Best overall bomber ww2

[FLYBOYJ]

I will continue to look for where I read this, but if I'm wrong, I'll say so.

You do that!!!!

Lot's of people make mistakes, including me, but I don't think that's any reason to use profanity, or question someone's integrity, if the mistake was an honest one and not an attempt to deceive.

Did I use profanity? No - oh wait, by calling your statement bullshit??? Because it was. Please gow a pair!!!

I have no problem with some minor error or some one's lack of knowledge on a certain subject but I at this point by even coming up with a comment as you did with nothing substantiating your claim is a question of your integrity!!! Why don't you just come out and say that Lancasters were launched off the Hornet in 1942?!?!?

The Lanc was considered for the A-bomb, and some of it's features ended up in the B-29 and this occurred after the designer of the Lanc was consulted on the project. The B-29 Silverplate mod program was behind schedule, and the Lancaster was in production in Canada, and I'll leave it at that for now, pending more research.

Yes, the Lanc was considered for the bomb - totally irrelevant in this discussion. As far as the designer of the Lancaster being consulted on the design of the B-29? - Please show a reference, but its funny - The B-29 was designed in 1939. Something smells funny!!!!

The Me-262 was "a superior and more advanced" fighter, but that certainly doesn't qualify it as the" best overall" fighter, IMHO, because of it's late introduction and limited overall impact on the war.

The B-29 carried the fighter right to the Japanese and this claim that it entered the war late is another baseless argument. It participated in WW2, just about crushed Japan into submission and was around for the next war. So far you have produced nothing to back up your first statement or any other of your gibberish.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not trying to be an a$$, but I would like for you to tell me why, but only because I want to know. I would like to know why it was better, and not just because the B-29 was faster, had longer range, had a heavier payload, and could fly higher. To me, a superior and more advanced bombing platform simply means it could deliver the bombs where they were intended to land.

And the B-29 was more than capable of doing that although it did have problems in the beginning. It was able to enter a bomb run higher and faster as well as better defend itself from fighters. Its fire control system was probably one of the most advanced airborne gunnery platforms of WW2, and the placement and roles of the crew set the precedence for manned bombers for the next 20 years.

They already proved that the higher the B-17s flew, that the accuracy was absolutely terrible, even with the Norton bombsite. Did they improve this in the B-29?

Yes, with a simple thing called radar. The B-29 was able to effectively bomb with radar. Now the Lancaster could do this to but not at the speeds, altitudes, ranges and payloads (although close) as the B-29

 

[dunmunro1]

You do that!!!!
Did I use profanity? No - oh wait, by calling your statement bullshit??? Because it was. Please gow a pair!!!

I have no problem with some minor error or some one's lack of knowledge on a certain subject but I at this point by even coming up with a comment as you did with nothing substantiating your claim is a question of your integrity!!! Why don't you just come out and say that Lancasters were launched off the Hornet in 1942?!?!?

Yes, the Lanc was considered for the bomb - totally irrelevant in this discussion. As far as the designer of the Lancaster being consulted on the design of the B-29? - Please show a reference, but its funny - The B-29 was designed in 1939. Something smells funny!!!!
The B-29 carried the fighter right to the Japanese and this claim that it entered the war late is another baseless argument. It participated in WW2, just about crushed Japan into submission and was around for the next war. So far you have produced nothing to back up your first statement or any other of your gibberish.

I think you need to grow up.

I stated:

The Lanc was considered for the A-bomb, and some of it's features ended up in the B-29 and this occurred after the designer of the Lanc was consulted on the project. And Chadwick was consulted:



Ramsey quickly concluded that there were only two Allied bombers capable of carrying both weapons: the Boeing B-29 (if suitably modified) and the Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster had ample room internally, and it was a prodigious weight lifter; it almost won the contest. In fact, Ramsey traveled to Canada in October 1943 to meet with Roy Chadwick, the Lancaster's chief designer. As luck would have it, Chadwick had crossed the Atlantic to view Lancasters being built at the Avro Canada works in Toronto, and Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the gun and the implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed, but he was well-used to wartime secrecy; Chadwick did not ask why the weapons had such unusual shapes.
Operation Silverplate

 

[dunmunro1]

And the B-29 was more than capable of doing that although it did have problems in the beginning. It was able to enter a bomb run higher and faster as well as better defend itself from fighters. Its fire control system was probably one of the most advanced airborne gunnery platforms of WW2, and the placement and roles of the crew set the precedence for manned bombers for the next 20 years.
Yes, with a simple thing called radar. The B-29 was able to effectively bomb with radar. Now the Lancaster could do this to but not at the speeds, altitudes, ranges and payloads (although close) as the B-29

Isn't it a fact that high altitude bombing with the B29 was a failure, and LeMay then switched to low altitude area night bombing raids?

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[syscom3]

Isn't it a fact that high altitude bombing with the B29 was a failure, and LeMay then switched to low altitude area night bombing raids?

And they burned out nearly all of Japans urban area, even before the two A-Bombs were dropped.

And that doesn't count the mining of the inland seas that effectively shutdown the coastal commerce that japans economy depended on.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think you need to grow up.

Another crack like like and I'm kicking your dumb ass into cyber space....

In your last post you have just repeated what was already known and now I'm going to call you out - you're a bullshitter. You made two claims and have provided NOTHING to back up your claims. In all honesty its quite evident that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Here's the evidence....

"When the first dummy A-bombs were produced, the B29 was unable to carry them. The USAAF conducted the first A-bomb drop tests using borrowed RCAF Lancasters."

This is a total pile of BS and you have provided NOTHING to substantiate this claim.


"The Lanc was considered for the A-bomb, and some of it's features ended up in the B-29 and this occurred after the designer of the Lanc was consulted on the project."

The only "feature" that was used was a "single-point bomb release modeled after the British 'Type F' heavy bomb mechanism, which is a "bolt on" and could be used on a number of aircraft. NOTICE THE WORD MODELED.

THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM THE TEXT YOU POSTED!!!

AND THE LANCASTER WOULD HAVE HAD TO MODIFIED AS WELL, NOT TO THE EXTENT OF THE B-29, BUT IT STILL NEEDED MODIFICATION TO CARRY AN ATOMIC BOMB.

Its quite evident you have come on here trying to bamboozal us with BS and I'm telling you, more of this crap will ensure you're visit here will be short as I'm starting to believe you're to stupid too be on this forum. I suggest you take your lumps and walk away and not try to BS your way through these topics.

 

[Vincenzo]

The B-29 was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 hands down. The Lancaster was a distant second.

imho was third, second place for me tHe 177

 

[FLYBOYJ]

imho was third, second place for me tHe 177

Compare...

General characteristics Avro Lancaster

Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners
Length: 69 ft 5 in (21.18 m)
Wingspan: 102 ft (31.09 m)
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)
Wing area: 1,300 ft² (120 m²)
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg)
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 240 kn (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
Range: 2,700 nmi (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m)
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.082 hp/lb (130 W/kg)
Armament


Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations
Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000 lb (6,300kg) or 22,000 lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay.

General characteristics He 177

Crew: 6
Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 31.44 m (103 ft 1¾ in)
Height: 6.40 m (20 ft 11¾ in)
Wing area: 101.99 m² (1,097.918 ft²)
Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,038 lb)
Loaded weight: 27,200 kg (59,966 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 31,000 kg (68,343 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 610 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline piston engines, 2,900 PS (2,133 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 565 km/h at 6,000 m (351 mph at 19,685 ft)
Stall speed: 135 km/h (84 mph)
Combat radius: 1,540 km (957 mi)
Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,480 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,840 ft)
Rate of climb: 190 m/min (623 ft/min)
Wing loading: 303.9 kg/m² (62.247 lb/ft²)
Armament

1 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun in nose
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in forward ventral gondola position
2 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine guns in rear ventral gondola position
2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in remotely controlled forward dorsal barbette
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in aft dorsal turret
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in tail position
Up to 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of disposable stores internally or 7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally or up to 3 Fritz X or Henschel Hs 293 radio-guided munitions

On paper it looks like the 177 takes it but when you consider all the operational problems it had, I think it knocks it out of the running. Let's face it, it had minimal effect on the outcome of the war.

 

[Vincenzo]

Compare...

General characteristics Avro Lancaster

Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners
Length: 69 ft 5 in (21.18 m)
Wingspan: 102 ft (31.09 m)
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)
Wing area: 1,300 ft² (120 m²)
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg)
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 240 kn (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
Range: 2,700 nmi (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m)
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.082 hp/lb (130 W/kg)
Armament


Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations
Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000 lb (6,300kg) or 22,000 lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay.

General characteristics He 177

Crew: 6
Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 31.44 m (103 ft 1¾ in)
Height: 6.40 m (20 ft 11¾ in)
Wing area: 101.99 m² (1,097.918 ft²)
Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,038 lb)
Loaded weight: 27,200 kg (59,966 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 31,000 kg (68,343 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 610 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline piston engines, 2,900 PS (2,133 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 565 km/h at 6,000 m (351 mph at 19,685 ft)
Stall speed: 135 km/h (84 mph)
Combat radius: 1,540 km (957 mi)
Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,480 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,840 ft)
Rate of climb: 190 m/min (623 ft/min)
Wing loading: 303.9 kg/m² (62.247 lb/ft²)
Armament

1 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun in nose
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in forward ventral gondola position
2 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine guns in rear ventral gondola position
2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in remotely controlled forward dorsal barbette
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in aft dorsal turret
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in tail position
Up to 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of disposable stores internally or 7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally or up to 3 Fritz X or Henschel Hs 293 radio-guided munitions

On paper it looks like the 177 takes it but when you consider all the operational problems it had, I think it knocks it out of the running. Let's face it, it had minimal effect on the outcome of the war.

afaik the problems were solved, and also early B-29 had problems.

max load internal it's 7,000 kg (2*1800 and 2*1700) there is a load scheme somewhere in this forum

 

[Glider]

I dont think so but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, its the proof of the pudding that counts. Using this criteria the He177 failed on all counts. It had huge potential on that I totally agree but it didn't deliver.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I dont think so but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, its the proof of the pudding that counts. Using this criteria the He177 failed on all counts. It had huge potential on that I totally agree but it didn't deliver.

Agree....

 

[timshatz]

One point nobody has seemed to have posted (I might have missed it), but the B29 was the first bomber bird that was pressurized for the crew. All the other bombers listed were open to the elements.

It might not seem like much to us but crew comfort is a big event to the crew. A comfortable crew is more effective for a longer period. Also, a working temperature of 70-60F at 30K is a lot better than -30+ at the same atltiude (to say nothing of the affects of pure oxygen and lower pressure on the body for extended periods).

A point about the B29 that is not often pointed to but is a huge factor in making it effective.

 

[Vincenzo]

what's "its the proof of the pudding that counts"?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One point nobody has seemed to have posted (I might have missed it), but the B29 was the first bomber bird that was pressurized for the crew. All the other bombers listed were open to the elements.

It might not seem like much to us but crew comfort is a big event to the crew. A comfortable crew is more effective for a longer period. Also, a working temperature of 70-60F at 30K is a lot better than -30+ at the same atltiude (to say nothing of the affects of pure oxygen and lower pressure on the body for extended periods).

A point about the B29 that is not often pointed to but is a huge factor in making it effective.

Agree 100% This was brought up on another thread.

Several other things.

1. Tricycle landing gear - take offs and landings were made easier.

2. pilot cockpit configuration - better "Cockpit Resource Management (CRM)" I wonder how many Lancasters were needlessly lost while shooting instrument approaches because that second set of eyes weren't in the cockpit.

3. Air-cooled engines negated the need for a cooling system, another liquid system to leak and get shot up.

4. Round engines - a lot more durable than in line

I could go on and on....

what's "its the proof of the pudding that counts"?

The He-177 operationally was a dismal failure despite its potential and having its problems allegedly fixed. I believe the he-177 would not have been able to achieve the mission capable rates of the Lancaster, B-17 or B-24 if flown operationally like those aircraft, just due to its complex systems.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think so but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, its the proof of the pudding that counts. Using this criteria the He177 failed on all counts. It had huge potential on that I totally agree but it didn't deliver.

I agree. I think that the He 177 had the potential to be an amazing bomber, but it was never realized due to a number of reasons (which is a whole other discussion). Because of this, the aircraft can not even be considered the best.

One point nobody has seemed to have posted (I might have missed it), but the B29 was the first bomber bird that was pressurized for the crew. All the other bombers listed were open to the elements.

It might not seem like much to us but crew comfort is a big event to the crew. A comfortable crew is more effective for a longer period. Also, a working temperature of 70-60F at 30K is a lot better than -30+ at the same atltiude (to say nothing of the affects of pure oxygen and lower pressure on the body for extended periods).

A point about the B29 that is not often pointed to but is a huge factor in making it effective.

The He 177 was pressurized as well.

 

[Thorlifter]

So how was the pressurized cabin affected by gun/cannon fire? Did it cause a rapid depressurization and the crews had to scramble for air/coats/gloves/boots or did it have something similar to a self sealing fuel tank to close up the holes?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So how was the pressurized cabin affected by gun/cannon fire? Did it cause a rapid depressurization and the crews had to scramble for air/coats/gloves/boots or did it have something similar to a self sealing fuel tank to close up the holes?

It did when it was hit at altitude. Rapid decompression is not like it appears in movies and sometimes a small hole in the "pressure vessel" will not even be noticed. Larger holes will be noticed and can suck things out. At the same time these holes can be plugged.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would like to say I made a mistake. The He 177 was not pressurized. There were varients and prototypes that were pressurized, but no production varients were built with pressurized cockpits.

 

[timshatz]

It did when it was hit at altitude. Rapid decompression is not like it appears in movies and sometimes a small hole in the "pressure vessel" will not even be noticed. Larger holes will be noticed and can suck things out. At the same time these holes can be plugged.

Sometimes, the stuff in the area that is being depressurized (maps, gloves, hats, ect.) will plug the hole if the depressurization is violent enough (and the hole is small enough). Same principle as water going down a drain. That's one of the problems the movies have with people getting sucked out of airplanes when they depressurize. The first dude to hit the window will probably plug it solid.

 

[Thorlifter]

Thanks Tim and Joe....