Rank the Allied Heavy Bombers 1939 to 1944

pbfoot · Nov 5, 2009

flying the B24 with one engine out would according to accounts be harder but the load would be split with the extra pilot , everyone mentions the lack of electronics on the 24 , wasn't it a mainstay of 100 group, also serious avionics would be req'd for the ASW work, not to mention the use of guided bombs to destroy some bridges in Burma

Glider · Nov 5, 2009

RAF Liberators said:
The RAF and Commonwealth operated just short of 3,000 Liberators of which a high percentage were used in the night bombing role. It was common for them to operate with only 7-8 crew. Most of the B-24 Pilot's I've interviewed over the years that went on to fly Lancasters in 1945 have said the Liberator generally performed better overall (they also said it was like flying in an armchair by comparrisson ).
You can read stats all day and look at percentages until your eyes bleed but you can't beat it when you hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.
No need to flame me either as I'm just relaying what I've been told by the crews.

I admit that I thought that most of the B24 bombers used by the RAF and Commonwealth were used as day bombers. In the UK 100 Group had about 20 each of B17 and B24 bombers which operated at night.

I have not had the chance to talk to experienced pilots but have a description of the flying characteristics of the B24 as written by a pilot going through the RAF conversion course who was an experienced test pilot themself. The B24 was considered to be a bit of a problem landing at night and in bad weather due to the length of the final approach and compared to Wellingtons and Sterlings you couldn't as freely put it into a tight turn to keep the field in sight. The controls are described as being heavy and it was hard to fly accurately in rough air.
Its probably down to what they were used to flying the Sterling for all its faults could probably turn faster than any other four engined bomber and the Wellington was a lot lighter than the B24. I just thought this would be of interest.

As an aside I read a book once about the experiences of a Wellington Pilots time operating in Burma. They converted to the Liberator and they flew them with a crew of six, but he never said what positions they filled. If anyone has any information I would appreciate it as I have often wondered about this.

fly boy · Nov 5, 2009

Okay, just to be sure you mean bombers in operation by 1944?

RAF Liberators · Nov 5, 2009

I think some of you guys need to know that 205 Group operated hundreds of B-24 as night bombers in Europe. in 1944.
The small bomb bay wasn't an issue, 205 Group were more than able to take out strategic targets like rail links, marshalling yards, ship yards etc etc
I don't see why you are making such a fuss about being able to use the big bombs, it's all about using the right tools for the job. Maybe the targets of 205 Group and SEAC didn't require the use of UBER bombs that you seem so desperate to go on about.
If you want to know about the operations of 205 Group or SEAC can I sugest you visit my site. Maybe you'll get a better idea of what we used the B-24 for

parsifal · Nov 5, 2009

I think the heavier bombs were needed to take out hardened or tough targets as an example, the only bombs capable of taking out U-Boat pens were the 22000 grand Slam bombs, and even then it was a "sometimes" thing to achieve.

If the targets are unprotected, then a lot of little bombs are actually better than a single big bomb. If the target is a hardened one, then a heavier bomb is necessary to achieve destruction

RAF Liberators · Nov 5, 2009

Not sure what was used for hardened targets in MTO or SEAC there must of been a need for hardened defences just not sure how they were dealt with. I'm pretty sure I've got ops records from U-Boat pens being targeted by B-24 Squadrons of 205 Group but maybe they weren't as hardered as the ones in the Western European theatres.

Juha · Nov 6, 2009

In fact against industrial targets or cities big blast bombs were much more effective than medium size medium capacity bombs. british learned that during 40-41 Blitz, that was why they developed cookies (4000, 8000 and 12000lb blast bombs), against industrial targets they not only destroyed the buildings but also machinery, which was much more difficult to replace, against cities they blasted away roof tiles, windows and doors and so made the incendiaries much more effective. Tallboys and Grand Slam deep penetrating bombs were special weapons and effective as such but much less used than the cookies, which were part of the standard load of the BC standard bombers

Juha

Vincenzo · Nov 18, 2009

After long analisys i choice the Lancaster, best load, good range

saw the Lancaster came bombing to march '42 we need add some other more old bomber for a full reply to thread

afaik pre Lancaster we have
B-17 until E (this is only a couple of month early of Lancaster)
Liberator I II (same of above for this)
Halifax I
Stirling I
Pe 8
the oldest TB-3 and Farman 222223
many twin engined

Lucky13 · Nov 18, 2009

I think that I'd go something like this....

1. Avro Lancaster
2. Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
3. Consolidated B-24 Liberator
4. Handley Page Halifax
5. Short Stirling
6. Petlyakov Pe-8

Vincenzo · Nov 18, 2009

Why so low the Pe-8?

drgondog · Nov 18, 2009

Marcel said:
Actually I don't think that all mattered that much. At night, the aircraft from below would hardly be visible. Remember you have (moon) light above you. So I think it was justified to leave away the ball turret in a night bomber like the Lanc or Halifax. The turret would be only dead weight, which was better used to carry bombs.

BTW does anyone know how effective this massive armament on the B17/B24 really was? As the USAAF bombers had tremendous losses before real escort fighters appeared, I would say it didn't matter that much, maybe only slightly raising the survivability?

Marcel - I suspect the prime benefit was simply deterrance - the incredible firepower available intimidated a percent of LW pilots from consistently closing to close range where their cannon would have been even more devastating.

I have never heard or read an account from any LW fighter pilot that didn't say 'closing on a formation of B-17s wasn't easy - it put the fear of god in me'..

The great ones swallowed their fear and closed and shot them down.. the others hung back and lobbed fire into a formation with little results.

beaupower32 · Nov 19, 2009

drgondog said:
I have never heard or read an account from any LW fighter pilot that didn't say 'closing on a formation of B-17s wasn't easy - it put the fear of god in me'..

I have also heard them say its attacking a B-17 is like making love to a porcupine on fire. It wouldnt be fun no matter how you look at it.

My vote was for the B-17. Although it didnt have the bomb load of either the Lancaster or B-24, I think it was the more durable of them all. Great defensive fire power, and good range. I will put the lancaster in a close second place, as its bomb load was unmatched by anything else.

syscom3 · Nov 19, 2009

beaupower32 said:
I have also heard them say its attacking a B-17 is like making love to a porcupine on fire. It wouldnt be fun no matter how you look at it.

My vote was for the B-17. Although it didnt have the bomb load of either the Lancaster or B-24, I think it was the more durable of them all. Great defensive fire power, and good range. I will put the lancaster in a close second place, as its bomb load was unmatched by anything else.

Isnt the purpose of a bomber is to carry lots of bombs and destroy its target? Putting defensive firepower and durability above that is a bit illogical.

seesul · Nov 19, 2009

syscom3 said:
Isnt the purpose of a bomber is to carry lots of bombs and destroy its target? Putting defensive firepower and durability above that is a bit illogical.

sure...but before the bomb run the bomber has to reach the target...don´t take the bomb load into the consideration only...in such a view you could put wings and 4 Pratts on Kenworth and you would have the best bomber?

syscom3 · Nov 19, 2009

seesul said:
sure...but before the bomb run the bomber has to reach the target...don´t take the bomb load into the consideration only...in such a view you could put wings and 4 Pratts on Kenworth and you would have the best bomber?

No, youre making a poor analogy.

The LW proved they could shoot down any unescorted B17, B24 and Lanc. So what if the B17 was the tougher of three? Its the payload and type of bombs you can carry is whats important.

After mid 1944 when the allies could flood the sky's with escort fighters did the durability of the three bombers become irrelevant.

Colin1 · Nov 19, 2009

syscom3 said:
No, youre making a poor analogy.

The LW proved they could shoot down any unescorted B17, B24 and Lanc. So what if the B17 was the tougher of three? Its the payload and type of bombs you can carry is whats important.

After mid 1944 when the allies could flood the sky's with escort fighters did the durability of the three bombers become irrelevant.

So if I've got you straight

before mid-1944 the durability of the three bombers was irrelevant

after mid-1944 the durability of the three bombers was irrelevant

What's your analogy?

syscom3 · Nov 19, 2009

Colin1 said:
So if I've got you straight

before mid-1944 the durability of the three bombers was irrelevant

after mid-1944 the durability of the three bombers was irrelevant

What's your analogy?

Yes. Speaking strictly for the B17 and B24:

Before fighter escort was aavailable, the B17 kept the losses from going from severe to catastrophic.

After escorts were available, it didnt matter that the B17 was the tougher of the two. What now was important was payload and types of bombs. Which one was the better dumptruck. And not to mention the LW had the types of cannon needed to take down a B24 and B17 on an equal basis.

Shortround6 · Nov 19, 2009

Morale may have been a bit higher in the B-17 units because of the higher durability.
It probably didn't make much difference to the planners.

You have to fly how many more missions with the B-17s to get the same amount of bombs on target?
So the B-17, while withstanding more damage, gets shot at more often per ton of bombs dropped.

Nikademus · Nov 19, 2009

Presence of escorts in other words is more of a factor than durability of the bomber. Ironically, BC....having long realized this before the USAAF conceeded the point, embodied this truth by utilizing the cover of darkness. However by latewar, darkness became increasingly ineffective as a cover, resulting in BC's losses to spike while the 8th's went down.

Rank the Allied Heavy Bombers 1939 to 1944

Best allied heavy bomber 1939-1944

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

Consolidated B-24 Liberator

Avro Lancaster

Short Stirling

Handley Page Halifax

Petlyakov Pe-8

Consolidated B-32 Dominator

1st Lieutenant

Captain

Staff Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Colonel

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Forum Mascot

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Tech Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Senior Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Senior Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Major General

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads