Best Bomber of ww2

[wmaxt]

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......

So could the B-25 though it normaly carried 3, the P-38L was rated at 4,000 and could and did carry more on occasion. Carring 4,000 doesn't make it a heavy bomber overall capability in the long range bombing arena does so does the 4 engine layout. The B-17 could carry up tp 17,500 if ammo/fuel was not criticle so I think my mix stands ok.

 

[Lightning Guy]

The B-29 didn't carry the bombs post war. The whole point of the tests was to see if it could be used to cut bridges and rail complexes in Japan. But the when is irrelevant. The point is, the B-29 could carry loads no other WWII bomber could dream of carrying.

As far as development troubles, the Lancaster had its far share. The Manchester was a horribly unreliable aircraft. And if you want to point out that was an engine problem, fine. Most of the B-29's problems were directly related to the R-3350s.

I believe the absolute max for the B-17 was 17,600lbs (9 x 1,600lbs internally and 2 x 4,000lbs externally).

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but at quite a struggle, at a guess i'd say it'd have to carry no armour, no guns (which obviously means no ammo) and it'd have very little range.............

The point is, the B-29 could carry loads no other WWII bomber could dream of carrying.

yes it could, fact of the matter is that the lancaster was the only aircraft to use the grand slam opperationally, something which you can't deny...........

 

[cheddar cheese]

but at quite a struggle, at a guess i'd say it'd have to carry no armour, no guns (which obviously means no ammo) and it'd have very little range.............

Ummmm, I dont think so...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

for a B-17 to carry it's maximum payload?? for the lanc to carry the grand slam it had to get rid of two gun turrets, 3 crew members and loose 8,800 rounds out the rear turret (the only turret left), you're willing to mock my guess, i'm interested to hear your guess at how you'd have to change the B-17 to carry it's max...........................

 

[cheddar cheese]

I believe the absolute max for the B-17 was 17,600lbs (9 x 1,600lbs internally and 2 x 4,000lbs externally

Those figures add up to 22,600lbs

 

[Lightning Guy]

I hit the wrong button. The max was made up of 6 x 1,600.

And Lanc, the B-17 didn't have to be modified. It's range was severly limited and it would carry the overloads of ammo used on long range missions, but it wasn't modified.

 

[cheddar cheese]

By severly limited are we talking a couple of hundred miles or what?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

are you sure it didn't have to modified?? not even making the bomb bay bigger or adding external hardpoints for the external bombs??

 

[Gemhorse]

I guess the extra fuel needed to fly at the higher altitudes does play a part in the B-17 range...

Back to the B-25, B-26 Mossie n' P-38, they were essentially twin-engined 'Medium-bombers'.....Four-engined was termed 'Heavy-bombers'. Others like twin-engined Whitleys, Blenheims, Boston/Havocs etc. were more 'Light-bombers'....I guess really, P-38's, Mosquitos, gunship B-25's and Beaufighters fit into the 'Heavy Fighter-Bomber' Class.......

B-29's were THE 'Heavy-Bomber' of the War, I cannot deny that....
- I'll have to let Lanc sort-out the finer points on the 'Tallboy issue', I do concur though, that operationally, they were the Lancaster's baby, to devastating effect.......

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

B-29's were THE 'Heavy-Bomber' of the War, I cannot deny that....

not in europe............

 

[Gemhorse]

P.S. - Love that particular shot in your new siggy, Lanc......

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

me two, here's the pic i cut it from.................

 

[Nonskimmer]

Nice pic, lanc! I like the sig too!

 

[cheddar cheese]

P-38's, Mosquitos, gunship B-25's and Beaufighters fit into the 'Heavy Fighter-Bomber' Class.......

The P-38 was a fighter, first and foremost. It just happened to have the capability to be good as a bomber.

Yes the lancs siggy is good because you cant see the Lancasters horrid front end...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it doesn't have a horrid front end.........

and the beaufighter was a strike fighter.............

 

[cheddar cheese]

/torpedo bomber

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

/maritime strike

 

[cheddar cheese]

/night fighter

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ohh that's a good one

/escort fighter