Best Bomber of ww2 (1 Viewer)

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

The B-17 flying fortress gets my vote, with the fire power thet thing could carry. and the beating those plans could take...........
b-17 gets my vote.
 

Attachments

  • bf109-7_702.jpg
    bf109-7_702.jpg
    72.5 KB · Views: 572
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.
 
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)
 
The B-17 flying fortress gets my vote, with the fire power thet thing could carry

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
 

Attachments

  • mk.ii_flying_on_1_engine.jpg
    mk.ii_flying_on_1_engine.jpg
    92.4 KB · Views: 554
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.
 
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.
 
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......
 

Attachments

  • raf_487__nz__sqn._chalks-up_another___hard_day_s_night__..._171.jpg
    raf_487__nz__sqn._chalks-up_another___hard_day_s_night__..._171.jpg
    19.5 KB · Views: 507
the lancaster kicks ass said:
The B-17 flying fortress gets my vote, with the fire power thet thing could carry

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

mk.ii_flying_on_1_engine.jpg


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!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back