Best Bomber of ww2

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

My vote is for the Douglas A-26 Invader which had the performance of a fighter and could actually outrun a P-51 It survived WW II to serve in Korea and Veitnam and if you count it... Central America with certain Govt. (Never happened or existed) agencies.

The Invader is an awsome aircraft and contiunes to serve in the capacity of Air Attack Tanker, although sadly they're now being slowly phased out due to aging and parts shortages. (sigh)
 

B-24 carried a little bigger payload a little further a little faster. But the B-17 was much more resiliant and able to survive much more damage, and had a little better gun arraingement.

=S=

Lunatic
 
I say the He-111 H6 , its quite fast for a bomber and can carry 2 SC2000's , plus i love the plane as well
 
Yeomanz said:
I say the He-111 H6 , its quite fast for a bomber and can carry 2 SC2000's , plus i love the plane as well
Click to expand...

But the B-29 was quite a bit faster and could carry up to 10 2000 lbs bombs. Kinda looks more like a giant He111 than B-17 too don't ya think?

=S=

Lunatic
 
cheddar cheese said:
The He-111 was IMO the best looking bomber of the war 8) The B-29 was very nice too though
Click to expand...

Yep , I just live the way it looks 8) ,

Lunatic , I see your point , but H6 was made earlier than the 29 , 2 SC2000 is bout 4000bl's , and the b-29 has 4 engines , and the He111 is pretty
 
B-24 carried a little bigger payload a little further a little faster. But the B-17 was much more resiliant and able to survive much more damage, and had a little better gun arraingement.
Click to expand...

the B-24 could take just as much damage as the B-17 and the gun arangement meant very little as even the up to 13MGs of the B-17 still offered little protection from fighters, the B-24 was the better bomber............
 

I disagree, the B-17 was known to be much more durable. The wing of the B-24 was particularly subject to folding up when taking hits at the root. It was also less fire-resistant. B-17's had better gun arcs, espeically beneath. The fixed ball turret was faster than the retractable ball, and many (maybe most) B-24's had no ball turret at all.

Good defensive armament was not particularly effective at killing enemy fighters, but it did make them change their attacks and thus make them less effective at killing the bombers.

=S=

Lunatic
 
All great planes, but the Lanc has to be #1, then B-17, Halifax, and B-24 tie for #2. B-29 was another generation, but rushing production caused too many problems.
 
i see what you mean with the lanc but i still don't see why everyone rates the B-17 so highly, it was nothing special as a bomber, it's only good points were it's damage tollerance and maybe ceiling (i've left out defensive armourment and but a maybe on the ceiling because neither made it safe from attack).............
 
It made it safer. It was accurate too.

I fail to see how the Lancaster rates above the B-29, it was all the good points of the Lancaster with none of the bad points. Although it wasnt as successful this was only because it came late. If the 2 planes had seen the same amount of service you'd be telling a different story.
 
the b-17 is way more safer than the b-24 because the b-17 can somehow bring its crew back to england even if deep inside germany and missing a major component like if it losses 2 engines, losses half a wing, tail section COMPLETE blown off, etc, and i think that the b-29 IS the best bomber in the war, it's even safer that the b-17s and it can carry about more than twice the b-24 can carry(the b-24 is considered to be a heavy-bomber)

and about the he-111 does looks good, but its so sad compare to the US heavy bombers, lets put it this way:
# of 20MM shells to down one(normally)
He-111 5-10
B-24 20-30
B-17 35-45
B-29 50-65 (kinda chazy)
 
I was reading the memoirs of a B-24 pilot and he said that once you lost an engine in a B-24, everyone had better get their bail-out kit in gear because if you lost another one you were going down.

Not so with a '17.
 
I read an account of a B24 campaign which also suggested that the Liberator was vulnerable to enemy fire, especially around the wing roots. Many pics you see of B24s going down show one or both wings folding too.

And Galland, Im sorry mate, but no aircraft could survive the kind of damage you're talking about. Half a wing or a whole tail gone? Its aerodynamically impossible for that a/c to keep flying. Even Boeing cant mess with the laws of physics!

Regarding the bomb-loads of the heavies, remember that the stats you see in many books are maximums, they had to be reduced to get the best balance between payload and range. And weight in absolute terms is not necessarily a measure of combat effective ness. A Lanc carrying a few 500lb GPs and a bunch of incediary SBCs (or a single 4000lb Cookie, for that matter) is carrying less weight than a Fort with 12 500lbers, but who's to say which does the more damage? That depends on the nature of the target, the skill of the bombardier and the reliability of the fuses, amongst other things.
 
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
2K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
CANADA BANS 1500 TYPES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IMMEDIATELY
2 3
Replies
47
Views
9K
Dana Bell
D
  • Locked
Charity Auction for Signed Copy of Finish Forty and Home
Replies
2
Views
3K
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
38K
Lighthunmust
L
Menu
Log in
Register