the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
the wellington was comfortably the best early war bomber, far superior to anything else then in service...................
Best Bomber of ww2
- Thread starter germanace
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
The B-17 was in service. Do you think the Wellington was superior to the B-17?
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
after reading an account of it's service with RAF 90sqn, yes 
Lightning Guy said:
Hello Lightining Guy!
You are correct and such comment can be deducted from the ideas I posted. However, do not forget the Luftwaffe bombers were not far from bringing the RAF effort down on its knees, then the order to switch to civilian targets came and the momentun was lost.
As to the defensive ability, I think I can argue your assertion. Perhaps it is the influence of the USAAF heavies packed with up to 12 defensive guns of the .50 caliber that leads many to think the German bombers of 1940 had a "weak" defensive capability.
I have combat film footage from the cockpits of German bombers during the Batlle of Britain, where you can see the bomber gunners setting Spitfires and Hurricane ablaze. The number of 7.92 mm defensive guns varied from bomber to bomber: there were cases where German medium bombers carried up to 8 defensive guns. They were not easy victims. And as I said, the Ju88 and the Do17 once they had launched their bombs were fast and very manouverable.
PlanD, hi!
Well, a 1.80 1/9 meters high guy is shorter than a 1.81 meters one. Don´t you think? Therefore, when it is said the German bombers defensive guns were of larger caliber than the RAF´s, the idea is correct.
It is not necessary to tell the 8 guns of the Spitfire could make heavy damage and force the bomber down. Didn´t I say I have seen dozens and dozens of German bombers brought down over England? My point is, German medium bombers were far more capable of absorbing damage than previously acknowleged, and big numbers of them made it back to base in France with heavy combat damage.
Of course it was enough for the RAF guys to force the bomber down after inflicting heavy damage to it: one crew less and one bomber less. But that was not the issue of my point
I never said it wasn't smaller. I said it wasn't much weaker, not much weaker at all. So much so, not really worth mentioning.
The German bombers couldn't absorb damage as good as the Allied heavies, or even Allied mediums. I wouldn't consider taking a plugging to the fuselage with 8*.30s much to sing and dance about. Getting a few shots from two 20s is. If the e-wing was equipping the Spitfires, the -111s had been dropping like flies.
The German bombers couldn't absorb damage as good as the Allied heavies, or even Allied mediums. I wouldn't consider taking a plugging to the fuselage with 8*.30s much to sing and dance about. Getting a few shots from two 20s is. If the e-wing was equipping the Spitfires, the -111s had been dropping like flies.
cheddar cheese
Major General
the lancaster doesnt kick ass at all said:
"What makes you think Bomber command are going to give you a Wellington? They're worth their weight in gold!"
"How about telling them I designed it!"
(Dr. Barnes Wallis in "The Dambusters")
"I never said it wasn't smaller. I said it wasn't much weaker, not much weaker at all. So much so, not really worth mentioning.
The German bombers couldn't absorb damage as good as the Allied heavies, or even Allied mediums. I wouldn't consider taking a plugging to the fuselage with 8*.30s much to sing and dance about. Getting a few shots from two 20s is. If the e-wing was equipping the Spitfires, the -111s had been dropping like flies.2
Hello PlanD!
I do think your argument on the capability of the German bombers to absorb damage is unaccurate.
What do Allied heavies have to do at all in a Battle of Britain scoped comment?
What is the point in saying the German medium bombers did not absorb as much damage as the allied heavies did?
Did the allied heavies face German interceptors armed only with 7.92 mm MG´s?
I, as well, wouldn´t consider taking a plugging to the fuselage of my B-17 with 4- 2cm or 3cm cannons much to sing, dance and chump on popcorn.
There is counterpart to your comments.
You should see guncamera footage of the Butcher bird, both in the standard and Sturmböck versions, chewing the B-17s and B-24s. That was called true and complete pulverization of the target.
From what I have read, it is not exaggerating to affirm the combat experiences of the heavy bomber crews of the USAAF were FAR more frightful and nightmarish than those the Luftwaffe bombers crews experienced over England in 1940.
I digress, the point was the RAF interceptors, with the guns they were fitted during 1940 did not enjoy a powerful bomber destroyer capability. Yes, in many many cases was simply enough to get the job done by assuring the German bomber did not return to base. Any reasonable doubts on this?
I can assure you the fate of thousands of USAAF and RAF heavy bomber crews was far more violent and terrifying at the hands of Luftwaffe interceptors than the one experienced by the Luftwaffe in 1940 at the hands of the RAF. This, within a moderate tone, of course, getting intercepted and riddled with machine gun fire can be everything but pleasant.
The question is, have you seen photos of German bombers returning to base in France with very heavy combat damage? The evidence exists, and it´s plenty of it.
Finally, I would not be very convinced in saying the German medium bombers had less resistance to combat damage than Allied medium ones.
The German bombers couldn't absorb damage as good as the Allied heavies, or even Allied mediums. I wouldn't consider taking a plugging to the fuselage with 8*.30s much to sing and dance about. Getting a few shots from two 20s is. If the e-wing was equipping the Spitfires, the -111s had been dropping like flies.2
Hello PlanD!
I do think your argument on the capability of the German bombers to absorb damage is unaccurate.
What do Allied heavies have to do at all in a Battle of Britain scoped comment?
What is the point in saying the German medium bombers did not absorb as much damage as the allied heavies did?
Did the allied heavies face German interceptors armed only with 7.92 mm MG´s?
I, as well, wouldn´t consider taking a plugging to the fuselage of my B-17 with 4- 2cm or 3cm cannons much to sing, dance and chump on popcorn.
There is counterpart to your comments.
You should see guncamera footage of the Butcher bird, both in the standard and Sturmböck versions, chewing the B-17s and B-24s. That was called true and complete pulverization of the target.
From what I have read, it is not exaggerating to affirm the combat experiences of the heavy bomber crews of the USAAF were FAR more frightful and nightmarish than those the Luftwaffe bombers crews experienced over England in 1940.
I digress, the point was the RAF interceptors, with the guns they were fitted during 1940 did not enjoy a powerful bomber destroyer capability. Yes, in many many cases was simply enough to get the job done by assuring the German bomber did not return to base. Any reasonable doubts on this?
I can assure you the fate of thousands of USAAF and RAF heavy bomber crews was far more violent and terrifying at the hands of Luftwaffe interceptors than the one experienced by the Luftwaffe in 1940 at the hands of the RAF. This, within a moderate tone, of course, getting intercepted and riddled with machine gun fire can be everything but pleasant.
The question is, have you seen photos of German bombers returning to base in France with very heavy combat damage? The evidence exists, and it´s plenty of it.
Finally, I would not be very convinced in saying the German medium bombers had less resistance to combat damage than Allied medium ones.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
I do have to concur on some points made here so far....
I have always felt that Fighter Command fighters in the BoB were rather inadequately armed with the .303's, that 20mm should've been used earlier, although it did take them time to go from drum-fed to 'successful' belt-feed 20mm guns....
In my reading, one NZ fighter pilot, Crawford-Compton I believe, was most successful attacking the German bombers by always aiming for and hitting one of the engines, the one that did all the accessory power....He commented that .303's seemed ineffective against the bombers unless attacked otherwise......
- Also, although both the He-111 and Ju-88 were both good aircraft, as they did use them throughout the War, and I do believe the Wellington was an exceptionally good aircraft for Britain, and they did carry the initial offensive against Germany, and they did soon realise that day-bombing was a lost cause....partly because of the firepower differences between German fighters and the bomber defensive firepower, something I believe was always dreadfully inadequate with the .303's.....
- If they could've upgraded much earlier to .50's or greater, many would've been saved.....- That Britain chose to go on the night offensive after daylight disaster, did give more bombloads and less men were lost....
- We have to thank the US for their tenacity to do the daylight runs, they felt they had a point to prove with greater firepower to protect themselves and the 'round the clock' bombing was what eventually run Germany down.....
But in all my reading, lately about the Aircraft vs U-boats, it does seem to have been a problem that all British aircraft had that used .303 usually had a hard time scoring success....The Wellington was used against U-boats, but when Doenitz ordered them to stay-up and fight-back with their 20mm's [twins and quads] and 37mm's, one can see what an uneven battle it was.....
In conclusion, Britain most certainly should have used heavier guns from Day One, .303 was great for soldiers, but not in the Air War..........
I have always felt that Fighter Command fighters in the BoB were rather inadequately armed with the .303's, that 20mm should've been used earlier, although it did take them time to go from drum-fed to 'successful' belt-feed 20mm guns....
In my reading, one NZ fighter pilot, Crawford-Compton I believe, was most successful attacking the German bombers by always aiming for and hitting one of the engines, the one that did all the accessory power....He commented that .303's seemed ineffective against the bombers unless attacked otherwise......
- Also, although both the He-111 and Ju-88 were both good aircraft, as they did use them throughout the War, and I do believe the Wellington was an exceptionally good aircraft for Britain, and they did carry the initial offensive against Germany, and they did soon realise that day-bombing was a lost cause....partly because of the firepower differences between German fighters and the bomber defensive firepower, something I believe was always dreadfully inadequate with the .303's.....
- If they could've upgraded much earlier to .50's or greater, many would've been saved.....- That Britain chose to go on the night offensive after daylight disaster, did give more bombloads and less men were lost....
- We have to thank the US for their tenacity to do the daylight runs, they felt they had a point to prove with greater firepower to protect themselves and the 'round the clock' bombing was what eventually run Germany down.....
But in all my reading, lately about the Aircraft vs U-boats, it does seem to have been a problem that all British aircraft had that used .303 usually had a hard time scoring success....The Wellington was used against U-boats, but when Doenitz ordered them to stay-up and fight-back with their 20mm's [twins and quads] and 37mm's, one can see what an uneven battle it was.....
In conclusion, Britain most certainly should have used heavier guns from Day One, .303 was great for soldiers, but not in the Air War..........
Attachments
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
Udet, a lot of those "chewed-up" B-17s and B-24s came back to their bases in England. I have seen numerous pictues of Allied bombers sans engines, control surfaces, sections of fuselage, etc. that returned to base. The same cannot be said of the German bombers.
Also, the American bombers had numerous advantages over the Germans defensively. These would include more guns, of a heavier caliber, in power-operated turrets, and massed formations. The Luftwaffe bombers of the BoB had none of these and, as such, where extremely vulnerable.
Also, the American bombers had numerous advantages over the Germans defensively. These would include more guns, of a heavier caliber, in power-operated turrets, and massed formations. The Luftwaffe bombers of the BoB had none of these and, as such, where extremely vulnerable.
And my (what I thought quite obvious) point was that because German bombers could take a beating from indeqeute firepower doesn't make them durable.
Taking a beating from 20mm and still getting home does. That's why if the Spitfires had the e-wing in BoB German bombers would have been dropping like flies because they wouldn't be able to handle 2*20s and 2*.50s.
And Gemhorse, that's why the "Tse-Tse" with a 6pdr battered the U-Boats. 8)
Taking a beating from 20mm and still getting home does. That's why if the Spitfires had the e-wing in BoB German bombers would have been dropping like flies because they wouldn't be able to handle 2*20s and 2*.50s.
And Gemhorse, that's why the "Tse-Tse" with a 6pdr battered the U-Boats. 8)
remoraptor
Airman
- 15
- Dec 13, 2004
How about the best Russian and the best Japanese bombers?
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
there's a tricky one.............
Lightning guy:
Of course! I know what you mentioned. The B-17 was capable of taking a lot of punishment and still making it back to base. Still, thousands of them were shot to smithereens as well.
I as well have seen lots of pics of such B-17s returning to base in miserable condition. Most of the times such bombers were sent to the scrapyard though.
Remember my point was to simply tell the German bombers of 1940 over England were not as frail as commonly depicted.
You tell that still getting forced/shot down by fighters fitted with .303 cal machine guns tells something on the fragileness of the German bombers. Not very so, for the Germans did not rely that very much on their bombers´ armor and defensive fire to ensure survival on interception by enemy fighters.
Please see my opening post on the "Defensive bombers armament" thread and you will understand what my points are.
Of course! I know what you mentioned. The B-17 was capable of taking a lot of punishment and still making it back to base. Still, thousands of them were shot to smithereens as well.
I as well have seen lots of pics of such B-17s returning to base in miserable condition. Most of the times such bombers were sent to the scrapyard though.
Remember my point was to simply tell the German bombers of 1940 over England were not as frail as commonly depicted.
You tell that still getting forced/shot down by fighters fitted with .303 cal machine guns tells something on the fragileness of the German bombers. Not very so, for the Germans did not rely that very much on their bombers´ armor and defensive fire to ensure survival on interception by enemy fighters.
Please see my opening post on the "Defensive bombers armament" thread and you will understand what my points are.
cheddar cheese
Major General
remoraptor said:
Well either the Pe-2 or Pe-8 were the best Russian ones. Probably the Pe-2 because i dont think the Pe-8 saw much service.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Yeah, I agree with you there plan_D....shame they didn't make more of them too, would've been useful for other things besides U-boats...
This book I'm reading is by Norman Franks Eric Zimmerman, 1998, and is a lot of research collated to tie together the strings of who did what to who...The Mosquitos mentioned didn't have all that much success, partly because they were single aircraft against one or more U-boats, except in one instance of two against two, and the Mosquito's 4x 20mm + .303's were outgunned by quad 20mm's and 37mm's, the aircraft obviously more fragile than the U-boats, where even 20mm's were surviveable... - Quite bloody courageous on the part of anti-U-boat Aircrews.....
This book I'm reading is by Norman Franks Eric Zimmerman, 1998, and is a lot of research collated to tie together the strings of who did what to who...The Mosquitos mentioned didn't have all that much success, partly because they were single aircraft against one or more U-boats, except in one instance of two against two, and the Mosquito's 4x 20mm + .303's were outgunned by quad 20mm's and 37mm's, the aircraft obviously more fragile than the U-boats, where even 20mm's were surviveable... - Quite bloody courageous on the part of anti-U-boat Aircrews.....
Attachments
remoraptor
Airman
- 15
- Dec 13, 2004
These u-boats had much more to lose though. The concept of flak-trap u-boats meant that they had to confront aircarft on the surface instead of avoiding them.
Adolf Galland
Airman 1st Class
from what i'vd known the U-boat VS Air fights are normally the aircraft will win cuz the airfraft can be shot down but itz hard and the fact that those aircraft that are fighting the u-boats are fitted w/ anti-sub weapons like deoth charges and anti-ship rockets double the danger 4 the boats so itz really a stupid idea
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
And by the end of the war, homing Torps like the FIDO.
Udet, Plan_D's point about the uncomporable firepower of the interceptors is very valid. Another point would be flak. The German 88 was perhaps the most lethal land-based AA gun in the war. The Luftwaffe certainly didn't have to face anything similar to it over England in the fall of '40. Nor did they have to fly anywhere near similar distances. Shorter distances mean fewer casualities.
As for the best Russian bomber, my money would be on the Pe-2 but the Il-4 should probably receive some consideration. It was more of a true bomber than the Pe-2 and saw much greater service than the Pe-8.
For the Japanese, I believe the Ki-67 "Peggy" would win fairly hands down. It was certainly the best bomber the JAAF developed during the war and the IJN was beginning to use them in place of the well known Betty by the end of the war.
Udet, Plan_D's point about the uncomporable firepower of the interceptors is very valid. Another point would be flak. The German 88 was perhaps the most lethal land-based AA gun in the war. The Luftwaffe certainly didn't have to face anything similar to it over England in the fall of '40. Nor did they have to fly anywhere near similar distances. Shorter distances mean fewer casualities.
As for the best Russian bomber, my money would be on the Pe-2 but the Il-4 should probably receive some consideration. It was more of a true bomber than the Pe-2 and saw much greater service than the Pe-8.
For the Japanese, I believe the Ki-67 "Peggy" would win fairly hands down. It was certainly the best bomber the JAAF developed during the war and the IJN was beginning to use them in place of the well known Betty by the end of the war.
