FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The thread said best bomber - I think if you want to get specific then break it up into light, medium and heavy. In either case I think if you did that and went for the best over-all bomber the B-29 still takes it.
The Best Bomber of WWII: #4
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes it helps, just like the tactical bombers helps as you say in the next line, exactly my point.
Im to scared to post.......there is war in the forum
No worries eddie, no war here, just a quite polite discussion, exactly what a forum is there for.Again, exactly my point.
Yes, that's exacly what I'm saying. You can't go for the best overal bomber as there is none. It's like saying that a car is the best transportation in the world. It is as long as you don't want to travel 8000 km or just going upstairs for that matter
And again the B29 was probably the most advanced and best plane in that could deliver bombs but was it better in it's job than the B25, mossy, Ju88 their own job job?Yes and I already agreed. I think the biggest impact that the heavy bombers made in ETO was destroying the romenian oilfields. It hampered the german war machinery. I never claimed the heavy bombing did not help but to say that heavy bombers alone did alter the course of war is a bit too far. A groundwar was still needed and there tactical bombers did their share. War couldn't be won without the one nor the other. The machines, especially the B29 were very good in their role, but so were some of the medium bombers in theirs. And all nescessary. Midway clearly showed that light divebombers could make as much impact on a war as heavy bombers, that's my point.
Typical sys response there. You're not doing yourself any favours getting all upset because you made a mistake. To avoid it stop blabbing about how only heavy bombers can attack oil plants, because mediums and lights did too.
I only needed to mention three operations of one squadron in one year to show everyone it wasn't a sole heavy bomber affair.
I only needed to mention three operations of one squadron in one year to show everyone it wasn't a sole heavy bomber affair.
AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
The Romanian oilfields were not put out of action til the Soviets captured them in Aug 1944.
The attacks on the synthetic plants payed higher dividends and not just for the fuel part.
United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (European War)
lancaster mad
Airman
- 10
- Nov 16, 2007
A B-24 is hardly a match for a Lanc as the B-24 needed more crew than the Lanc and that the Lanc could carry a bigger bomb load to Berlin from Britain than the B-24.
- Thread starter
- #326
syscom3
Pacific Historian
It was proven in the thread that the Lanc was better than the B24 in placing more bombs on target, as well as having a better bomb load and could carry oversize bombs.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
And the Lib took bigger bombloads to Rabual Rangoon and numerous other places in the CBI and PTO and the Lib sank more subs then the Lanc and the Lib had the advantage of 2 pilots
While I agree the Lancaster was an overall better bomber than the B-24, I still find this post amusing. I dont know why. Sorry...
lancaster mad
Airman
- 10
- Nov 16, 2007
Oopps, didn't read the rest of it syscom3!
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
personally the lancaster hands down (in the role of a heavy anyway) The B17 in my opinion gets nailed because it was a flying fortress and not a bomber.
The B 24 is nice but it has already pointed out why the Lanc was superior.
The B 29 did not see enough service sure it nuked Japan but that is quite differn't to going through germany for over 3 years dropping bombs while getting shot down by aircraft and flak.
The B 24 is nice but it has already pointed out why the Lanc was superior.
The B 29 did not see enough service sure it nuked Japan but that is quite differn't to going through germany for over 3 years dropping bombs while getting shot down by aircraft and flak.
How did the B-29 not see eneogh service. It flew over Japan for over a year and dropped plenty of bombs. Over Germany it would have been better than anything else because of its advanced technology and its ability to fly higher.
The B-29 is the best heavy bomber hands down and it really cant be argued.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And not only did the B-29 drop bombs, it dropped mines through out Japan's waterways helping in the blockade of the country.
lancaster mad
Airman
- 10
- Nov 16, 2007
So did the Lanc
- Thread starter
- #334
syscom3
Pacific Historian
But not 1300 miles from base.
- Thread starter
- #335
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I used that line of argument too. The B24 was the superior of the two in the PTO.
But, in Europe, the ultimate decider was the USSBS results which showed the Lanc was the better of the three types.
The main purpose of a bomber is to accurately place bombs on target. And the most and biggest is the winner.
The lanc was a great bomber and arguably the best in ETO (apart from that belly turret
), but the B29 was just half a generation further in development. It did prove it's worth against the Japanese homeland in the last year of the war. I'm not sure how it would have fared against the German air defence as it was much better than the Japanese but I suspect equally if not better than the B17, B24, Lanc and Halifaxes, but with a higher payload.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
So did the Lanc what? Have the most advanced defensive fire control system in the world at that time? No. Carry the same bomb load at the same distances as the B-29? No. Fly the durations the B-29 had to do doing its bombing of Germany? No. Shall I keep going?
Man too bad Lanc is gone. He would love this guy!
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Even the P-38 was used as a strategical bomber, attacking the Ploiesti oil refineries.
And about the Lanc ... the Halifax was as good as the Lancaster but was around two years before the Lanc! And was more versatile. And faster...
Kris
And about the Lanc ... the Halifax was as good as the Lancaster but was around two years before the Lanc! And was more versatile. And faster...
Kris
helmitsmit
Airman 1st Class
I think the Lancaster was the best heavy of the war (accept for maybe the B29 but that was very late on in the war). I mean it could carry 14,000lb to Berlin! And some very heavy special presents! 22,000lb Glam slam! With the B24 second. I don't rate the fortress at all! I read in "Mosquito stories" that the Fortress in order to get to Berlin could only carry 4,000lb at a speed of 200mph! Yet the pregnant mossie light bomber could carry a 4,000lb cookie to berlin at 300mph! and complete the trip in half the time! It also didn't waste millions of .50 rounds or five crew members (as it carry two crew compared with seven)
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
