Best Bomber

Best Bomber of WWII?

  • Mosquito

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lancaster

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • B-24

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • B-29

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • B-17

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • B-25

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Do-17

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ju-88

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He 177

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
David m Card, welcome aboard to this flying circus at times. I am a great fan of the B-24 and the Halifax :) They both flew in all theatures and were also able to be adapted for a lot of uses. Sadly the B-29 was by the proforance numbers the best, but with out the Liberator to help get the airfields it would have had a hard time.

I think that the Halifax is very mush under loved and overshadowed by the Lanc :( Also the Hali's did great for Coastal Comand! :)
 
I'm going to take 'flying circus' as a compliment since that was what the Red Barron's unit was known as and was later applied to the team of Bong and Lynch in the Pacific.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
welcome aboard to this flying circus at times

:lol:

you know me to well.......................
Thank-You MP-Willow it is nice to know that some one on this site reconizes a Halifax,very refreshing getting sick of hearing about lancs all the time!!!!!
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
what was th point in quoting my last post there??
Sorry,was trying to quote MP-Willow,still getting used to using site. :signoops: My point also being that there were other bombers in the war that also deserve reconition,The spanky Lanky has enough already.The pilots and crews of Hali's ,Whimpys,stirlings,hamps,were on the same damn airfeilds to!!! :leftfighter3:
 
David m Card said:
the lancaster kicks ass said:
what was th point in quoting my last post there??
Sorry,was trying to quote MP-Willow,still getting used to using site. :signoops: My point also being that there were other bombers in the war that also deserve reconition,The spanky Lanky has enough already.The pilots and crews of Hali's ,Whimpys,stirlings,hamps,were on the same damn airfeilds to!!! :leftfighter3:
OH,and by the way your quote on engine power between a Hali and a Lank ,Bristol Hercules 1800hp lank 1280hp but i will do more research on the RR Merlins,all of my data is packed away till July(moveing).I am sure those little devils packed more punch.At least i would hope so,i mean with all there greatness and reconition and all!!! ](*,)
 
The Merlins on the Lanc produced around 1,460hp depending on altitude. David, the Lanc gets the praise it did because of its numbers, its performance, and its impact. The Halifax was a good aircraft and the Wimpy was the best the RAF had to start the war with. I don't think the Stirling and Hampden should even be mentioned however.
 
Lightning Guy said:
The Merlins on the Lanc produced around 1,460hp depending on altitude. David, the Lanc gets the praise it did because of its numbers, its performance, and its impact. The Halifax was a good aircraft and the Wimpy was the best the RAF had to start the war with. I don't think the Stirling and Hampden should even be mentioned however.
Thank-You sir i agree 100%!!! \:D/
 
most merlins used on lancs (Mk.XX and XXII) produced 1,800+hp, and if you think the hurcules would have been better on the lancaster, have you heard of the Lancaster Mk.II, i wouldn't be supprised if you haven't, they were the same as the Mk.I but with hurkules engines, they gave a lesser ceiling, less range, less payload, they were only made because they were worried about a shortage of merlins, but their fears weren't recognised, so they went back to the Mk.III, esentually a Mk.I.....................
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
most merlins used on lancs (Mk.XX and XXII) produced 1,800+hp, and if you think the hurcules would have been better on the lancaster, have you heard of the Lancaster Mk.II, i wouldn't be supprised if you haven't, they were the same as the Mk.I but with hurkules engines, they gave a lesser ceiling, less range, less payload, they were only made because they were worried about a shortage of merlins, but their fears weren't recognised, so they went back to the Mk.III, esentually a Mk.I.....................
Hmm shortage of merlins,must be because they kept blowing up.Yes i have heard of the lank with herc's,just goes to show they belong on a HALIFAX!!!!! \:D/
 
Lac I read of the Mk II it was an experiment that thankfully was not needed.

Hamptens were good for the little bit but by 1940 they were a lost cause. But did surve with Costal Comand and Trasport. The stirlings are never realy talked about that much. I think it was a program that needed ore development and one of the poor Short Brothers designs. :)
 
As I understand it, the only difference between the Mk.I and the Mk.III was that the Mk.III used Packard-built engines. That was the real reason the Mk.II wasn't needed. The Packard company and industrial might of America allowed the British an almost limitless supply of Merlins.
 
Lac I read of the Mk II it was an experiment that thankfully was not needed.

not quite, they were more than a experiment, they made 303 of them and saw quite a bit of action, but they weren't as good as the merlins................

Yes i have heard of the lank with herc's,just goes to show they belong on a HALIFAX!!!!!

i take it you knew that merlins were used on some halibags too??
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Lac I read of the Mk II it was an experiment that thankfully was not needed.

not quite, they were more than a experiment, they made 303 of them and saw quite a bit of action, but they weren't as good as the merlins................

Yes i have heard of the lank with herc's,just goes to show they belong on a HALIFAX!!!!!

i take it you knew that merlins were used on some halibags too??
Yes! MKI&MKII's Just Jokin with you.CHEERS :D
 
Stuff made in Aerica and Canada, let us not forget, must get to you in England, that is still a very tricky thing. The tonage lost in 1914 and 42 to the Fw-200 was mind blowing, over 300,000. Yes I was reading up on this interesting plane. ;)
 
That was its primary role. The Fw-200 wasn't suited to combat particularly well. It's bombload was rather small for a plane of its size and it wasn't as robust as one might expect a four-engined plane to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back