast - 364 mph @ 25,000 feet. Had it been available in 1943, the German's would have had a very very hard time intercepting it.

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Mar 29, 2005

• #175

G

Gemhorse

Senior Airman

622

26

Mar 6, 2004

New Zealand

Agreed, the figures I have for the first US Jet bomber only give a range of 1,100 miles, a bombload of 8,000 lb, max speed of 503 mph and ceiling of 38,200 ft.....
The B-29 was really only destined for Japan, but that visit of one to the UK while east-bound certainly worked, as far as what German Intelligence thought...they were worried.......

Gemhorse

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• #176

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

Lanc or B-17, why not say the B-24

Click to expand...

well what's the point the lanc's better than both...........

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• #177

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,241

15,779

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

the lancaster kicks ass said:

Lanc or B-17, why not say the B-24

Click to expand...

well what's the point the lanc's better than both...........

Click to expand...

I dont buy that, what can you base this argument on? And dont say because it is British or because you say so.

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• #178

A

Anonymous

Guest

The Lanc was better - as long as it flew at night.

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• #179

delcyros

Tech Sergeant

2,068

83

Mar 2, 2005

Berlin (Kreuzberg)

The best Bomber hast to go to the B-29, no doubt. There are a few bombers, which were faster, some could go more precisely and so on but I really don´t see why we should give the title to a faster Ar 232 C (560 mp/h) or the more precisely Lanc (ground radar, wow!). The B-29 remained "state of the art" even years after ww2.

 

• Mar 30, 2005

• #180

mosquitoman

Master Sergeant

2,979

16

Jan 20, 2005

Saffron Walden/Sheffield

www.myspace.com

The Lanc was the best night bomber for Europe, the B-24 was the best day bomber for Europe and the B-29 was the best bomber for the Pacific