Best Bomber of ww2

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

I agree LG, the B-24 was under appreciated but they were everywhere doing almost every kind of job an aircraft of its size could do. Besides being a heavy bomber it excelled in maritime patrol, anti submarine work, photo recon, cargo transport, tanker, VIP transport, some odd jobs were gunnery and flight engineer trainers for B-29 crews, plus along with weary B-17's became formation aircraft.

As much as I truly love the B-29 as well as other allied bombers, light, medium and heavy, I have to admit that the B-24 was a jack of all trades that was surely one of the most valuable aircraft of the war. Although this does have a lot to do with its design with the boxy airframe and range, plus the fact that they're were so many of them!!

Besides serving with the USAAF and USN they were also operated extensively by the RAF albeit in patrol or cargo roles.
 
I think you will find the Lanc was used in more than just the ETO.

Not in great numbers as the ETO needed every bomber they could get their hands on but there were some used in the far east and a few in North Africa IIRC.
 
Alot of the B-24 groups phased out their Liberators for B-17s as the war dragged on. There were a few problems with the B-24. One of the biggies was the nose gear. They were notoriously weak and landing on a soft or rough field would collapse it in a heartbeat.

The Davis wing was a great design, however, a flak hit between the engines would often cause it to fold up. I have seen a few pictures of this type of unrecoverable damage.

I should point out that I do like the B-24, warts and all. There were roughly 12,000 B-17s made and roughly 18,000 B-24s made. They served many different countries well during and after the war.
 
MikeMan said:
OK

Best bomber of WW2, that is a hard one.

Light: Mosquito
Medium: Wellington
Heavy: Lancaster
SuperHeavy: B-29

Most impact on WW2: Lancaster
Click to expand...

I'd say:

Attack: IL10
Light: A-26 Invader
Medium: Tu-2
Heavy Day: B-17
Heavy Night: Lancaster
Super-Heavy: B-29

Most impact on the war: IL2, SBD-Dauntless

The effectiveness of strategic bombing is somewhat doubful.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Ive seen a lot of those videos and pictures of wings folding on B-24's. Thats some of the hardest stuff Ive ever seen, but seeing any aircraft go down, allied or axis is rough especially trying to imagine what its like being in there.
 
Agreed, Dave. Often when the wing folds up, the aircraft goes into a flat spin. The centrifugal force pins the crew where they are. Some did manage to get out, but alot of them were killed because they simply could not get out of the plane. It's heart-wrenching to see the pictures and video of that.
 
The effect of the strategic bombing was doubtful!?! That's not what the Germans thought. Their industry was taking a pounding from the heavy bombers and their defeat in the East was due, in part, from their inability to hit Soviet industry.

Also, I don't see how the A-26 is considered a light bomber since it carried a heavier weapons load than the B-25 medium bomber. And as much as I love the Dauntless, it certainly didn't have the overall impact of the B-24.

Note: I am not arguing that the B-24 was the be-all and end-all of bombers but it was built in greater numbers and saw more wide-spread and various uses that any of the others mentioned.
 
I think you will find the Lanc was used in more than just the ETO.
Click to expand...

as much as i want to agree with you i can't really, she was an extremely versatile aircraft and this can be shown through countless modifications, because she was in such high demand by bomber command no-one else could get their hands on them, not even coastal command and they were screaming out for them
 
Lightning Guy said:
The effect of the strategic bombing was doubtful!?! That's not what the Germans thought. Their industry was taking a pounding from the heavy bombers and their defeat in the East was due, in part, from their inability to hit Soviet industry.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps I overstated this. Stragetic bombing was effective, but not until very late in the war did it pay off. I think, with 20-20 hindsight, that a more selective bombing campaign (focusing on oil and communications/transportation) would have been more effective. This could have been carried out mostly with fighter bombers or specialized medium bombers. For every B-17 build, three P-38's, four P-47's, or five P-51's could have been built, and still left substantial resources and aircrews available for other war efforts. A specialized plane something along the lines of a larger P-38 or metal mosquito could have been extremely effective in destroying such targets, espeically with strong fighter and fighter-bomber support.

Read over the US Stragetic Bombing Survey for yourself.

As for the Russians, Germany never demonstrated the capacity to produce a sufficiently strong strategic bombing effort to have had much effect. They would have to have built 10 times as many He111 class bombers to do the job.


Lightning Guy said:
Also, I don't see how the A-26 is considered a light bomber since it carried a heavier weapons load than the B-25 medium bomber.
Click to expand...

I don't think load really matters. The same thing could be said of the Mossie, it could carry a heavier bombload than the B-25. What I'm looking at it the type of mission typically carried out, which was tactical in nature. The A-26 was used mostly for tactical bombing and ground support.

Lightning Guy said:
And as much as I love the Dauntless, it certainly didn't have the overall impact of the B-24.
Click to expand...

The Dauntless destroyed the Japanese fleet at Midway, which was one of the most significant "turning points" of the war.

Lightning Guy said:
Note: I am not arguing that the B-24 was the be-all and end-all of bombers but it was built in greater numbers and saw more wide-spread and various uses that any of the others mentioned.
Click to expand...

Yes, because it sacrificed durability and defensive capability for ease of construction. B-24's were built in such numbers not because they were better than B-17's, but simply because it was easier to build them. Compromises were made in the durability and defensive firepower of the B-24 to facilitate quick mass production.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Look at the B-25 in the Pacific. It flew a lot of strafing and skip-bombing missions. This was certainly as much attack aviation as what the A-26 was doing.

Midway was a huge turning point, but it would be a fallacy to give "most impact" to an aircraft based on one operation. If you are going to do that, why not list the Stuka since it started the war or the B-29 since it ended it?

I also don't see how the B-24 sacrificed firepower. The only guns it didn't have that the B-17 did were the two cheek guns and the radio-room gun of the B-17 and these were the least effective guns anyway. Also, the tail turret on the B-24 was more effective than the ad hoc arrangement on the B-17.
 
The A-26 arrived in the ETO in September 1944, and was a superb aircraft, it's delay being blamed on the Douglas Co. administration....

All the work the B-25 and B-26 did, was planned to be replaced by the A-26, the B-model packing 22 guns....the C- [glass-nosed] model being faster at 370 mph.

The A-26 arrived in the PTO in January 1945, and led some GI's to comment that they wished it had arrived much sooner....

Apparently the OSS used them first, to ferry agents into Europe....
 

Attachments

  • raf_487__nz__sqn._-_on_the_hunt..._107.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 559
B-29B Superfortress
HP: 4X2250HP
Max Speed: 364 mph at 25,000 feet
Cruise Speed: 210-225 mph
Maximum range 4200 miles at 10,000 feet with full fuel load and 18,000-pound bomb load
69,000 pounds empty, 137,000 pounds loaded with 18,000 pounds of bombs. Fuel capacity was 6988 US gallons, the bomb bay tanks were not standard fit.
Wingspan 141 feet 3 inches, length 99 feet 0 inches, height 27 feet 9 inches, wing area 1736 square feet.
Two 0.50-inch machine guns in the tail, with provision for two 0.50-inch guns in the mid-fuselage pressurized area. Bomb load was typically 20,000 pounds, although with a mix of high explosive and incendiaries, this could be increased to 22,800 pounds.
 
An interesting note on the A-26, Gen. George C. Kenny, commander US 5th AF, SWPA was not extremely impessed with the new plane. He felt that the A-20 was doing what was needed and didn't want to suffer the break in combat needed to transition to the new type.
 
Kenney also wanted bigger stuff and constantly requested B-29's be given to the 5th AF. He was always turned down and finally requested B-32's stating that they essentially useless being manufactured and not put to use. He stated something on the order that giving them to him would bring the most available firepower against the Japanese in the shortest period of time. So he was finally given the B-32's and they were assigned to the 312 BG(which had operated A-20's). It was found that the B-32 was a lot better than previously expected, providing good range, defensive firepower and a stable bombing platform.
 
Lightning Guy said:
Look at the B-25 in the Pacific. It flew a lot of strafing and skip-bombing missions. This was certainly as much attack aviation as what the A-26 was doing.
Click to expand...

B-25 skip bombing missions were against cargo ships. They were not often used to attack heavy troop concentrations or directly support troops engaged in battle. Certainly the A-26 is every bit as much a "light bomber" as the Mossie.

Lightning Guy said:
Midway was a huge turning point, but it would be a fallacy to give "most impact" to an aircraft based on one operation. If you are going to do that, why not list the Stuka since it started the war or the B-29 since it ended it?
Click to expand...

Well, the destruction of the Japanese fleet has to be considered one of the most siginficant events of WWII. The Stuka did not turn the war in Germany's favor against any major foe. The B-29 could certainly be argued for.


The B-24 turrets, except in the dorsal position, were all inferior to those of the B-17. The mechanisms were just not as good. The "Cheyenne" tail gun with reflector sight in the B-17G was much superior to the turret arraingment of the B-24. The Bendix chin turret with computing gunsight was very much superior to the nose turret on the B-24. Both the tail and nose turrets of the B-24 were seriously flawed designs. If you have access to Flying Guns of WWII (by Tony Williams who somtimes posts here - I highly recommend this book which is only $30 for a nice hardback copy) read the section about the turrets of the B-24. If you cannot, ask and I'll try to transcribe the relevant section (though I hate doing that since he does sell that book).

Flying Guns of World War II
 ($33)

Rapid Fire: The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine-Guns and Their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces
 <---- also worth buying ($18)

=S=

Lunatic
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
The Stuka was the brunt of the air support during the initial stages of the war, for Germany. It certainly let them run amok through Europe and most of Russia. I'd say all of Europe was a pretty major foe.
 
But the stuka was only a part of the overall German offensive power. Even without it they'd have succeeded in Poland, France, and early on in Russia. At no place in WWII was the Stuka the decisive weapon of German victory. At Midway, the Dauntless was the decisive weapon of Japanese defeat.
 
The Germans did need good groud support aircraft, the Stuka provided it. Although much credit is given to the Stuka, for a lot of destruction early on, on several occasions Guderian was questioned (while in Poland and France) what had done the damage, that could be seen. Every time he was asked by a visiting officer, who could see burning wrecks, 'Did our Stukas do that?' every time...'No, our Panzers' So, I'll give you that one.

SURELY though, the aircraft carrier was the decider at Midway. I have a model of a Dauntless, I wonder if it's still alive.
 
plan_D said:
SURELY though, the aircraft carrier was the decider at Midway. I have a model of a Dauntless, I wonder if it's still alive.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the Dauntless was by far the most effective of the bomber types available. Torpedo planes were pretty useless in the face of defensive fighters. The Dauntless was far superior to the Val (or to the Stuka for that matter). It could be argued that the TBF Avenger might actually have been an even better attack plane if armed with bombs, but it was armed with torps and died like flies at Midway. Of course, poor disapline on the part of the Japanese fighters, which all decended on the Avengers's, left the door open for the Dauntless's which wiped out the Japanese carrier fleet in minutes.

Another issue of course would be the poor construction of the Japanese carriers. It only took a few 500 lbs bomb hits to finish one off.

=S=

Lunatic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Locked
Attempted assassination of Trump.
Replies
2
Views
1K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
CANADA BANS 1500 TYPES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IMMEDIATELY
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Dana Bell
D
  • Locked
Charity Auction for Signed Copy of Finish Forty and Home
Replies
2
Views
2K
ccheese
WW2 career, plausible postings/dates.
Replies
0
Views
3K
Tony Hill
L
  • Locked
What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
25K
Lighthunmust
L
Menu
Log in
Register