Best Bomber

• Nov 24, 2004

• #361

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

How? It probably could have been.

 

• Nov 24, 2004

• #362

A

Anonymous

Guest

cheddar cheese said:

But this was 4 years earlier and by a country which had far less resources...I think the P.108 could have been the best bomber of the war had it been further developed and not seen as a joke by the Germans.

Click to expand...

Well, it could certainly have been a better bomber than anything they had. Hiter's requirement that all bombers be dive bombers was a huge blunder.

=S=

Lunatic

 

• Nov 25, 2004

• #363

G

germanace

Airman

30

0

Nov 19, 2004

i must go with the B-17
it was defenily the best

 

• Nov 25, 2004

• #364

GermansRGeniuses

Tech Sergeant

2,031

4

Dec 26, 2003

www.barryboys.co.uk

Nah....

That title definetly belongs to its son, the B-29 Superfortress!

 

• Nov 25, 2004

• #365

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Indeed it does!

 

• Jan 11, 2005

• #366

DaveB.inVa

Airman 1st Class

225

5

Dec 20, 2004

I know this is an old poll but I do cast my vote for the B-29. Besides being my favorite aircraft of all time, I believe it also was the best bomber of the war. It had good range, speed, altitude, bombload and armament, plus pressurization. Others indeed had a mix of these features but never had all of them in one package.

 

• Jan 11, 2005

• #367

A

Anonymous

Guest

DaveB.inVa said:

I know this is an old poll but I do cast my vote for the B-29. Besides being my favorite aircraft of all time, I believe it also was the best bomber of the war. It had good range, speed, altitude, bombload and armament, plus pressurization. Others indeed had a mix of these features but never had all of them in one package.

Click to expand...

Pressurization was a mixed blessing. If they expected they might get into combat, they'd depressurize the cabin. Sometimes they didn't, and we hear stories of 1 meter holes being blown in the skins of B-29's as a result!

=S=

Lunatic

PS: I agree, the B-29 was the best heavy bomber of WWII.

 

• Jan 11, 2005

• #368

DaveB.inVa

Airman 1st Class

225

5

Dec 20, 2004

Most times Ive read of and talked with vets they only were pressurized when not over target. However like you said some chose to ignore the possiblity of an explosive decompression. One veteran I talked to said that they didn't depressurize during the run and were hit producing a hole right above the guys head in the forward compartment. He said to plug the hole he threw his gloves up and they were caught in the hole!! He also said they're were a few other holes and these were plugged by putting small pieces of cardboard over the hole and the pressure differential would hold them there.

On an interesting note did you know the B-29B was equipped with more than tail guns. The B model was basically a stripped bomber with only the tail turret remaining, all sighting blisters were faired over. However in the rear pressurized area there was a provision for firing flexible hand held .50 caliber machine guns out of the sighting blister holes. I dont know much more about it though except that it was a provision, Ive never read if it was used or if the extra .50s were even carried!

 

• Feb 4, 2005

• #369

V

Viper

Airman 1st Class

261

0

Dec 23, 2003

id say the best would be the 29 followed by the 17, i just wouldnt feel safe in a lancaster

 

• Feb 5, 2005

• #370

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Me neither. Perhaps if it had more armour and guns...

 

• Feb 5, 2005

• #371

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

and loose the manouverability that saved it from so many NFs?? just out of interest how many B-17s were shot down during the war??

 

• Feb 5, 2005

• #372

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Lots...but there were more of them.

 

• Mar 23, 2005

• #373

D

Devin Dilley

Recruit

7

0

Mar 18, 2005

hey the B-29 rocks and all but you have to look at other countries because germany was close behind in building a good bomber

 

• Mar 23, 2005

• #374

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

well not really

 

• Mar 23, 2005

• #375

D

Devin Dilley

Recruit

7

0

Mar 18, 2005

If the Lancaster had better handling qualities ................and a better armour i would fly it. In other words screw the lancaster cuz the b-29 is better

 

• Mar 23, 2005

• #376

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

hey the lanc was the most manouverable four engined heavy out there.........

 

• Mar 23, 2005

• #377

Concorde247

Senior Airman

399

13

Mar 10, 2005

LONDON

mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk

Devin Dilley said:

hey the B-29 rocks and all but you have to look at other countries because germany was close behind in building a good bomber

Click to expand...

All of the Germans bombers were short range, unless you were referring to that great toaster of the skies called the He 177 Greif. Very handy if you wanted to make toast - just give the engine ONE second to warm up!!

 

• Mar 26, 2005

• #378

M

Mosin

Airman

35

0

Mar 25, 2005

I dont know guys but I think the JUNKER 88 is the best because of its many roles. Yes it had a light bomb load and shorter range than most but it was a good design.

 

• Mar 26, 2005

• #379

Concorde247

Senior Airman

399

13

Mar 10, 2005

LONDON

mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk

Mosin said:

I dont know guys but I think the JUNKER 88 is the best because of its many roles. Yes it had a light bomb load and shorter range than most but it was a good design.

Click to expand...

I think that It certainly was the best twin engined Bomber the Germans had, and was also an effective nightfighter. But due to the Lancasters range bombload the Lanc still does it for me!

 

• Mar 26, 2005

• #380

Concorde247

Senior Airman

399

13

Mar 10, 2005

LONDON

mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk

the lancaster kicks ass said:

and loose the manouverability that saved it from so many NFs?? just out of interest how many B-17s were shot down during the war??

Click to expand...

EXACTLY!! I Never heard of a B17 doing a corkscrew Manouevre before.

Many Lancaster veterans said that the Lanc handled more like a fighter it was very responsive on the controls. The only thing the B17 could do was stay in its tight combat wing formations for the combined firepower of all the ships together!!