The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Burmese Bandit]

Yep, the 29 had many technical innovations (you can see the influence of the 29 all the way down to the B-1B!) and yes, the 24's wing was a marvel in its time.

But war is more than just technical stats. War is politics, money, and also being in the right place at the right time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But war is more than just technical stats. War is politics, money, and also being in the right place at the right time.

And the B-29 was all of that. Aside from the atomic bombing and its participation in the war, it paved the way for the next generation of bombardment aircraft and it's legacy is still with us today.

It was, by far the best bomber of WW2.

 

[drgondog]

Yes, the B-29 had a tremendous influence - which is exactly my point. No B-17, no B-29. The USAAF had a tremendous fight just to get the B-17 funded (No thanks to the US Navy) and most people would agree to the proposition that had the USAAF lost the political and budgetary battle then, the B-29 would never have been built .... at least not by the USA!

I tend to agree the importance of the B-17 with respect to American airpower. No B-17 in the late 30's - no real Strategic airpower doctrine in place, probably no B-24 and possibly no B-29 because thye USN would have prevailed and restricted long range Army Air to continental US.

Probably the most important with the B-52 alongside.

That doesn't make the B-17 the 'Best' because of all the reasons advanced on performance as well as impact to the closure of WWII.

 

[syscom3]

The B29 also had another innovation that was radical for its day, was the way the US Govt. decided on how to finance and produce it.

This was the first military contract in US history that was financed as "cost plus, fixed fee".

By removing the cost burden off of Boeing, technological advances could be incorporated into the design without Boeing worrying about going bankrupt if it didn't work out.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

....and which also opened the way to the *polite cough* cost 'overuns' abuse we see today...

 

[syscom3]

....and which also opened the way to the *polite cough* cost 'overuns' abuse we see today...

The abuse is quite rare and is almost always that the customer is changing specs or asking for more than what can be delivered.

Without a "cost plus" type of contract, technological innovation would always be incremental and very conservative.

 

[drgondog]

....and which also opened the way to the *polite cough* cost 'overuns' abuse we see today...

All leading edge, complex projects, have the potential to overrun - whether IT or anti missle systems or airframe design.

DoD 7001 and 7002 were developed to start getting a handle on separation of direct and indirect costs, as well as getting a handle on tooling and manufacturing tools pricing between the contractors.

Until 7001 there was no cross footing between WBS and CLI except by prepared reports with no real commonality between contractors. The Defense Contract Audit teams were not only confused regarding contract project status but specifically how to pay the Contractor based on milestone achievement reflecting both target achievement but also incurred cost.

To support Syscom further - writing a contract to match agreed specs with enough specificity that agreement to deliverables is 'uniform' is a whole 'nuther topic. Scope creep comes in two forms. "Gee, that is not what I meant when I agreed to that language - let's negotiate' to "oops, I forgot to ask for this'.

If you ever saw a WBS PERT Chart for an airframe contract you would not have a clue regarding the complexity..

 

[Sweb]

Would it be unrealistic to assume the crews who flew these A/C in combat conditions may have somthing of an idea about which one they thought was best. If this is any indication most RAF pilots were elated if they were posted to or their squadron was re-fitted with DH 98's. Plenty of station reports and letters home to prove this. There can be only one reason for this; survivability the mosquito's ratio of operations sucessfully pressed home vrs KIA is unsurpassed by any frontline serving A/C again the Stats are easy to check.
And this was the sharp end of the sword gentelmen for example 139sqdn {I think } first daylight raid into Berlin to name but one ,of a long line of accolades. Or was there another group of A/C operating in the European theatre that were known as the Gestapo Hunters. I have in other posts noted that the Far East squadrons did report that they experienced trouble with mould but this hardly equalls turning to matchwood in months. De Haviland had a vision of a fast high altitude bomber that could outrun the {German}fighters that were sent to intercept it. This it did in spades with i might add, often a 4000lb bomb load all the way to Berlin. Eslsewhere here i read someone claim a B 17 could lift a 17,000lb over a short distance. Bloody short i would immagine if at all. I have to apologize for not being able to produce referenceable material here to support these veiws i don't have my books with me at this point. Not sure why the DH 98 draws so much animosity,envy perhaps ? .

Good Hunting Gents!

LOL. I have read many of the posts here - not all - and decided to comment on your question. My Pop was a B-17 driver as his first official front office job in late '44. One day he and I were sitting in the cockpit of a museum B-17 kinda quietly while I got a feel for it. Then it dawned on me about the absence of creature comforts. The mind does that. After scanning all the technical aspects of controls, placements, instruments and such the mind silently searches for something else. So I blurted out the question about where the heating stuff was. He looked at me and quietly sneered: "What heat? We froze our assets off in this blivit!" (Blivit: 2 pounds of excrement in a one pound bag) I had heard this description of various military types from him in the past. Reality check. Then came all the comments about carpet bombing, worthless gunners who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn yet died trying, highly trained bombardiers working with the latest equipment only to miss anyway because Mother Nature still had the last call between their altitude and the ground, nav/radioman given a gun he couldn't use anyway and after all was said and done a fast-attack squadron of low-flying far-ranging fighter-bombers could have done their job much more effectively and far, far more efficiently in one mission. Similar comments came from various other period pilots who flew various types at various annual reunions.

So, yea, the pilots did have some pretty poignant summaries of their missions, the equipment used to accomplish them, what should have happened and why it didn't. The common reason cited was theatre-specific inter and intra-military politics.

 

[drgondog]

So, yea, the pilots did have some pretty poignant summaries of their missions, the equipment used to accomplish them, what should have happened and why it didn't. The common reason cited was theatre-specific inter and intra-military politics.

Kind of a broad brush comment isn't it? Any specifics come to mind?

 

[syscom3]

Shooter, the Lanc put more bombs on target than the B17 and B24. Plus the heavier bombs dropped by the lanc actually did far more damage than the pint sized 500 and 1000 pounders used by the AAF.

Look through the post war USSBS for the facts.

 

[ToughOmbre]

B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29

Did I mention B-29?

TO

 

[FLYBOYJ]

QUOTE: And the fact that so many were scrapped so quickly PROVES my earlier statement. The B-24 served well but it was a DUMPTRUCK! Once the war was over, it got turned into Fords!!!! 6000 gone in one year!!! The Lancaster remained around for many years, not because of desperation, because it was an adaptable airframe.

This is the silliest avoidance of the truth I've ever heard of! The Lanc was retained because the Brits were dead broke and could not possably afford to replace it

Read back a few pages more and that was mentioned as well but the numbers stated in that post was related to the B-24s that served in the USAAF. Despite being broke the Brits did bring on the Lincoln and eventually utilized B-29s.

The Lanc's airframe was a hell of a lot more resilient than the B-24 although it was still early WW2 technology. The B-24 was a dump truck, quickly built to serve a role and it served well but due to high attrition rates and airframes as new as 1300 hours coming apart, it was destined for the scrap bin.

 

[pbfoot]

The RCAF used the Lanc for a number of years in ASW and Survey work after the war and we were not broke

 

[drgondog]

I guess that you would have to define the word "best" some how to make this a realivant question!

Let us try by using different criteria;
1. B-29. Best bomb load, to the longest range, at the highest speed, from the highest altitude and with the lowest losses! Seems like the top dog to me?

A great many of us agree

2. Arado 232 Fastest Bomber of WW-II? Does that make it the best at what it does or just a foot note?

Depends. Too fast for easy interception, carried a nice bomb load, 'next gen' light/medium bomber better than what we (US) put out until 1947. Technology wise - the best maybe, effect on war - not so much

3. B-17. Shot down more German planes than any other single type of aircraft. Does that qualify as best in some way?

Shooter - the Fort may have claimed more but highly doubtful it approached the Mustang in actual a/c shot down

3A. B-17 Brought back more crew after damage than any other type. Does that qualify as best in some way?

How does one get to real statistics on this? The loss rate per sorties was lower for the B-24

3B. B-17 Dropped more bombs that actualy hit the MILITARY TARGETS than any other type. City area bombing does not count toward this catagory. Does that qualify as best in some way?

Interesting. Defined as number of military targets where a steel mill counts the same as a tank? How 'bout a stuka? or a B-29 that kind of burnt everything down (including the 'target') in the low level attacks?

4ABC. B-24 Second best as above, but only for targets at longer ranges than above. Does that qualify as best in some way?

That nagging 'proof thingy'. What are your metrics for military targets? If it is 'any point on enemy soil' where the fuse hit, then the B-24 might make 3rd behind the Lanc, then the B-17

5. Lancaster; most bombs dropped at night, regardless of wether they hit military or civilian targets or any target at all. Can't see how this qualifies as best at anything?

The Lanc was a Major contributor in the Petroleum/Chemical plant eradication and developed quite good daylight bombsight for last 9 months of war.


?

Shooter - this is a forum where bringing 'fists to a gunfight' has true meaning relative to fact based opinions - expect to be challenged - as we all do.

Regards,

Bill

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Or even better compare the number of bombs that actualy landed inside the factory fenceline or target building to the total number of bombs dropped? Given that the RAF itself at the time only claimed that ~50% of the bombs hit their targets, IE the city proper, then at least half of all night time mission tonnage is not effective. But 2% inside the fence still leaves MOST of the other inside the city, so daylight raids get to count 90-95% of their bombs dropped as effective? Just pulling numbers out of this air, so you take your pick, but if you judge mission effectivness by the same criteria for both types of raid, the daylight bombing has to be several times as effective as night time raids. You furnish the numbers.

File:Ussb-1.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But daylight missions caused the Germans to come up and fight, where they were shot down by the tens of thousands.

Now you come up with numbers

 

[drgondog]

QUOTE: And the fact that so many were scrapped so quickly PROVES my earlier statement. The B-24 served well but it was a DUMPTRUCK! Once the war was over, it got turned into Fords!!!! 6000 gone in one year!!! The Lancaster remained around for many years, not because of desperation, because it was an adaptable airframe.

Rather than compare total loss rates, which is hardly constructive given the different missions and requirements, why not compair daylight mission loss rates before the RAF chose to abandon that mission due to catastrofic losses! Then compare those rates to B-17/24/29 daylight mission loss rates?

Well, which period do you want to look at for B-17/B-24... before or after the Mustang arrived in numbers? Do you have a way to compare the missions where 'escort fighters' were pretty much meaningless for night raids?

How do you compare target defenses and strategies as well as technoloy stack for LW in 1943 vs 1941-1942?

Or even better compare the number of bombs that actualy landed inside the factory fenceline or target building to the total number of bombs dropped? Given that the RAF itself at the time only claimed that ~50% of the bombs hit their targets, IE the city proper, then at least half of all night time mission tonnage is not effective. But 2% inside the fence still leaves MOST of the other inside the city, so daylight raids get to count 90-95% of their bombs dropped as effective?

See if you can dig up statistics showing how many 8th/12th AF Strikes achieved better than 1000' MPI accuracy? And REALLY look hard for them in Oct-Apr timeframe when weather was more likely to be 10/10 over the target - and compare our blind bombing capability to RAF.. We ACTUALLY learned a few things from RAF when we had time to listen.

Just pulling numbers out of this air, so you take your pick, but if you judge mission effectivness by the same criteria for both types of raid, the daylight bombing has to be several times as effective as night time raids. You furnish the numbers.

You seriously need to look at USSBS

Or how many enemy planes were shot down durring how many missions?

We DID have an edge there because we hunted over a baited field of B-17s and B-24's to bring the LW in 'range'

The main thrust of this type of argument is what did each type contribute to the total war effort? Since everyone agrees that area bombing had very little actual effect on war matirial production and that daylight "Precision" bombing was only ~2% effective, then I belive we must look at other factors to determin which was best.

Well, No. The thread didn't pose any metrics - you had to bring your petition to the docket and try to prove your case.. rather than 'argue' your case.

In that vien, I belive that night bombing missions contributed very little to the total war effort. low losses, but low damage too. But daylight missions caused the Germans to come up and fight, where they were shot down by the tens of thousands. A very real and significant contribution to the war effort. Night missions made no such contribution.

The number for ETO/MTO USAAF might be close to one 'tens of thousands' which was an excellent achievement by itself but hardly 'multiples' of tens of thousands.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Only if you count bombs dropped outside the city limmets does the Lanc compare with the B-17 or -24 where we required them to be inside the fenceline to be counted as hits. The RAF declaired that ~50% of the bombs dropped at night landed inside the city limmets, therefore the other 50% were waisted! Reduce all tonnage by that figure! On the other hand, if we count the entire city limmets area as hits then the American bombers did very much better than the Lanc because most of their bombs landed inside the city limmets.

Do you have quantified record of that?

If the Lanc was so good after the war, why did the RAF by the Washington?

To Give the RAF a global strike capability that it didn't have at the time - this happening while the fist V bombers were being developed.

When someone claimed that 6000 B-24s were scrapped in a year, what porportion of the 18,000 built is that and how many survived out of the 7-7,377 Lancs made?

Another 1000 probably scrapped there after. Did you ever stop to think that it does cost money to maintain and operate an aircraft an in many cases operational aircraft were either stored or scrapped all together based on operational costs?

Exactly what was the strength of the RAF Bomber Comand after the war? IIRC, they only had 3-400 mediums (Lancs) on the roll in 1947 and those included how many Washingtons? That would equal ~96% or more scrapped with in two years of the end of the war?

High time Lancasters were scrapped - the fact remains the aircraft served Bomber Command into the 1950s and served many other nations quite well in secondary roles up to the 1960s.

You can not go by raw numbers and make an honest argument.
From page 18 of Stewart's AIRCRAFT OF WW-II,
Lancaster;
EEW=41,000 Lbs.
MTO=68,000 Lbs and 72,000 Lbs OLTO.
Speed with Merlin 24s @1620 HP Ea.= 287MPH @ 11,500'.
CRUISING SPD = 215 mph.
Range with 10,000 Lbs = 1,040 Miles, = Radius of Action = 468 Miles.
Service Cieling 24,500'
Ferry Range 2,678 Miles. ( No Bombs!)
Max bomb load 14,000 pounds for all but a few hundred late war planes.

Errr, what model Lanc are you using????

Not wishing to embarass you with numbers from the B-24 or B-29 I list from the same source on page 27 the B-17G numbers, 8,680 built or more than 1,000 more than all Lancs combined.

Are you comparing the Lanc to the B-17, B-24 or B-29???? There is no doubt the B-29 was the best heavy bomber if not the best bomber of WW2. The Lancaster is a distant second.

Specifications (Lancaster)

Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 240 knots (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
Range: 2,700 NM (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m)
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.082 hp/lb (130 W/kg)
Armament


Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.70 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations
Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000lbs or 22,000lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay

BTW you're not embarrassing me with any numbers from a non-technical history book - If I want or need the performance data I'll go to the flight manual.

B-17G;
EEW=38,000 Lbs.
MTO=65,500 Lbs and 72,000 Lbs OLTO.
Speed with R-1820-97s @1200 HP = 286MPH, 1380HP WEP Ea.= 302MPH @ 25,000'. Note that the B-17 is faster on less power than the Lanc indicating supirior aerodynamics.

Can you prove that? Do you have wind tunnel data???

CRUISING SPD = 160-182 mph. Depending on load. This equates to a much faster TAS because of the differances in altitude. (272-310 MPH TAS @ 25K')
Range with 4,000 Lbs = 1,800 Miles, = Radius of Action = 810 Miles.
Range with 9,600 Lbs = 1,080 Miles, = Radius of Action = 486 Miles.
Service Cieling 35,600'
Ferry Range 3,400 Miles. ( No Bombs!)
Max Bomb Load for all planes of this model17,600 Lbs.(11X1,600Lbs AP bombs)

The big differance comes when you compair deffensive fire power and armor. Take a guess which has more of both?

The Lancaster as far as bomb load, plain and simple.

You've cited data from a history book - why don't you try to find yourself the Pilot's Notes or Flight Manual from each aircraft and find out what were the listed performance numbers of the aircraft and then compare them to the real operations the aircraft were subjected to.
For example, do you really think a B-17 was operated at 35,000 feet with a full bomb load????

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Germans figured that less that 9,000 of it's fighters were lost to b-17s, less than 5,000 to B-24s and less than 2,000 to all other types. After the war, they pretty much all agreed that daylight bombers shot down between 12-13 thousand fighters, their escorts shot down another 12-13 thousand fighters by every bodies best guess.

Again where are you coming up with this data???The USAAF Heavy Bombers CLAIMED A little over 6000 and in actuality probably brought down more like 3000 if that many and that probably includes medium bombers as well. Here...

Army Air Forces in World War II

And if you REALLY want to lean about German losses, start here...

J A G D G E S C H W A D E R 26 "SCHLAGETER"

How many night fighters were downed?

By whom, the RAF? Bombers or fighters????

Ever hear of 100 Group?

 

[pbfoot]

The Germans figured that less that 9,000 of it's fighters were lost to b-17s, less than 5,000 to B-24s and less than 2,000 to all other types. After the war, they pretty much all agreed that daylight bombers shot down between 12-13 thousand fighters, their escorts shot down another 12-13 thousand fighters by every bodies best guess.

How many night fighters were downed?

Your proving a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Shooter, let me put this out there for you...

"As the intensity of air combat over Europe grew, the USAAF began to experience a flood of victory claims from its air gunners. This was not surprising, of course. A given formation of bombers might have fifteen to twenty aircraft. Each had five or six people shooting at oncoming enemy fighters. If one enemy aircraft was shot down, dozens of air gunners might claim - in perfectly good faith - that they hit it. However, this led to utterly unrealistic claims of successes, so much so that on some days (as post-war investigations proved), USAAF gunners claimed to have shot down more German aircraft than had actually been in the air! Royal Air Force intelligence experts advised USAAF staff to divide their gunners' claims by at least six in order to obtain a realistic figure. The USAAF refused, somewhat indignantly, and only conceded the point after the war."

Bayou Renaissance Man: Weekend Wings #25: Air Gunners