Best Bomber of ww2

[plan_D]

I don't like the Stuka. It wasn't the best, or first dive-bomber it's just the most famous. And the SYMBOL of the German Blitzkrieg.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't like the Stuka. It wasn't the best, or first dive-bomber it's just the most famous. And the SYMBOL of the German Blitzkrieg.

The main thing about the Stuka was it could do a vertical dive. In an almost vertical dive, bombing can be very accurate. The Dauntless could also do a near vertical dive, but I don't think quite as well as the Stuka. On the otherhand, the Dauntless was much much faster than the Stuka, and that is key if there is any chance of interception.

The TBF Avenger could do a fairly steep dive, and it also had a bombsite for level bombing. It was much much tougher than either the Stuka or the Dantless, and had both a .50 gunner in the normal position and a .30 aiming down to the rear. Later in the war the Avenger was found to be as effective as the Dauntless and more survivable, and it carried a bigger payload.

The HellDiver came out later, but by that point they'd pretty much found that fighter-bomber's could do ground attack almost as well as a dive bomber, and were much more survivable. But the Helldiver was probably better than the Dauntless.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i like the stuka, one hell of a machine..........

 

[Lightning Guy]

Consolidated tested the Bendix chin turret on a modified B-17 and found that it offered no improvement. IMO, the nose turret also had the advantage of armored glass and plating. The Bendix turret provided no additonal protection from fire to the bombardier of a B-17. Also, the Cheyenne turret was a very late addition and still didn't have the field of fire as the Consolidated A-6 turret in the tail of a B-24.

The Helldiver was superior to the Dauntless in virtually every area except maneuverabiliy and range.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

damn ugly though.............

 

[Adolf Galland]

First, the Japanese carriers are construted w/ wood, just like the US carriers. (most of the British carriers are made w/ metal or steel), so it's vulnarable. Second, I rated torpedo planes a better plane to sink a ship because if (and ONLY IF) there are no fighter interceptions, the torpedos are far more damaging than bombs from dive-bombers, and I would say that the dive bombers are good too. Third, fighter-bombers are good for tactical bombing, that's true, but before it releases its payload, it can't fight other fighters, so if you said use the fighter-bombers to attack w/ fighter escort, itz effective. (just don't think of the fighter-bomber as the Me-110)

 

[Lightning Guy]

I assume, Adolf, that you are refering to the flight deck? yes? Not all of the American carriers were made out of wood but the flight decks were.

And torpedoes were more damaging to a ship but they were harder to imploy. The ideal situation was to have the dive-bombers damage and disable and enemy ship before the torpedo bombers came in for the coup de grace.

 

[Anonymous]

Consolidated tested the Bendix chin turret on a modified B-17 and found that it offered no improvement. IMO, the nose turret also had the advantage of armored glass and plating. The Bendix turret provided no additonal protection from fire to the bombardier of a B-17. Also, the Cheyenne turret was a very late addition and still didn't have the field of fire as the Consolidated A-6 turret in the tail of a B-24.

The Helldiver was superior to the Dauntless in virtually every area except maneuverabiliy and range.

The Bendix chin turret included a computing gunsight and was much more effective than the Liberator's A-6 turret. The gunner only had to put the circle around the target and adjust the ranging recticle, the turret would calculate the necessary lead. The Bendix remote electric turret was very much faster tracking than the manned turrets. This was the same sighting system later used on the B-29 (which also had central fire control).

Installing the nose turret on the B-24H had the negative effect of forcing a redesign of the bombadier position to a less optimal location. It also allowed freezing cold air to flow through the fuselage. The Consolidated A-6 turret was used on most B-24's though some used the superior Emmersion A-15 turret in the tail only, but this was in short supply and was only utilized in the Consolidated built B-24's out of San Diego starting in spring/summer 1944. Most Liberators still used the Consolidated turret. The nose turret was the A-6. From "Flying Guns of WWII":

...
The Consolidated A-6 turret was hydraulically driven; but instead of using a ring gear to rotate the turret - a complicated and expensive item to manufacture - its designes chose to use a drum on the turret axis with steel cables running around it. This apparrently ingenious solution became a serious weakness, because the tension of the cables changed through wear and termperature variations, resulting in erradic control. The gun mounts were not steady enough for accurate firing, and to make things even worse they transimitted the vibration of firing into the sighting system. The turret was also too small to accomodate most gunners. Even after numerous modifciations the Consolidated tail turret was 'an ineffient combat weapon', but the needs of the time mandated its production and installation, not only in the tail but also in its nose. The British chose to install the Boulton Paul tail turret in Liberators delivered to them, while they conserved the Martin dorsal turret. Nevertheless the turret was gradually improved and widely used.
page 163 - Flying Guns of WWII.

The Cheyenne turret was officially adpoted for production in Summer 1944, but it was installed as a modification before that time, and it was installed on most B-17's very quickly. It included a reflector sight and could aim almost 90 degrees to either side and up or down almost 60 degrees from level. It was very much faster tracking and much more stable than the A-6 turret on the Liberator, and had none of its sighting or gunner comfort issues.

Can you document the use of armor glass on the Liberator turrets? I can find nothing about this. It seems unlikely, as more wieght means a slower turret, and weight was already an issue for the B-24 turrets. H series payloads were significantly effected by the added weight of the later model turrets (maybe these had armor glass?).

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

first, the japanese carriers are construted w/ wood, just like the US carriers(most of the british carriers are made w/ metal or steel), so itz vulnarable, second, i rated torpedo planes a better plane to sink a ship because if(annd ONLY IF) there are no fighter interceptions, the torpedos are far more damageing than bombs from dive-bombers, and i would say that the dive bombers are good too, third, fighter-bombers are good for tactical bombing, thats true, but be4 it release its payload, it can't fight other fighters, so if u said use the fighter-bombers to attack w/ fighter escort, itz effective(just don't think of the fighter-bomber as the me-110)

Japanese carriers were very open inside. Most crewmen did not have any kind of quarters, they slept on bunks that pulled out from the wall in the hanger or other areas of the ship. They had very little damage control capability for this reason. American carriers were built of better steel, had better armor throughout, and were very well compartmentalized. This meant that hits that were easily fatal to Japanese carriers were not fatal to US carriers, as was made clear several times during the war.

As for the wood vs. steel carrier decks.... please read:

Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile? (<-- link)

I think you will see the answer is a resounding NO!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Lightning Guy]

http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm

This website provides some information on the armor on the various nose turrets used on the B-24. Under the section on the Emerson turret the actual thickness of the armor is given. For the Consolidated turret it just mentions the fact that it carried armor plating. Again, I just wont to point out that Consolidated expirement with the Bendix turret and found in not to be worth while. Personally, I wonder how much value the lead-computing sight since the time for such actions in a head on attack was very limited.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm

This website provides some information on the armor on the various nose turrets used on the B-24. Under the section on the Emerson turret the actual thickness of the armor is given. For the Consolidated turret it just mentions the fact that it carried armor plating. Again, I just wont to point out that Consolidated expirement with the Bendix turret and found in not to be worth while. Personally, I wonder how much value the lead-computing sight since the time for such actions in a head on attack was very limited.

I think the lead computing sight was mostly effective for shooting at a fighter attacking a bomber other than the one you were in.

I'll check out that site. But note the Emmerson turret was rather rare on the B-24.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Lightning Guy]

Perhaps, but the chin turret was never going to get more than a quick snap shot at a fighter. I've certainly found that to be the case when flying a simulated B-17 mission. I think it would have been more effective to protect against attacks from the rear quarter.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps, but the chin turret was never going to get more than a quick snap shot at a fighter. I've certainly found that to be the case when flying a simulated B-17 mission. I think it would have been more effective to protect against attacks from the rear quarter.

Perhaps so, but it was still better than other gun options for the front, which is where the most need was for more firepower. Firepower to the rear was considered sufficient - the enemy was not generally attacking from that position anymore by the start of 1944.

Remember, in my opinion only the top, belly, and tail turrets made sense. The planes should have otherwise been optimized for speed as defensive firepower was never sufficient to stop high speed slashing attacks by well armed fighters. The chin and remote turrets had the advantage of being much more airodynamic than manned turrets.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Gemhorse]

I recall reading that the Corsair was an excellent divebomber, easily capable of carrying a couple of 1,000 lb'ers, usually dived at 70 degrees plus, where it's undercarriage could be used for airbrakes, although they often didn't bother........

In reading about an RAF Bomber Commmand crew flying Lancasters with 186 Sqn., they landed post-raid at a B-17 airfield.....'' The following day their hosts took them for a spin in one, and the author was astonished at all the guns, but what staggered him was the bomb bay, that could only accommodate 6x 500 lb'ers at maximum load.....He felt that to his way of thinking, it was a helluva risk of 10 lives to drop six small bombs....He figured it required four B-17's to deliver the same weight of high explosives as one Lancaster....or put another way, 40 men would risk their lives to do what the RAF could achieve with seven........''

It begs the question, that although all were grateful that the ' round the clock ' offensive greatly assisted concluding the War in the ETO, how would it have been if both Allies had conducted the Night Offensive together...?...Germany couldn't have coped with that amount of incoming raids coming in at once, I'm sure...........

 

[Lightning Guy]

Standard load on a B-17 was 10 500lb bombs so that annalogy is a little off (unless a Lanc was dropping 20,000lbs every mission). The main difference was the accuracy though. It would be a long time before Bomber Command could achieve accuracy comparable to the USAAF daylight raids. And of course by 1944 escorting the daylight raids became an end to itself as it gave the USAAF fighters a chance to engage and destroy the Luftwaffe.

 

[KraziKanuK]

The B-17 bomb bay had two symmetrical halves. Each had shackles for:

12 x 0100 lbs
08 x 0300 lbs
06 x 0500 lbs
03 x 1000 lbs
04 x 1600 lbs (might be only 3 would fit)
01 x 2000 lbs (special shackles required)


In Europe, the 8th AF bombing accuracy was not any better and sometimes worse than the RAF's BC bombing accuracy. How does one put a bomb "in a pickle barrel" when the formations could be up to 2300ft across and the bombs were drop on the lead bomber's command through the clouds?

http://www.bkbhq.com/users/race/Air Force/Escorting_files/image009.jpg

The RAF dropped individually on target markers.

 

[Lightning Guy]

The bomb in a pickle barrel is a myth, a hyperbole. With the American tactic of massed formations having each airplane aim and drop its load separately was an invitation for disaster. Mid-air collisions over the target would have become an incredibly serious problem.

And it must be remembered that (at least in the first half of the war) Bomber Command had enough trouble simply finding the target let alone hitting it.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes but we were going by night............

 

[Lightning Guy]

And that's the point. Daylight bombing eliminated most of the problems with navigation and finding the target. At the very least it must be acknowledged that it was a lot easier to hit the target by day.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes but you hit it with a very much smaller punch......