The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Waynos · May 27, 2008

In terms of actual bombing though can it truly be said that the USAAF was more effective than the RAF/Commonwealth? Surely drawing up the fighters is a side issue?

Was it ever stated that bringing up the LW to fight was an aim of the daylight raids, or was it a side effect? I am not an expert on these matters, I just don't see how 'trying to get intercepted' shows an aptitude for bombing.

syscom3 · May 27, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
I think what's missing here is the ability to cause the "most havoc" but also have the best survival rate based on the mission at hand. While the efforts of the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster can be recognized, their participation is still over a 3 year period in an environment that was not far from the enemy. the B-29 had a deployment a little over a year and had to fly thousands of miles to bring the fight to the enemy and sometimes the flight there was more dangerous than the actual mission. IMO the B-29 is still out in front.

Carrying an atomic bomb 1600 miles from base is also way of saying the B29 was the best.

FLYBOYJ · May 27, 2008

Waynos said:
There is another good way of looking at it. If you had a choice, which bomber would you choose to fly?

Depends on the mission....

pbfoot · May 27, 2008

Waynos said:
In terms of actual bombing though can it truly be said that the USAAF was more effective than the RAF/Commonwealth? Surely drawing up the fighters is a side issue?

Was it ever stated that bringing up the LW to fight was an aim of the daylight raids, or was it a side effect? I am not an expert on these matters, I just don't see how 'trying to get intercepted' shows an aptitude for bombing.

operation Point Blank and here is an excerpt fron that order
"The ulterior or strategic object of destroying selected segments of German industry was seen to be dependant "upon prior (or simultaneous ) offensive against German fighter strength which was therefor designated as an intermediate objective second to none in priority"

kool kitty89 · May 27, 2008

On the armament, the Lancaster and Halifax were capable of decent defensive mountings, though they were .303's. However, it would be fairly simple to switch to .50's, or maybe 20mm or a mix. (probably lfewer guns though, ie 4x .303 turret to 2x .50 turret, or sigle 20 mm, with single gun implacements, ie ventral mount on Lanc, with single .50)

so 2x .50 (or 1x 20 mm)in nose, dorsal, and tail turrets. 1x .50 in ventral mount. On Lanccaster.

Still not as well protected as the B-24 or B-17, (particularly from below) but probably good enough. (possibly a better ventral mount could be developed for the Lanc, was that ever done?)

syscom3 · May 27, 2008

kool kitty89 said:
On the armament, the Lancaster and Halifax were capable of decent defensive mountings, though they were .303's. However, it would be fairly simple to switch to .50's, or maybe 20mm or a mix. (probably lfewer guns though, ie 4x .303 turret to 2x .50 turret, or sigle 20 mm, with single gun implacements, ie ventral mount on Lanc, with single .50)

so 2x .50 (or 1x 20 mm)in nose, dorsal, and tail turrets. 1x .50 in ventral mount. On Lanccaster.

Still not as well protected as the B-24 or B-17, (particularly from below) but probably good enough. (possibly a better ventral mount could be developed for the Lanc, was that ever done?)

Not so simple. The .50's had a higher weight for ammo and mounts. There might not even be place in the fuselauge to mount the necessary turrets.

kool kitty89 · May 27, 2008

Did they do any testing on alternate armaments?

syscom3 · May 28, 2008

I remember somewhere on one of the many thread over this, that .50's were used on occasion, or had been fitted onto the Lancs, with various degree's of success.

But it never had the capacity to carry at a minimum, 10 x .50's like the B24 had.

kool kitty89 · May 28, 2008

I know, I said it wouldn't be as good as the B-17 or B-24, I was saying it could have been adequate though.

But another thing to think of is the British Bombers were not good at high alt, even compared to the B-24, the Lancaster was the best, but then only with liquid cooled engines. But then we could say if they wanted to focus on high-alt day opperations they could have invested in turbocharger development (or gotten them from the US) or put more development into high-alt supercharged versions of the Hercules engines.

At medium alt though there were two major problems for day opps, vulnerability to flak, and greater vulnerability to enemy fighters: the German fighters (particularly the 190, the 109 had good high alt performance) operated best at medium altitudes, and would reach the bomber altitudes more quickly to intercept. And the allied fighters would not have the same kind of advantages any more. (although if the escort fighters had been optimised for meduim altitudes, that could change too)

kool kitty89 · May 28, 2008

Oh, and I was referring to Waynos' and pbfoot's discussion.

i-kil-you · May 28, 2008

i say 1 of the best aircraft of ww2 would be the b-25 j mitchel

kool kitty89 · May 28, 2008

Coud you explain why?

Kruska · May 30, 2008

Hello guys,

B-29 was for sure the best heavy bomber in ww2, right? So can we start a new thread?

Maybe best defensive armament for bombers in WW2, range, weaponload, engines, ceiling, oh well I guess all that would be a B-29

Regards
Kruska

kool kitty89 · May 30, 2008

The whole "best" thing in any of these types of threads is what kind of leaves it open ended.

helmitsmit · Jun 2, 2008

pbfoot said:
I don't think they could fly the same mission as they were woefully underarmed with the 303's and no ventral armament . as it was the the germans could sit back out of range of the 303's and have a free shot. I am not knocking the RAF or RCAF who flew the bulk of these night missions , its with hindsight that I believe that the resources could have been put to better use.

You have to bear in mind the mission most of Bomber command used. ie night bombing. At night you need loose formation and rely on cloud cover and mobility to avoid trouble. The Lanc and to a degree halifaxes were able to corkscrew and dodge emeny forces. This is a totally different way of fighting then american bomber force who went straight through in tight formation relying on firepower and fighter cover. The night fighter also had to get in much closer to hit their target so 0.303 was better suited due to it's higher rate of fire. The lanc could carry a much better bombload then B17/B24 and it was more manuvourable. Therefore as a fighting aircraft it was better. The B29 came to late in my book and could only carry a similar bombload to the special lancs anyway. However I still believe that a larger number of Mosquito's is more effective then even the lanc.

helmitsmit · Jun 2, 2008

syscom3 said:
I remember somewhere on one of the many thread over this, that .50's were used on occasion, or had been fitted onto the Lancs, with various degree's of success.

But it never had the capacity to carry at a minimum, 10 x .50's like the B24 had.

To be fair the purpose of a bomber is to bomb first and then survive. I'd prefer speed over anything and delivering a good load. If you want then to stand a better chance to escort them simple. The b24 with 10 guns was still mauld be german fighters so it needed escorting. U could stick 20 guns on then if you want but they'd still get mauld because you have fast moving fighters that come from any angle and the best way to shoot down fighters is to have equally good fighters. and your forgetting about flak! 0.5 are no good against flak!

helmitsmit · Jun 2, 2008

kool kitty89 said:
I know, I said it wouldn't be as good as the B-17 or B-24, I was saying it could have been adequate though.

But another thing to think of is the British Bombers were not good at high alt, even compared to the B-24, the Lancaster was the best, but then only with liquid cooled engines. But then we could say if they wanted to focus on high-alt day opperations they could have invested in turbocharger development (or gotten them from the US) or put more development into high-alt supercharged versions of the Hercules engines.

At medium alt though there were two major problems for day opps, vulnerability to flak, and greater vulnerability to enemy fighters: the German fighters (particularly the 190, the 109 had good high alt performance) operated best at medium altitudes, and would reach the bomber altitudes more quickly to intercept. And the allied fighters would not have the same kind of advantages any more. (although if the escort fighters had been optimised for meduim altitudes, that could change too)

If the RAF wanted the lanc to go heigher they could have put in merlin 61s like the lincon. but they didn't need too for night duty. Turbosupercharging was bulky and complex. The two stage merlin 60 series had one of the best altitude performance of any ww2 aeroengine

FLYBOYJ · Jun 2, 2008

helmitsmit said:
The B29 came to late in my book and could only carry a similar bombload to the special lancs anyway.

The B-29 not only carried a greater bomb load than the Lancaster, it was able to do so over a way longer distance - compare the Lancaster's range with it's 20,000 pound bomb load with that of the B-29.

Glider · Jun 2, 2008

To be honest the B29 was by far, the best bomber in WW2. all other contenders were prototypes and or maybe entering production, certainly not in squadron service.

The only real debate is what was the second best bomber.

Kruska · Jun 2, 2008

Hello Glider,

Please don't forget the Ju86, it had an retractable underbelly "fresh air" full view panorama gunner seat.

Regards
Kruska

The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Staff Sergeant

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Senior Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Recruit

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads