Best overall bomber ww2

[RCAFson]

Maximum bombload of the Lancester was about 5,6 tons, maximum bombload of the He 177 was 7,2 tons. End of story...

You've never heard of the Grandslam, 22000lb bomb!!!

Lancaster range with bomb load
Range
2530 miles with 7000 pound bomb load
1730 miles with 12,000 pound bomb load
1550 miles with 22,000 pound bomb load

Avro Lancaster Specifications

Here's a bomb load matrix:
Bomb Loads
loads of 13500 to 14000lbs were common.

Regarding a hypothetical A-bomb Lancaster, a Lancaster could have taken off from Tinian and landed at Okinawa, or alternatively, the Lancaster could have used air to air refueling:
Unreal Aircraft - Flying Forever - In-Flight Refuelling, WW2
as the RAF had perfected this technique at this time. Most speeds given for Lancasters are with bomb loads and full armament. Aircraft of WW2 by Chant,p36, states a top speed of 345 mph for a Mk VI with all armament except the tail turret removed.

Regarding importance to the war effort, the Lancaster dropped " 608,612 tons of bombs in 156,000 sorties" considerably more than the B-29, as the total tonnage dropped on Japan was "159,862 tons of bombs " .
HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 1], p256.

 

[syscom3]

The He-177 falls under catagory of "undecided, not enough info".

We know the performance of the Lanc, B17, B24 and B29 because they each had 100's of thousands of sorties, under many different conditions and missions. We know what they could do and what their war record is.

The -177 has to many question marks against it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Regarding importance to the war effort, the Lancaster dropped " 608,612 tons of bombs in 156,000 sorties" considerably more than the B-29, as the total tonnage dropped on Japan was "159,862 tons of bombs " .
HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 1], p256.

Still doens't make the Lancaster the better and more technically advanced aircraft.

BTW The B-29 dropped 159,862 tons of bombs on Japan - look at how far that had to go to do it. Comparing mission times and hazards of flight (weather and flying over vast oceans) ETO round trip missions were "milk runs" compared to what the B-29 had to fly...

 

[Colin1]

I can't decide
whether it's emotional bonds, romanticising or just national pride but attempting to compare the Lancaster with the B-29 is just ridiculous. There was nothing wrong with the Lancaster design, it was a superbly adaptable platform and could even arguably have been the pioneer of hedge-hop strategic bombing (the Dam raids); I doubt you could flick a B-29 around the mountains surrounding the targets like you could with the Lancaster but the B-29 represented the next generation in that method of bombing, the Lancaster couldn't touch it, it's like comparing a Spitfire Mk Ia favourably with the P-51D, the Spitfire will probably cut him up in a knife-fight but the P-51's got him everywhere else.

 

[renrich]

My source gives performance of Lancaster B Mk I as follows:

VMax at normal weight- 271 mph at 6250 feet
Vmax at normal weight- 281 mph at 11000 feet
Max weak mixtrue cruising speed-227 mph
Most economical cruising speed-216 mph
Time to climb to 20000 feet-41.6 minutes
service ceiling at max weight-20000 feet
service ceiling at mean weight-24500 feet
range with standard fuel and 10000 pound bomb load-1040 miles
range with one auxliary fuel tank and 7000 pound bomb load-2680 miles
empty equipped weight-36900 pounds
max takeoff weight-72000 pounds
bombs-14 one thousand pound bombs or one 4000 pound bomb and six 1500 pound bombs or six two thousand pound bombs and three 250 pound bombs or one 12000 pound bomb or one 8000 pound bomb and six 500 pound bombs or one 4000 pound bomb, six 1000 pound bombs and two 250 pound bombs.

 

[RCAFson]

The title of the thread is "best overall bomber", or am I missing something?

VE day was May 07 and the Lancaster's tonnage total is all prior to this date. On May 07 the B-29s had dropped much less than their VJ day total. You compare the P51d with a Spitfire IA, but the Lancaster to B-29 comparison is not fair unless you compare the operational versions of each aircraft against the other, so the comparison might better stated as a Spitfire V against a P51A. The B-29 was not really ready for prime time until it went through much development, at a time when the Lancaster was hammering Fortress Europa. The Lancaster could have provided the USAAF with an aircraft to carry out their strategic bombing of Japan, but the B-29 could not have done the same for the RAF/RCAF in Europe.

Yes, the B-29 was more advanced, etc, but it came too late to be "best overall".

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The title of the thread is "best overall bomber", or am I missing something?

Yes you are - it's the B-29

VE day was May 07 and the Lancaster's tonnage total is all prior to this date. On May 07 the B-29s had dropped much less than their VJ day total. You compare the P51d with a Spitfire IA, but the Lancaster to B-29 comparison is not fair unless you compare the operational versions of each aircraft against the other, so the comparison might better stated as a Spitfire V against a P51A. The B-29 was not really ready for prime time until it went through much development, at a time when the Lancaster was hammering Fortress Europa. The Lancaster could have provided the USAAF with an aircraft to carry out their strategic bombing of Japan, but the B-29 could not have done the same for the RAF/RCAF in Europe.

Yes, the B-29 was more advanced, etc, but it came too late to be "best overall".

And VJ day was August 15th, when WW2 Ended - and the B-29 still flew continually beyond that

I disagree - over 150 tons of bombs, 1000 aircraft operated and arming 2 air divisions (the 20th and 21st Air Force) doesn't constitute "being too late." The B-29 accomplished over Japan in one year what it took the allied bombing effort to accomplish in three and the trip there was more complicated and more hazardous. Part of that was due to tactics and I'm not even bringing up the atomic bomb missions.

 

[Glider]

I admit this topic keeps popping up but they should be titled, Most advanced bomber B29 now lets decide what comes second.

 

[RCAFson]

Germany had the densest concentration of radar directed flack in the work, backed up by a deadly and efficient night fighter force. Compared to Germany, Japan had very weak air defences, and the biggest threat to B-29s was the weather. The Luftwaffe must have flown many, many more defensive sorties, just for night fighters, than the Japanese home defence fighters flew day and night. The Japanese didn't really even have a coherent centralized air defence system. I knew a lotta guys who flew lancasters and they had to be prepared for attack from fighters from the moment they took off, until the moment they landed. I don't want to take anything away from the B29 crews, but they simply didn't face the same calibre of opposition, both from fighters and flak, and German targets were simply harder to destroy. Best bomber should go the last versions of the B29, but "best overall" belongs to the Lancaster, IMHO.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes, the B-29 was more advanced, etc, but it came too late to be "best overall".

What does that have to do with it?

Answer these questions?

1. Could the B-29 carry a larger bomb load a further distance?

2. Did the B-29 have better performance?

3. Was the B-29 a better design?

4. Was the B-29 more advanced?

Answer these questions honestly and you will see what the better bomber was.

I admit this topic keeps popping up but they should be titled, Most advanced bomber B29 now lets decide what comes second.

Ditto...

 

[Colin1]

Germany had the densest concentration of radar directed flak in the world, backed up by a deadly and efficient night fighter force. Compared to Germany, Japan had very weak air defences, and the biggest threat to B-29s was the weather. The Luftwaffe must have flown many, many more defensive sorties, just for night fighters, than the Japanese home defence fighters flew day and night. The Japanese didn't really even have a coherent centralized air defence system. I knew a lotta guys who flew lancasters and they had to be prepared for attack from fighters from the moment they took off, until the moment they landed. I don't want to take anything away from the B-29 crews, but they simply didn't face the same calibre of opposition, both from fighters and flak, and German targets were simply harder to destroy

You seem to be implying that the best overall bomber was defined by environment. That is nonsense, best overall bomber was defined by specifications and performance. One only has to plug the B-29 into the Lancaster's ETO environment to see that it would have fared better. If the B-29's biggest threat in the PTO was the weather, how do you think the Lancaster would have managed flying those distances into the teeth of a jet stream?

 

[pbfoot]

You seem to be implying that the best overall bomber was defined by environment. That is nonsense, best overall bomber was defined by specifications and performance. One only has to plug the B-29 into the Lancaster's ETO environment to see that it would have fared better. If the B-29's biggest threat in the PTO was the weather, how do you think the Lancaster would have managed flying those distances into the teeth of a gulf stream?

with one pilot , the Lanc was one heck of a dump truck but to put it in the same league as the B29

 

[RCAFson]

You seem to be implying that the best overall bomber was defined by environment. That is nonsense, best overall bomber was defined by specifications and performance. One only has to plug the B-29 into the Lancaster's ETO environment to see that it would have fared better. If the B-29's biggest threat in the PTO was the weather, how do you think the Lancaster would have managed flying those distances into the teeth of a gulf stream?

You really have to read this carefully:

HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 5]

here's one snippet:

The next three months (November 1944 through January 1945) were frustrating, to say the least. Schools worked hard to train the lead crews, determined to improve bombing accuracy. Enormous efforts were made to upgrade maintenance. The depot had to start all over again, and in the meantime the air supply from Sacramento had to be improved. More missions were run against Japanese engine and aircraft factories. But the weather was a terrible opponent, and there was no intelligence of its movements. Japanese fighter opposition was desperate but not deadly, at least in comparison with German fighters. Air kamikaze-ramming tactics were tried with some success. Morale was a critical problem. The airplane engines were still unreliable



Paper stats and operational performance are often two different things. Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that a bomber that was not operationally significant until 1945, and achieved it's reputation against an almost defenceless opponent deserves the title "best overall" bomber. I knew too many Lancaster crew to let this one go without a fight. The B-29 would have had a very tough time in Europe, except for the fact that by the time it was really operationally ready, the battle had already been won.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Germany had the densest concentration of radar directed flack in the work, backed up by a deadly and efficient night fighter force. Compared to Germany, Japan had very weak air defences, and the biggest threat to B-29s was the weather. The Luftwaffe must have flown many, many more defensive sorties, just for night fighters, than the Japanese home defence fighters flew day and night. The Japanese didn't really even have a coherent centralized air defence system. I knew a lotta guys who flew lancasters and they had to be prepared for attack from fighters from the moment they took off, until the moment they landed. I don't want to take anything away from the B29 crews, but they simply didn't face the same calibre of opposition, both from fighters and flak, and German targets were simply harder to destroy. Best bomber should go the last versions of the B29, but "best overall" belongs to the Lancaster, IMHO.

There was this small lake called the Pacific Ocean that B-29 had to fly over, though typhoons and the jet stream - ever hear of it?

If you go through this forums threads you will find that this subject has been discussed several times before. There is no denying the B-29 was plagued with numerous teething pains during its introduction and yet despite the problems, the USAAF managed to deploy it and turn it into an effective airborne weapons system that had no equal in WW2. General LeMay almost accomplished what Bomber Harris wished he could have accomplished - the complete defeat of an axis combatant by airpower alone. Look at what the B-29s did to Japan in the year and a half they were deployed. Prior to that the Japanese mainland was unscathed, and in that short time just about every major Japanese city felt the B-29's wrath. I doubt the Lancaster or Lincoln could have done the same amount of damage to Japan in the same amount of time.

Comparing it to the Lancaster, the Lanc was outdated in it's landing gear configuration (a tail wheel that offered difficulty in take off and landings in high crosswinds) it's cockpit configuration as the single pilot was an operational risked weighed against the necessity of getting the mission accomplished, and finally systems - hydraulics, electrical, defensive armament - there is no doubt which airframe is more superior.

As far as how the B-29 would have done in Europe? It would have never saw the European Conflict - that was for the B-32, I suggest some reading about that aircraft. But with that said, comparing the B-29 to the SECOND best bomber aircraft of WW2, that being the Lancaster, you were looking at a larger bomb load at higher altitude delivered at higher speeds if deployed to accomplish night saturation bombing. Do the math to see how much more the B-29 "could have" been than the Lancaster.

We are well aware of the formidable air defenses Germany fielded against the allies, but I don't think you realize the hazards and dangers B-29 crews faced just flying to and from their targets which I'll state again, would make European long range bombing missions look like milk runs. I know for a fact that former B-17 and B-24 crews that later served in the Pacific felt as times the weather they faced flying to and from the target was just as hazardous as the opposition they faced over Germany. The B-29 had to close the door to the last chapters of WW2 and without it the war in the pacific might have gone on for 2 or 3 more years including the participation of the Lancaster AND Lincoln.

Best "overall" bomber? Maybe that's your way of coming up with a consolation prize, but there is no doubt the B-29 was the best Bomber of WW2 and superior to the Lancaster. If that was not the case, 5 years after the war you would have never seen this....

 

[Matt308]

Uh oh... someone is diggin in his heels. B-29 v Lanc. Seriously RCAF?

 

[RCAFson]

Some better data from the USSBS:

The total tonnage of bombs dropped by Allied planes in the Pacific war was 656,400. Of this, 160,800 tons, or 24 percent, were dropped on the home islands of Japan. Navy aircraft accounted for 6,800 tons, Army aircraft other than B-29s for 7,000 tons, and the B-29s for 147,000 tons. By contrast, the total bomb tonnage in the European theater was 2,700,000 tons of which 1,360,000 tons were dropped within Germany's own borders.

Approximately 800 tons of bombs were dropped by China-based B-29s on Japanese home island targets from June 1944 to January 1945. These raids were of insufficient weight and accuracy to produce significant results.

By the end of November 1944, 4 months after seizure of the islands, the first of the long-range bomber bases in the Marianas became operational. The number of planes originally available was small and opposition was significant. Losses on combat missions averaged 3.6 percent. The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated only 7,180 tons although increasing month by month. The planes bombed from approximately 30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped which hit the target areas averaged less than 10 percent. Nevertheless, the effects of even the relatively small tonnage hitting the selected targets were substantial. During this period, attacks were directed almost exclusively against aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets. The principal aircraft engine plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently to convince the Japanese that these plants would inevitably be totally destroyed. The Japanese were thereby forced into a wholesale and hasty dispersal program. The continuing pressure of immediate military requirements for more and more planes during the campaigns in the Pacific had prevented any earlier moves to disperse. When dispersal could no longer be avoided, the necessary underground tunnels, dispersed buildings, and accessory facilities such as roads, railroad spurs and power connections were not ready. As a result the decline in aircraft engine production, which shortages in special steels requiring cobalt, nickel and chrome had initiated in mid-1944, became precipitous.

On 9 March 1945, a basic revision in the method of B-29 attack was instituted. It was decided to bomb the four principal Japanese cities at night from altitudes averaging 7,000 feet. Japanese weakness in night fighters and antiaircraft made this program feasible.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War)

Sorry, but the B29 campaign against Japan doesn't even come close to being comparable to the air war over Europe. However, the Lancaster could have duplicated the B29 campaign through in-flight refuelling from Tinian and by operations from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, had the USAAF began producing the Lancaster in lieu of the B29. Again, the Lancaster could have replaced the B-29, but not the other way around.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

However, the Lancaster could have duplicated the B29 campaign through in-flight refuelling from Tinian and by operations from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, had the USAAF began producing the Lancaster in lieu of the B29. Again, the Lancaster could have replaced the B-29, but not the other way around.

In flight refueling?!?! LOL!!! OMG you're grapsing at staws! Effective inflight refueling was at least 2 or three years away. Where were you going to get the tankers from?? Train the crews??? Develop the technique??? What do you think, pilots just hook up to a tanker as simple as flying a pattern at a local airport??!? By the time this would have been accomplished, the Lancaster could of helped out in the Korean War!!!!The B-29 was more than capable of performing the Lancaster's mission and then some. just look at the photo I posted. If the Lancaster was any way close to being superior to the B-29, why did the RAF operate them into the 1950s while pulling their Lancasters and Lincolns out of front line service?????

 

[RCAFson]

I have no problem in stating that the last versions of the B29, produced during WW2 were "better" than the Lancaster. But overall the Lancaster was a better plane, operationally.

 

[RCAFson]

In flight refueling?!?! LOL!!! OMG you're grapsing at staws! Effective inflight refueling was at least 2 or three years away. Where were you going to get the tankers from?? Train the crews??? Develop the technique??? What do you think, pilots just hook up to a tanker as simple as flying a pattern at a local airport??!? By the time this would have been accomplished, the Lancaster could of helped out in the Korean War!!!!The B-29 was more than capable of performing the Lancaster's mission and then some. just look at the photo I posted. If the Lancaster was any way close to being superior to the B-29, why did the RAF operate them into the 1950s while pulling their Lancasters and Lincolns out of front line service?????

The first inflight refueling was done well before WW2. The USAAF could easily have had a tanker fleet ready by Nov 1944, had they chosen to go down that route:

Tiger Force air-to-air refuelling
I have often wondered about what was actually planned for the "Tiger Force" RAF Lancasters and haven't really found anything (any references out there ?)

There is a recently published book "History of Air-to-Air Refuelling" (which isn't what it says, but is really a TECHNICAL history of Flight Refuelling Limited).

Here is a summary of what it says about the Tiger Force Lancasters and flight refuelling (there are pages and pages of technical drawings and explanations showing how the system worked) from pages 24 to 34.

Following on from the successful pre-war "looped-hose" system, in 1942 the US Army Air Corps placed an order for a set of tanker and receiver equipment for a B-24 tanker and B-17 receiver aircraft. These conversions were completed and flight trials commenced in April 1943. The B-17's range being "increased to 5,800 miles with full bomb load". It was planned to take off from the Aleutians and land in China. These plans seem to have come to naught because of the time required to convert the aircraft and train crews and the coming of the B-29.

In the "latter part of 1943" there were plans made for the RAF to bomb Japan from bases in Burma. By 1944 it was decided that these were to be Lancasters equipped with the pre-war looped hose system (as were the B-17 and B-24). In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay.

50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to mount the long-range operations.

Originally the force was to be called "The Long-Ranged Force"

The prototype tanker (PB.972) and receiver (ND.648) aircraft had both been successfully flown by November 1944.

Not only were the two bomb bay tanks available, but also the Port and Starboard Inboard wing tanks (580 gallons [2,880 litres] in each)

The average fuel transfer rate was "better than100 imperial gallons (450 litres) per minute".

AND;

"The trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the equipment described, and it proved that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver's hauling cable.

Then, due to "progress made in the Pacific Theatre" the whole programme of the Tiger Force was cancelled.


Tiger Force air-to-air refuelling [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

 

[Shortround6]

I guess, to carry this argument to it's illogical conclusion, that no late war aircraft could ever be the BEST because they didn't have the time/missions flown to rack up the totals of bombs dropped or enemy planes shot down. And going on, since no late war aircraft is better than n mid-war aircraft, no progress was made for several years in airframe design, propulsion, aircraft systems or avionics. I never would have known.

I believe the title of the thread was "best over all bomber".

Not " bomber that contributed the most"

Or " bomber with the best record"

The answers to those might be different.