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.
The Lancaster and the B-29 were both wartime designs.

The Lancaster entered service in March 1942. The B-29 entered service in April 1944 (though it was actually ready for service about 3 months eariler but there were no suitable bases ready in reach of Japananese stratgetic targets). So the Lancaster entered service after Britian had been at war for 3.5 years, where the B-29 entered service after the USA had been at war for 2.5 years.

Lancaster specs - max speed: 287 mph @ 11,500 feet max. continuous cruise:234 mph @ 21,000 feet, 200 mph @ 15,000 ft ceiling: 24,500 feet (nominal) defensive armament: 8 x .303 mg's bombload: 14,000 lbs normal bombs. range: 2,530 miles with 7,000 lbs bombload, 1730 miles with 12,000 lbs bomload, 1550 miles with 22000 lbs grandslam. (I believe all ranges are at 11.5k - 15k)

B-29A Superfortress specs - max. speed: 357 mph @ 30k max. continuous cruise: 342 mph @ 30k ceiling:33,600 feet defensive armament: 12 x .50 hmg's bombload:20,000 lbs normal bombs. range: 3200 miles with 5000 lbs bombload @ 25k, or 12000 lbs at 15K.

Clearly, the B-29 is the superior bomber.

By comparison, the B-17, which was a pre-war design, had the following specs:

B-17G Flying Fortress - max. speed: 287 mph @ 25K max. continous cruise: 182 mph @ 25k. ceiling: 35,800 ft defensive armament: 12 x .50 hmg's bombload: up to 17,600 lbs. including ext. bombs, 9600 lbs. internal max, 6000 typical. range:2000 miles with 6000 lbs bombload.

It should also be noted that the B-17 did not utilize four engines that could otherwise be utilized in fighters. B-17's with Merlins or R-2800's or R-2600's would have performed much better, but it would have had a cost in fighters. Every Lancaster cost four Spitfires or P-51's!

=S=

Lunatic
 
but every lancaster cost the enemy more than the fighters...............

and you've given the stats for a wartime varient of the B-17, if you're gonna say

the B-17, which was a pre-war design, had the following specs:
Click to expand...

you should atleast give the specs of a pre war varient..........

and just because britian had been in the war longer than the americans, did the americans only start to think of the B-29 the day war began for you guys?? before that date there was nothing of a B-29 or similiar?? no, there were designing it pre-war as well...............

and the B-29 had several problems on entry into service, the lanc however, had none..........

and a bomber that came along in 1944 would have been useless in Europe, no matter how good it was, simply because of the fact it came in 1944, the lanc was there from the beggining of the offensive in Europe............
 
Plus the lancaster was designed when there was a surplus of the merlin engines available. We all know its forerunner the Avro Manchester was a flop, which is why Roy Chadwick, Avros designer came up with the Lanc. the Merlins just couldnt be spared for the bomber.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
but every lancaster cost the enemy more than the fighters...............
Click to expand...

You miss the point, which is that the B-17 did not impose such a cost in fighters.


No, that is not true. All pre-war designs go through evolution in wartime. But the fundimentals of their design are still pre-war. Usually, the later variants are very much bound by the constraints of the original design, which defined the producition facilities. For the B-17, this was certainly the case.


Well, sure there was some consideration of what would follow the B-17. But it didn't really solidify into a feasability study until late 1940, and it didn't really become a serious project until late 1941.

the lancaster kicks ass said:
and the B-29 had several problems on entry into service, the lanc however, had none..........
Click to expand...

Well, I'd not say "none", but very few. But then again, the Lancaster was an offshoot of the Manchester, which had many problems.

the lancaster kicks ass said:
and a bomber that came along in 1944 would have been useless in Europe, no matter how good it was, simply because of the fact it came in 1944, the lanc was there from the beggining of the offensive in Europe............
Click to expand...

And the evidence is that the night bombing campaign had almost no real effect on the German war-making ability. Only very select strategic bombing missions - those targeting petrolium, aircraft production, and communications/transportation centers, had any appreciable effect, and these were not generally carried out by night bombing missionsl... with a few exceptions starting in mid-1944. Even then, as it turned out, the USAAF fighter attacks probably had more effect on the German war machine than the heavy bombers.

Besides, why does it matter? You seem to think the ETO was the "real war". It was not, the PTO was just as real as the ETO. It was just not as imporant to you Brits. Ask your Aussie cousin's if it was a "real war".

=S=

Lunatic
 
Besides, why does it matter? You seem to think the ETO was the "real war". It was not, the PTO was just as real as the ETO. It was just not as imporant to you Brits. Ask your Aussie cousin's if it was a "real war".
Click to expand...


It WAS a real war to us, but we had to finish the war on our front doorstep first!! We lost a lot of good men ships in the pacific, dont forget that!
 

so you're saying that the B-17G is similar to the B for example?? you're saying the B was little different to the G??
 
The line in bomber evolution goes B17 -> B24 -> B29

US bombers were designed for war over mainland europe mainly, even the B29. For daylight bombing raids, all these bombers were/would have been monumental losses. The sole reason they were not shot out of the sky with even more frequency was the abundance of escort fighters. These bombers were not designed with escort fighters in mind. As such their designers made a very large mistake. Have a look at the US raid on Ploesti oilfields, that was a resounding success wasn't it?

The Lancaster was designed as a day bomber but quickly switched to night bomber, a role in which it was much more effective. A Lancaster would have performed as well as the B17/B24 at day bombing, but was clearly superior at night.

The B29 was the most technically advanced bomber to see service but best? It had 2 separate bomb bays which restricted it from carrying the larger bombs at the end of the war. It has roughly twice as much power and 2-3 years more technology than the Lanc, why should it not be better. The technical innovations introduced with the B29 were actually out of date, remote controlled turrets having been in service with the P108 from 1940-41.

Who cares if the Merlin engined Lanc meant that you couldn't put those engines in fighters? There was no shortage of engines in the first place.

For the ultimate Lanc that compares to the B29, look at the Lincoln or Shackleton bombers instead.

Altogther, although the B29 was a better aircraft, it wasn't there when it was needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
932
Vahe Demirjian
  • Locked
  • Poll
best ww2 bomber
Replies
9
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register