Best overall bomber ww2 (1 Viewer)

Better Over All Bomber

  • Lancaster

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • B-29

    Votes: 12 85.7%

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .

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

If I recall, they used to issue wooden dowels as an emergency means to plug small holes. Certainly can't imagine that being too effective operationally.

I've stood right next to the outflow valve in the E/E bay of an a 747-400 at altitude (FL310 if I recall). Certainly didn't suck me out. Did make me dizzy however. Explains everything about my duplicate posts.
 
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?

I asked the B29 veterans about what they did when their AC was holed by flak or bullets.

They said they were issued wooden plugs (yes, wooden) that they could place into holes as needed.

They also said that on combat runs, everyone was suited up for high altitude. If you have to bail out, you need to be ready! Of course, later in the war they were bombing from low altitudes, so the wooden plugs and high altitude flight suits were not needed.

One of the airmen told us that when a big enough hole did appear and the outrushing air was of sufficient volume, it certeinly brought up a lot of coral dust that had accumulated in the fuselauge.
 
Another crack like like and I'm kicking your dumb ass into cyber space....
.

Please ban me, so I won't be tempted to post here anymore. I didn't realize what an ******* you really are.
 
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.

That the impact on war of He 177 was low i think all are agree, but if B-29 it's the more advanced (heavy) bomber of war sure the 177 was the second, the engine trouble were fixed, the dive bomber role was abbandoned, idk what are the ready % of Lancaster, B-17, B-24, B-29 177, you know it? please post it. the difference on % ready planes can depend not only on trouble on planes but also of different organization of air forces
 
Please ban me, so I won't be tempted to post here anymore. I didn't realize what an ******* you really are.

With pleasure! And as a departing gift, you get a complementary avatar. Wear it in good health and maybe someday when you either stop bullshitting or get an education you could come back and stare at all the photos in that section.

This should have been posted after your first post in this section
 

Attachments

  • zzzBS%20ALARM.jpg
    zzzBS%20ALARM.jpg
    20.1 KB · Views: 81
Last edited:
I asked the B29 veterans about what they did when their AC was holed by flak or bullets.

They said they were issued wooden plugs (yes, wooden) that they could place into holes as needed.

They also said that on combat runs, everyone was suited up for high altitude. If you have to bail out, you need to be ready! Of course, later in the war they were bombing from low altitudes, so the wooden plugs and high altitude flight suits were not needed.

One of the airmen told us that when a big enough hole did appear and the outrushing air was of sufficient volume, it certeinly brought up a lot of coral dust that had accumulated in the fuselauge.

Thanks for the info Sys, interesting to know the real deal instead of what all the books say. Didn't know about the plugs, had the same thing in the USN for the reason of keeping the water out (as apposed to the air in). They had all sorts of fun thing to plug holes. Some of them pretty ingenious. Some, pretty simple, like the wooden plugs.
 
That the impact on war of He 177 was low i think all are agree, but if B-29 it's the more advanced (heavy) bomber of war sure the 177 was the second, the engine trouble were fixed, the dive bomber role was abbandoned, idk what are the ready % of Lancaster, B-17, B-24, B-29 177, you know it? please post it. the difference on % ready planes can depend not only on trouble on planes but also of different organization of air forces

All "Ifs" Vincenzo. The He-177 was very advanced and very troublesome to maintain, it still held on to the out dated tail wheel and i doubt it could be as easily produced as the B-29 or Lancaster
 
That the impact on war of He 177 was low i think all are agree, but if B-29 it's the more advanced (heavy) bomber of war sure the 177 was the second, the engine trouble were fixed, the dive bomber role was abbandoned, idk what are the ready % of Lancaster, B-17, B-24, B-29 177, you know it? please post it. the difference on % ready planes can depend not only on trouble on planes but also of different organization of air forces

If you make all those changes, you end up with a totally different aircraft a bit like the Manchester compared to a Lancaster. No one would claim that the Manchester was a success because it led to the development of the Lancaster.
Like the Manchester, the He 177 was a dead end.
 
If you make all those changes, you end up with a totally different aircraft a bit like the Manchester compared to a Lancaster. No one would claim that the Manchester was a success because it led to the development of the Lancaster.
Like the Manchester, the He 177 was a dead end.

I'm not talking of eventually change, only of actual change, the engine trouble was solved, the dive bomber role abbandoned...

Flyboy also your are "ifs" if trouble not solved, if troublesome in maintenance, if it's difficult to product.
 
The problem was not that much of the Heinkel's as a design, at least not after the very earliest prototypes back in 1939.. the problem was almost entirely engine related, and it was not the fault of the aircraft, or the engine layout. The DB 605s had serious troubles of their own up until the automn of 1943 (oil system being badly designed), and it caused problem in all aircraft, ie. Bf 109G, Bf 110G too.

I have several documents on those engine testings, the engine troubles were fixed by the late summer of 1943, and the aircraft was fine and reliable, well suited for operations. An early problem was that the units that received it often did not have properly trained personell, experience nor suitable shops or equipment for a bomber so much larger than the usual medium bombers they were used to... this contributed greatly to the problems, but again this was not a problem with the aircraft itself, but the lack of proper supply chain.

Its operational impact was indeed low, but the real reason behind it was that it came in an unfortunate time. Heinkell 177 production was insignificant until late 1943, and so were the number of these heavy bombers operational. Obviously a few such planes would make little impact alone. It became more and more widespread from late 1943, and was in service in substantial numbers by mid-1944 (some 250 with units of them IIRC). Tough luck for the Greif again, as the Allies just whacked the synthetic fuel refineries at the time, and almost all Luftwaffe bombers got grounded as a result... the aircraft never got the chance to prove itself. But it doesn't detract from that it was a very advanced aircraft with great operational capacity, being very fast, having a good service ceiling, great range and huge bomb carrying capacity; the defensive armament was also very advanced with lots of firepower.
 
I'm not talking of eventually change, only of actual change, the engine trouble was solved, the dive bomber role abbandoned...

Flyboy also your are "ifs" if trouble not solved, if troublesome in maintenance, if it's difficult to product.

Well in the end the He-177 was not able to prove itself and I believe it was because of its poor gestation period and by Luftwaffe doctrine and politics. Although every heavy bomber had some kind of development problem, I believe something like 7 He-177s were lost during the development stage. Had that happened to the B-29, the program would have been cancelled. By the time all the bugs have been worked out of it, most bombers serving in the LW were grounded because of the continual bombing of Germany.
 
The B-29 was far from trouble free itself.

One basic "measure" of a bomber is it's installed take-off power.

Since any plane is a series of compromises, one can compare take-off power and see what a designer or group/staff writing a requirement had to work with.

Using twin 1000hp engines you could get a fast small bomber, with short range a small bomb load or you could get a larger, slow bomber that could carry a much larger bomb load quite a bit farther or you could try for a medium speed bomber and medium load over a medium range. The more power available the more performance that could be had in one of those three categories (or the more defensive guns could be stuck on the plane).

With 8000-8800hp the B-29 simply out powered anything else. Combine that with more advanced aerodynamics and more advanced systems and there is no WW II bomber that saw squadron service that could perform the missions the B29 could.
 
Well in the end the He-177 was not able to prove itself and I believe it was because of its poor gestation period and by Luftwaffe doctrine and politics. Although every heavy bomber had some kind of development problem, I believe something like 7 He-177s were lost during the development stage. Had that happened to the B-29, the program would have been cancelled. By the time all the bugs have been worked out of it, most bombers serving in the LW were grounded because of the continual bombing of Germany.

you are sure that were loss 7 177 in development stage, and a so heavy loss had would cancelled a US program?
 
It also performed poorly over Britain in the Little Blitz in the first quarter of 1944, as did all the German bombers taking part. This despite the main target London being only approx 60 miles from the French coast.
 
you are sure that were loss 7 177 in development stage, and a so heavy loss had would cancelled a US program?

Yes - and with one B-17 (Boeing 299) and one B-29 crash during their development, both programs were almost cancelled. I believe in the first 40 or so built (7 or 8 prototypes and the rest pre production ships) 7 aircraft crashed, beginning the bad reputation the -177 attained.
 
The B-29 was far from trouble free itself.

One basic "measure" of a bomber is it's installed take-off power.

Since any plane is a series of compromises, one can compare take-off power and see what a designer or group/staff writing a requirement had to work with.

Using twin 1000hp engines you could get a fast small bomber, with short range a small bomb load or you could get a larger, slow bomber that could carry a much larger bomb load quite a bit farther or you could try for a medium speed bomber and medium load over a medium range. The more power available the more performance that could be had in one of those three categories (or the more defensive guns could be stuck on the plane).

With 8000-8800hp the B-29 simply out powered anything else. Combine that with more advanced aerodynamics and more advanced systems and there is no WW II bomber that saw squadron service that could perform the missions the B29 could.

All true, and when all the "bugs" were really worked out, you got the B-50
 
Aside from the exchanges of heavy artillery with Dunmunro, this has been an interesting thread. I think we all (ok, most of us) agree that "best bomber of WWII" is largely predicated on when it entered service. Undoubtedly, the B-29 was the supreme manifestation of the heavy bomber for the entire war but it was also the culmination of many thousands of hours' experience (and personnel losses) on other types. I'd have to put the Lanc up there as the best bomber from the first half of the war. The mere fact that the Lancaster was even considered as an alternative to the B-29 for the atomic raids speaks volumes about its overall performance.

However, all of the discussion to-date has focussed on heavy bombers (strategic-end stuff). There was also a valid role for tactical bombers doing things the heavy bombers were less suited to accomplish - obviously, I'm thinking here of the Mosquito, B-25 (another truly great aircraft in my book), B-26 (highly under-rated but very capable), A-20, Ju-88, Heinkel 111, and even dive bombers (although these have been covered in another thread). While not the ultimate expression of bomber force, they still fulfilled vital roles so, in addition to the time caveat, perhaps we need to recognise the distinction between roles??
 
Agree on all points - we actually had a "best medium bomber" thread started a while ago.

Comment on the Lanc and the atomic bomb.

I believe that when the Lancaster was considered, it centered around its availability and the size of its bomb bay. In the end the B-29 did win out and I think when you consider all the aspects of the mission, choosing the B-29 was by far the right decision.

And that's not taking anything away from the Lancaster.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back