wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
The JU-88 deserves to be in there too.
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
Maybe the Ju-88 should receive honorable mention, but it clearly was not the best bomber of the war.
NightHawk
Senior Airman
cheddar cheese
Major General
Persolly I like the He-111. It had a large payload for a twin engined plane and was fairly fast. The maximum ceiling was its only real problem.
Adolf Galland
Airman 1st Class
yes it will wanto bet? b-17's MAJOR parts blown away and still flys back 2 base, itz not just possible, it HAD BEEN done many times be4(esitimated about 500 B-17s)
cheddar cheese
Major General
What you on about? The B-17 was as tough as old boots...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
Nonskimmer
Captain
The Lanc was every bit the flying freight train! Good pic, btw. 
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
how dare you, freight trains are big fat and ugly brutes, the lancaster was a true lady..............
Nonskimmer
Captain
Okay then, she was a flying freight train. 
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
no she wasn't she was no glamour queen i'll admit, but she was every bit the grand dame............
Nonskimmer
Captain
That hauled a shit load of freight, in bombs.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Oh, and she was tough too! 8)
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes but she made it look easy, she did it without breaking a sweat, making her even more the lady............
cheddar cheese
Major General
Bloody ugly lady then, I think im more attracted to Martyn...
That picture up there doesnt look real either, the ground doesnt have any texture and it appears as though the plane has ben superimposed onto a background.
That picture up there doesnt look real either, the ground doesnt have any texture and it appears as though the plane has ben superimposed onto a background.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
I would rate them this way:
Heavy Bomber - B-29
Best Medium Bomber - B-17
Best night bomber - Lancaster
Best light bomber - Eto Mossie
Best light bomber PTO B-25
When the B-29 entered service it redefined 'heavy bomber' so thats my take on it. The B-25 was designed to early for the 2,000 hp engines think what it could have done with another 500hp or better.
Heavy Bomber - B-29
Best Medium Bomber - B-17
Best night bomber - Lancaster
Best light bomber - Eto Mossie
Best light bomber PTO B-25
When the B-29 entered service it redefined 'heavy bomber' so thats my take on it. The B-25 was designed to early for the 2,000 hp engines think what it could have done with another 500hp or better.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Awesome pic Lanc !...I've seen another shot of one on one engine at a post-war airshow. They were definately capable of returning damaged on one engine in a slow descent....
As far as the B-26 went, General Ira Eaker was disappointed to receive them instead of B-17's B-24's, which he needed for his Strategic Plan. However, flying at medium heights [12,000 ft max.]- and with a Spitfire escort, they sustained very few losses after their disastrous introduction. As in N.Africa, they decided B-26's were too large and not fast enough for low-level attacks, where surprise was crucial to minimise losses. In the following months, they were transferred to the 9th AF and produced some of the more accurate bombing results in the ETO....
For my money, the B-25 was the consumate US Medium bomber, and it was a shame they didn't give them more powerful engines...They made a huge contribution overall to the War effort, in all their theatres of operations and proved very adaptable and popular...that's probably why they are still quite plentiful in Warbird Aviation today.....
Also, wmaxt, the Mosquito carried 4,000 lbs of bombs, the same as a B-17, which makes it abit more than a 'Light-bomber'....
And LG, you're a scamp with this 'B-29 with two tallboys' thing....As already debated, that happened after the War, and a Lancaster could've also carried a 10,000 lb A-bomb if required...B-29's suffered losses from Jap flak, fighters and airborne phospherous bombs...not to mention all their 'teething-troubles....- I applaud your patriotic fervour, but although the biggest bomber of the War, biggest doesn't necessarily mean best.....In later years, the A-4 Skyhawk proved this and it was also capable of nuclear delivery......
As far as the B-26 went, General Ira Eaker was disappointed to receive them instead of B-17's B-24's, which he needed for his Strategic Plan. However, flying at medium heights [12,000 ft max.]- and with a Spitfire escort, they sustained very few losses after their disastrous introduction. As in N.Africa, they decided B-26's were too large and not fast enough for low-level attacks, where surprise was crucial to minimise losses. In the following months, they were transferred to the 9th AF and produced some of the more accurate bombing results in the ETO....
For my money, the B-25 was the consumate US Medium bomber, and it was a shame they didn't give them more powerful engines...They made a huge contribution overall to the War effort, in all their theatres of operations and proved very adaptable and popular...that's probably why they are still quite plentiful in Warbird Aviation today.....
Also, wmaxt, the Mosquito carried 4,000 lbs of bombs, the same as a B-17, which makes it abit more than a 'Light-bomber'....
And LG, you're a scamp with this 'B-29 with two tallboys' thing....As already debated, that happened after the War, and a Lancaster could've also carried a 10,000 lb A-bomb if required...B-29's suffered losses from Jap flak, fighters and airborne phospherous bombs...not to mention all their 'teething-troubles....- I applaud your patriotic fervour, but although the biggest bomber of the War, biggest doesn't necessarily mean best.....In later years, the A-4 Skyhawk proved this and it was also capable of nuclear delivery......
Attachments
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
the lancaster kicks ass said:
but that still didn't protect it from fighters..................
and if you think the lanc wouldn't be able to make it back on one engine, you'd be wrong
Actually, that's kinda in favor of the Fortress, since that version had more powerful radials, as did the B-17...
*EDIT* What I'm saying is, the radial engined B-17 could do something most regular (Merlin) Lancs couldn't!
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
The other pic I've seen that I was referring to, was of a Merlin-engined Lancaster....
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
Hmmm, proven wrong then...
Oh well "It's GREAT TO LEARN - BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!"
Man, I love Family Guy!
Oh well "It's GREAT TO LEARN - BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!"
Man, I love Family Guy!
