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
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes but at the time of the BoB 4 engined heavys weren't that common...........
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
at the time the He-111 was designed they only envisiged a small scale war with neighbouring countries, so a big bomber wasn't nessisary, they thought their thoery was proved right during the spainish civil war but we proved them wrong over britian.......................
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
The He-111 wasn't bad for the BoB. It could have used more defensive firepower (preferably something in a powered turret). Its real flaw was its inability to hit strategic targets in Russia or in the West once Germany started losing its French bases.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Watching the History Channel It was noted that the B-17s dropped one-third (1/3) of the bomb tonnage dropped on the ETOin WWII. 
Kinda puts it back in contention!
Kinda puts it back in contention!
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I saw that program and it drove me nuts. Granted the B-17 was a terrific aircraft but nothing at all was said about the B-24 or the Lanc and their combination to the CBO. Also, the P-51 was, once again, portrayed as the savior of daylight bombing without so much as lip service being paid to the contributions of the P-38.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Its similar with programs on the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire gets all the glamour but the Hurricane only gets mentioned as "the RAF's other main fighter". ITs annoying.
Another very difficult thread going on here.
Again, we found ourselves before an issue we can give as many approaches as individuals are around here.
I think it was here where I read someone saying the German doctrine of putting the entire bomber crew virtually in the nose section of the bombers to boost morale (Ju88 and Do17 during the Battle of Britain) was a silly thing to do, for the crew could get wiped out on one single pass of the British interceptors.
I do think that is misleading. The guns of the RAF interceptors during the Batlle of Britain were even ligther than those the German bombers had for defensive action: .303 cal vs. 7.92 mm.
I have been told the Battle of Britain has got its tales as well. The RAF fighters could hardly blow the German bombers out of the sky with their very light guns, and records of heavily damaged He111´s, Ju88´s and Do17´s making it back to base in France are plentiful.
Many of the German bombers lost over England were more in the so heavily damaged situation they simply had to try a force landing, and not necessarily plummeted down in flames. I have seen dozens of photos of German bombers lost over England, and in fact, the vast majority of such pics show the German pilot force landed its damaged bomber, the propellers twisted backwards during the landing.
Furthermore, the Ju88 and the Do17, once their bombloads had been delivered were fast and very manouverable. Surely not faster than the Hurricane and the Spifire, but never as dramaticly slow as B-17 or a B-24 facing a Bf109 or a Fw190; speed is not everything though.
There are records of British pilots who got nastily surprised by the ability of the Ju88 and the Do17 to evade them.
So, as an individual crewman of a bomber (personal interest) I´d rather be on a German Ju88 or Do17 during the Battle of Britain and not in the massive clumsy heavy four engined B-17 or B-24 from 1943 and on facing the cannon armed Bf109s and Fw190s and the 88 Flak batteries. My chances of survival are higher on a Ju88 or Do17 than in a USAAF heavy.
It is clear to me that even by having such a massive size and defensive armament (i.e. B17 and B24), therefore implying a bigger effort in bringing them down, the German fighter pilots were far better at bomber destruction duties than the RAF boys were. The Germans carried a far superior bomber destroyer capability than that displayed by the British pilots over England in 1940.
For tactical purposes surely the heavy bombers win for they have a far bigger bombload and are able to bring more destruction. Still, the accuracy of the heavies of the 8th and 15th Air Forces left a lot to be desired.
So someone said putting the whole crew in the nose section to boost morale is a silly thing. The USA doctrine of putting 10 men all along that large tube packed with defensive guns enters the domain of amusement. Each bomber brought down means a lot of people lost. Lose only ten bombers, a small number of aircraft if you will, and it shall mean 100 men did not return; not precisely a morale boosting element for those crews returning from mission and finding 100 beds will be empty for the night.
Again, we found ourselves before an issue we can give as many approaches as individuals are around here.
I think it was here where I read someone saying the German doctrine of putting the entire bomber crew virtually in the nose section of the bombers to boost morale (Ju88 and Do17 during the Battle of Britain) was a silly thing to do, for the crew could get wiped out on one single pass of the British interceptors.
I do think that is misleading. The guns of the RAF interceptors during the Batlle of Britain were even ligther than those the German bombers had for defensive action: .303 cal vs. 7.92 mm.
I have been told the Battle of Britain has got its tales as well. The RAF fighters could hardly blow the German bombers out of the sky with their very light guns, and records of heavily damaged He111´s, Ju88´s and Do17´s making it back to base in France are plentiful.
Many of the German bombers lost over England were more in the so heavily damaged situation they simply had to try a force landing, and not necessarily plummeted down in flames. I have seen dozens of photos of German bombers lost over England, and in fact, the vast majority of such pics show the German pilot force landed its damaged bomber, the propellers twisted backwards during the landing.
Furthermore, the Ju88 and the Do17, once their bombloads had been delivered were fast and very manouverable. Surely not faster than the Hurricane and the Spifire, but never as dramaticly slow as B-17 or a B-24 facing a Bf109 or a Fw190; speed is not everything though.
There are records of British pilots who got nastily surprised by the ability of the Ju88 and the Do17 to evade them.
So, as an individual crewman of a bomber (personal interest) I´d rather be on a German Ju88 or Do17 during the Battle of Britain and not in the massive clumsy heavy four engined B-17 or B-24 from 1943 and on facing the cannon armed Bf109s and Fw190s and the 88 Flak batteries. My chances of survival are higher on a Ju88 or Do17 than in a USAAF heavy.
It is clear to me that even by having such a massive size and defensive armament (i.e. B17 and B24), therefore implying a bigger effort in bringing them down, the German fighter pilots were far better at bomber destruction duties than the RAF boys were. The Germans carried a far superior bomber destroyer capability than that displayed by the British pilots over England in 1940.
For tactical purposes surely the heavy bombers win for they have a far bigger bombload and are able to bring more destruction. Still, the accuracy of the heavies of the 8th and 15th Air Forces left a lot to be desired.
So someone said putting the whole crew in the nose section to boost morale is a silly thing. The USA doctrine of putting 10 men all along that large tube packed with defensive guns enters the domain of amusement. Each bomber brought down means a lot of people lost. Lose only ten bombers, a small number of aircraft if you will, and it shall mean 100 men did not return; not precisely a morale boosting element for those crews returning from mission and finding 100 beds will be empty for the night.
cheddar cheese
Major General
All very good points, well said. I dont necassarily agree with your choice of bomber to be on but I can see where you're coming from.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I can see the arguments but the aircraft you mentioned lacked the payload, range, and defensive ability to be successful as strategic bombers. As such they fall behind the Allied heavies.
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
Yeomanz said:well they should have started to build one then , or stivk two 110's together with Sc1000 on both fusalage's and two on the wings
I know it's a joke, but the wing would be too long, there wouldn't be enough structural integrity to support the two fuselages, though a joining of the tails might help, but I think it would warp and wobble in the wind...
To the RAF boys in 1940 bringing down a bomber was anyway possible, if it had to ditch you've still stopped it bombing. This doesn't make the bomber any better though.
Also, .303 cal/7.62mm isn't much weaker than 7.92mm. And 8*7.62mm put in the right place, can still do some damage. All the Spitfires needed in 1940 was the e-wing, then we'd see those German bombers blowing to pieces.
Also, .303 cal/7.62mm isn't much weaker than 7.92mm. And 8*7.62mm put in the right place, can still do some damage. All the Spitfires needed in 1940 was the e-wing, then we'd see those German bombers blowing to pieces.
GermansRGeniuses said:Yeomanz said:well they should have started to build one then , or stivk two 110's together with Sc1000 on both fusalage's and two on the wings
I know it's a joke, but the wing would be too long, there wouldn't be enough structural integrity to support the two fuselages, though a joining of the tails might help, but I think it would warp and wobble in the wind...
and if it got into the air the wings would probably fall off
cheddar cheese
Major General
Do people think that German Mediums (He111, Do 17 etc..) were better than the British Mediums (Whitley, Wellington etc...) 
cheddar cheese
Major General
Thats what I always thought, but the late He-111's were pretty good too.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Nope! 
4,500lbs for the Wellington as opposed to nearly 8,400lbs for the He-111 8) However the Wellingtons range was better, at 1,470 miles rather than just under 1,000 miles for the He-111 8)
4,500lbs for the Wellington as opposed to nearly 8,400lbs for the He-111 8) However the Wellingtons range was better, at 1,470 miles rather than just under 1,000 miles for the He-111 8)Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I haven't seen any numbers on this but I believe the Wellington had a better range/payload capability than the He-111. Also, I like the fact that the Wellington had powered gun turrets. Those were a major advantage over the hand-held guns on the 111.
