Best Bomber of ww2

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


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.
 
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).
 
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...........
 
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...........................
 
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.
 
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.......
 

Attachments

  • raf_487__nz__sqn._chalks-up_another___hard_day_s_night__..._132.jpg
    19.5 KB · Views: 505
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...
 

Users who are viewing this thread