Rank the Allied Heavy Bombers 1939 to 1944

[Marcel]

The B-24 for obvious reasons, but I could go on.
Highest US production aircraft of the war (over 18,000)
Longest range (The RAF held the record in a B-24 until the B-29's rolled out).
Used in more theatres (until the Lanc was shipped out to North Africa and South East Asia as well).
Was more technologically advanced than the B-17 and the Lanc.

How was the B24 more advanced than the lanc (apart from the nosewheel of course)

I'm not sure what you mean by restrictive bomb bays (unless you mean it was two bays instead of the one big one?), don't forget the B-24 bomb bays had shutters that rolled up the side, this was done to reduce the drag effect of opening huge great doors to the 300MpH + winds. Each one of the bomb bays on the B-24 could hold the same ordance as the single bay on a B-17. What often happened was the 2nd Bay was used for extra fuel for the long range attacks out in SEA.

But the Lanc had a significantly larger bombbay therefore capable of carrying bigger bombs, which were useful for destroying industry, dams, bridges and not-to-forget big bunkers.

Bomb load of a typical USAAF B-24J was approx 8,800Lbs but I say typical USAAF because again the RAF tended to push the Lib to the limits and beyond. They were also used as a multirole aircraft. SOE, Minelaying, ASR, Tanker, Transport etc etc. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it actually had more roles than either of the 17 or the Lanc.

Also more than the Halifax?

Oh and the 24 was quite happy dumping 4,000 cookies which were more than enough to blow Jerry's socks off along with his factory roof.

But the cookie was an air-pressure bomb and could not penetrate very well. It was great for areal bombing cities, but not very suitable for destroying bridges, bunkers, heavy machinery. You would be surprised by the amount of damage such a bomb would do on these machines (not as much as you would think). Roofs are usually easily repaired and usually factories were up and running at 100% capacity within a few weeks after a US attack.

I'm not attacking your opinion, but just showing things are not so obvious as they seem. Maybe a good time to point out some negative points about the B24: It was not as sturdy as either the Lanc or the B17 and according to some reports I've read from pilots it flew like a brick compared to the Lanc. As I said in the other thread, I can find good and bad points for all the famous heavies

 

[B-17engineer]

I'd rather be in a plane that can take battle damage during day and have good armament. It doesn't matter if your bomb load is more, if you flying in huge formations you'll get a lot done.

 

[fastmongrel]

How did the USAF bomb through cloud cover and smog did they use H2s or beam bombing aids like OBOE and GEE. Whenever I fly over Europe in a passenger plane at approximately 30,000 feet all I ever see is clouds. Surely they didnt wait for a clear high pressure weather system to arrive before setting out. Outside of the summer the bomb aimers couldnt have seen there targets very often.

 

[seesul]

Hey Kris or another mod,

could you change my vote please? I was going to vote for a B-17 and my daughter hit some key and voted for Pe-8. It is her opinion but not mine...
Since I´m 34 years older than she my opinion should be accepted

Thx!

 

[syscom3]

I'd rather be in a plane that can take battle damage during day and have good armament. It doesn't matter if your bomb load is more, if you flying in huge formations you'll get a lot done.

In war, everyone and everything is expendable. If we took your logic to the extreme, the bombers would be so heavily armoured and protected, they would have a payload of a single small bomb.

The purpose of a bomber is to drop bombs on a target and wipe it out. If you cant carry bombs large enough to do the job, or are inaccurate to the point you need massive formations to do it .... something is wrong.

 

[Colin1]

1. In war, everyone and everything is expendable.

2. If we took your logic to the extreme, the bombers would be so heavily armoured and protected, they would have a payload of a single small bomb.

3. The purpose of a bomber is to drop bombs on a target and wipe it out.

4. If you cant carry bombs large enough to do the job, or are inaccurate to the point you need massive formations to do it .... something is wrong.

1. True

2. I don't think that was the direction his logic was going in, it sounded more like a reasoned point

3. Again, true

4. What was the difference in size between a:-

i. B-17
ii. B-24
iii. Lancaster
iv. B-29

formation? An unfortunate truth of WWII bombing accuracy is that it required massive formations with which to do it; massive to stand a statistically greater chance of getting through the flak and fighters and then again to put enough ordnance down on the target area to get the job done; hence the term carpet bombing.

 

[B-17engineer]

In war, everyone and everything is expendable. If we took your logic to the extreme, the bombers would be so heavily armoured and protected, they would have a payload of a single small bomb.

The purpose of a bomber is to drop bombs on a target and wipe it out. If you cant carry bombs large enough to do the job, or are inaccurate to the point you need massive formations to do it .... something is wrong.

"In war everyone and everything is expendable" What about now? We loose 30 men in a month and it is tragic in Iraq.

My logic is I'd rather be in the B-17 because IT offered more protection than other bombers. The Lancaster didn't have an underside gunner. The B-24 couldn't take that much battle damage. The B-17 HAD a belly gunner and could take loads of damage. So saying what I said, I am saying I'd rather take a B-17 up rather than a B-24 or Lancaster because it could take battle damage and had good defensive firepower.

It didn't have as great as a bombload as the others but when flying in at times hundreds of bombers and having good defensive firepower and it being durable I don't mind the 2,000 lbs lesser of a bomb load. I'm not discrediting either bomber. I am saying, the lack of durability and a belly gunner make you more vulnerable.....

 

[Waynos]

By that logic I would rather not be in a heavy bomber at all, but in one of a pair of Mosquitoes doing the same mission at over 370mph instead.( FB.VI's if I have a choice)

Early RAF bombers of WW2, including early Lancasters, did have belly guns but they were deleted as useless. Maybe if the Lanc had been deployed on daylight raids they may have been kept? Either way, I think the relative importance of the belly gun of the B-17 is rather overstated as the attacking fighter still had to approach the bomber, they could not come vertically upwards.

That is to say, in my view, the B-17 defending itself was little different from a Lanc, or B-24 or Halibag, doing the same, it was the P-51 that really made the difference in survivability.

 

[Shortround6]

When comparing the B-17 to the Lancaster it isn't a question of 2,000lb of bombs but of 4,000lbs or more. In some cases you need twice as many B-17s as you do Lancasters to move the same amount of bombs.
Having to use many more bombers for the same tonnage does mean more fuel, more men and so on.

Even haveing to use 50% more bombers may actually mean more planes and crew men lost.

Does anybody have the stastics on losses per tons of bombs dropped vrs losses per 100 or 1000 sorties?

Very early Lancaster had belly turrets (taken out as not needed for night bombing)and at least one or two experimental ones had top and bottom turrets with twin 20mms aimed from the tail station.

Had the Lancaster been wanted for day bombing there is little doubt it's armament could have been beefed up.

 

[Waynos]

I was flicking through Putnams Aircraft of the Second World War earlier today (and one day I'll read it properly!) and I saw a passage that stated that the Lancaster carried double the bomb load of the B-17 and B-24 on raids over Germany. Note, not what it was possible to carry, but what was actually carried. which supports your point shortround6

 

[pbfoot]

The B17 was a good durable aircraft of that there is no doubt , but it just didn't 1/3 of the tasks a B24 could.
18000 B24's were made and 12000 B17's IMO thats says it all . The Lanc was a very fine aircraft but the strategy for them was flawed

 

[B-17engineer]

When comparing the B-17 to the Lancaster it isn't a question of 2,000lb of bombs but of 4,000lbs or more. In some cases you need twice as many B-17s as you do Lancasters to move the same amount of bombs.
Having to use many more bombers for the same tonnage does mean more fuel, more men and so on.

Even haveing to use 50% more bombers may actually mean more planes and crew men lost.

Does anybody have the stastics on losses per tons of bombs dropped vrs losses per 100 or 1000 sorties?

Very early Lancaster had belly turrets (taken out as not needed for night bombing)and at least one or two experimental ones had top and bottom turrets with twin 20mms aimed from the tail station.

Had the Lancaster been wanted for day bombing there is little doubt it's armament could have been beefed up.

I was comparing the B-17 to the B-24 first off when talking about there bomb load.

And the B-17 were used in large numbers so that's a given, fighters were defending there homeland and the B-17's had armament and could take punishment. Crews were also taken down by AA which a bullet cannot stop. And if the Lancaster were used in daylight missions and added armament something would have to go, wouldn't it? (Extra ammo, the turret, gunner etc.) And that's the deal with the B-17 it sacrificed bomb load for armament.

 

[Colin1]

1. In some cases you need twice as many B-17s as you do Lancasters to move the same amount of bombs.

2. Having to use many more bombers for the same tonnage does mean more fuel, more men and so on.
Even having to use 50% more bombers may actually mean more planes and crew men lost.

Very early Lancaster had belly turrets (taken out as not needed for night bombing) and at least one or two experimental ones had top and bottom turrets with twin 20mms aimed from the tail station.

3. Had the Lancaster been wanted for day bombing there is little doubt its armament could have been beefed up.

1. The price of daylight bombing? B-17 formations had to protect themselves from fighter onslaughts that would have been suicidal at night, easy enough to deride with hindsight but the bombers gunned up heavily in order to defend themselves with the obvious payload penalty.

The night slaughter was a much more 'ordered' affair by comparison, hence the redundancy of the ventral turret and the Lancaster never carried waist guns anyway.

2. I would say that you have a statistical point but isn't that a bit obvious?

3. Without a doubt at the cost of payload, putting the Lancaster in exactly the same boat as the B-17 and therefore the same dilemma as in your point #1, though it would be a sore test to see if the Lancaster matched the Fortress's durability under the same conditions.

 

[B-17engineer]

100% agreed!

 

[parsifal]

A few observations.

More than half the shoot downs by flak were radar assisted batteries, and the non-radar assisted batteries were heavily supported by searchlights, making flak at night just as deadly as in the day.

What did affect flak effectiveness was crew training and the age of the artillery park. In 1942, the flak arm was largely manned by regulars, with guns that had not exceeded their operating life. The result was that on average it took 4000 shells of HAA to bring down each bomber. By 1944, the regulars had been transferred to frontline units, or killed, and the flak batteries were manned mostly by part time factory workers and the like. Along with the effects of window and other ECM measures, most German flak batteries were reduced to firing in barrage, which on average is about a quarter as effective as targeted fire. Moreover the close teamwork and profiency of the searchlight crews was gone. A smaller, but noteworthy factor affecting accuracy was the aging nature of the gun park. By 1944, most 88s had, on average fired in excess of 50000 rounds per gun, massively exceeding their designed service life. Whereas, the 88 was designed for an effective ceiling of 26000+ feet, by 1944, they were lucky to hit anything above 22000.

The result of all this was that by 1944, it took on average 16000 shells to bring down every target.

By 1944, German flak against US Heavy bomber formations flying above 26000 feet was not effective and this also shows in the statistics. But then, its effectiveness against RAF formation had also dropped, mostly because German radar installation directing the German batteries was being very effectively jammed by the RAF.

I am not saying there werent still losses from flak, but compared to the efforts of 1942, it was inneffective

The average operating altitude by the RAF BC was 18500 feet, the average operating altitude for the US was about 23000 feet. The differences in operating altitudes was significant, but not decisive.

The british were adept at promoting the fire storm, which if succussfuly generated was far more effective that any amount of high explosive.

Lastly, RAF formations were large (albeit as a stream). In 1943-4, the average size of US Bomber formations was about 350 aircraft, whereas the RAF average formations sizes hovered around the 750 mark. There were many more large scale US raids, however, and later in 1944, the size of US formations crept up

 

[B-17engineer]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRCgntaDuks

Would a B-17 or Lancaster have survived that? No its a direct hit to the wing root.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPx9S4prT24 <- My point.

 

[RAF Liberators]

How was the B24 more advanced than the lanc (apart from the nosewheel of course)

The Davis wing generated more lift than that of the Lancaster, the avionics were more advanced. The bombay used a shutter system to reduce drag when opening. You have to take in to account the point of inception. Yeah sure by the end of the war the Lancaster was probably more advanced but in 1942/3 it wasn't.

But the Lanc had a significantly larger bombbay therefore capable of carrying bigger bombs, which were useful for destroying industry, dams, bridges and not-to-forget big bunkers.

The RAF's use of the Liberator was at a much lower level so the ability to hit and destroy bridges and dams etc was well within the ability of the Liberator and it did so on many occasions in both SEA and the MTO.

Also more than the Halifax?

If the Halifax was so good then why was it replaced in the MTO?

But the cookie was an air-pressure bomb and could not penetrate very well. It was great for areal bombing cities, but not very suitable for destroying bridges, bunkers, heavy machinery. You would be surprised by the amount of damage such a bomb would do on these machines (not as much as you would think). Roofs are usually easily repaired and usually factories were up and running at 100% capacity within a few weeks after a US attack.

It's all about how you use the tools you are given. The RAF and Commonwealth Squadrons were using the Liberator to do everything that the Lancaster could and more. The RAF used them at way lower altitudes at night (for the most part) to great effectivness.

I'm not attacking your opinion, but just showing things are not so obvious as they seem. Maybe a good time to point out some negative points about the B24: It was not as sturdy as either the Lanc or the B17 and according to some reports I've read from pilots it flew like a brick compared to the Lanc. As I said in the other thread, I can find good and bad points for all the famous heavies

I know you aren't
But you have to see it from the other side as well, I have thousands of records that show the effectiveness of the Liberator when used for the right applications. The main downside to the Libs ability to take punishment was the Davis wing and the rear stabilisers, they were designed to within such fine tolerances that any alteration to the shape could have grave consequences. The design was also one of it's major benefits as far as lift and performance were concerned. Having said all that there are a number of pictures of battle damaged Libs around but these tended to be fuselage damage rather than wings.
It had nickname of the flying boxcar because it wasn't as nimble as the Lanc or the B-17 and it was pretty slab sided.
But if it was such a bad design then why was it used in so many applications/roles and theatres than any of the others?
If the others were so good then why weren't they copied and mass produced under license?

It's all conjecture as there are only a handful of flying examples and all we have to go on are records written by others who may or may not of been bias one way or the other.
Does anyone know the bail out statistics of the Lanc or the Hallibag?

 

[Shortround6]

1. The price of daylight bombing? B-17 formations had to protect themselves from fighter onslaughts that would have been suicidal at night, easy enough to deride with hindsight but the bombers gunned up heavily in order to defend themselves with the obvious payload penalty.

Yes it is part of the price of daylight bombing. I am not deriding anything, just pointing out that different tactics wound up with different solutions and to criticize a night bomber for not having day bomber guns seems a bit unfair.

2. I would say that you have a statistical point but isn't that a bit obvious?

One would think it was obvious but shouldn't it be part of which bomber was best?
Which bomber could cause the most damage per bomber?

3. Without a doubt at the cost of payload, putting the Lancaster in exactly the same boat as the B-17 and therefore the same dilemma as in your point #1, though it would be a sore test to see if the Lancaster matched the Fortress's durability under the same conditions.

As you say, at cost in payload but since it seems the Lancaster had about 4,000lb to play with (or more?) before it wound up in "exactly the same boat as the B-17" it might actually have an advantage, even if small.

Of course the Lancaster does have an advantge of being a slightly later design (by about 4 years) even if it's Manchester heritage is taken into account.

 

[carman1877]

I think that the lancaster would be the best becuase it has a higher bomb load then every allied bomber except the B-29, which is not in this poll. it had somewhat okay defensive armament but it could have been better, it has a few blind spots. An example is the belly. It was also very versatile, in that it could carry 14,000lbs. of bombs, to torpedos, to bouncing bombs, and even the tallboy "Earthquake Bomb". However over half the number built were lost in combat, which suggest some flaws in its design. It would take 2 B-17s, or B-24s to carry the same bmbload as one lancaster. But then agian the B-24, B-17 had 10 guns or more which protects the plane very good.

 

[GrauGeist]

I can see the qualities of the Lanc as far as payload goes, but in the case of being attacked by a determined enemy, how does it stack up against the B-17's ability to absorbe damage and remain airworthy?

It seems to me that that a huge portion of the quality of a machine is it's ability to bring it's crew back from it's mission. A well trained crew is a valuable asset that cannot be easily replaced...