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
afaik production of beaufort started after the war broke out
Well it was a humourous aside, rather than a historical record, but seeing as you brought it up the production contract was signed on 1 July 1939 and the first batch of aircraft were released to the RAF in October of that year.
sorry i don't understand this is that were delivered in october '39?
I'd have to go with the B-29, there is not much i like about it, but it is the newest bomber and thus the most advanced a ckear advantage.
I don't rate the Lanc very high cause most of it's missions where carpet bombing of cities which are very large easy targets.
Any strategic bomber had lousy accuracy (hit was within 250 m I believe), plus the bombs came out in a row sow only 1 or 2 bombs actually hit it's mark.
P.s. can't we make a table where we put in all contenders and compare several points?
like: Range, Payload, crew (mossi needed 2, Blenheim 3 bout same payload), able to selfdefence, speed, accuracy, adaptability etc etc
I don't rate the Lanc very high cause most of it's missions where carpet bombing of cities which are very large easy targets.
Any strategic bomber had lousy accuracy (hit was within 250 m I believe), plus the bombs came out in a row sow only 1 or 2 bombs actually hit it's mark.
P.s. can't we make a table where we put in all contenders and compare several points?
like: Range, Payload, crew (mossi needed 2, Blenheim 3 bout same payload), able to selfdefence, speed, accuracy, adaptability etc etc
Tell that to the Lanc crews that had to fly out over Germany at night to bomb those "easy" targets...
- Thread starter
- #790
syscom3
Pacific Historian
What did you not like about it?
Hitting a moving tank is not the job of a heavy bomber. So why would the Lanc be penalized for that? Using that logic, the B-29, B-27, B-24 are all terrible bombers.
Shortround6
Major General
on that note even most twin engine bombers weren't meant to hit moving tanks with bombs.
B-25s with 500lb bombs against tanks?
I don't think the British even really tried it. Blenheims against tanks?
Bombing a convoy or moving column maybe but nobody was targeting individual vehicles.
B-25s with 500lb bombs against tanks?
I don't think the British even really tried it. Blenheims against tanks?
Bombing a convoy or moving column maybe but nobody was targeting individual vehicles.
IIRC both RAF and USAAF used carpet bombing against moving tanks. The idea originated from insurance mathematics and was based simply on probability, if one hit an area of x sqft of which y sqft was covered by moving tanks with z bombs, there is certain probability that some bombs will hit tanks or hit so close of tanks that they were made inoperatable.
Juha
Juha
And Lanc sunk at least Tirpitz and Lützow and dropped a number of bridges, smashed some railway tunnels etc, with highly trained crews it could knock out small targets,also tanks, not necessary moving ones, for ex a a couple Tigers during the opening bombardment of Oper Goodwood in Normandy
Shortround6
Major General
On the knocking out tank subject, were the bombers aiming at the tanks in question or were the bombers bombing an area the tanks happened to be in and the tanks were unlucky
The ability of low level fighter bombers to hit tanks with bombs was pretty pathetic as it was. The idea of doing it from 6,000 to 20,000ft seems like hitting the lottery.
This isn't like hitting a factory, it is like hitting one particular machine tool in the factory. Or one particular gun mount on a ship.
The ability of low level fighter bombers to hit tanks with bombs was pretty pathetic as it was. The idea of doing it from 6,000 to 20,000ft seems like hitting the lottery.
This isn't like hitting a factory, it is like hitting one particular machine tool in the factory. Or one particular gun mount on a ship.
The target was a formation of tanks in a certain area, of which tanks covered a certain, much smaller area. If a formation of light/medium bombers saturated the area with say 350 bombs, there was a certain probability that they succeeded to knock out a certain number of tanks. Were they moving or not didn't make any big difference. They were not aiming at a certain tank but the formation, only the lead bomber aimed others dropped when he dropped. Same system as the IJNAF medium bombers used when they attacked ships as level-bombers-
Juha
Juha
Shortround6
Major General
Very true and the only dispute is the relative sizes involved.
If you put 350 bombs into an area about .7 miles by .7 miles you would have just over one bomb per acre. With an acre being a bit smaller than a football field just how close to the bomb explosion does the tank have to be to be knocked out?
You could put 320 AFV into that area (1 per acre) and how many kills would you get? Granted a number of crews are going to need new underwear and have hearing problems
but how many actual knockouts are you going to get?Same pattern against a large ship has a much better chance, large ship cover several acres all by itself.
This diversion started when a member said a certain bomber wasn't much good because it had trouble hitting large cities let alone moving tanks. Nobodies large or medium bombers tried to take out tanks one on one.
It was, as you suggest, much more of a shotgun blast aimed at a flock birds rather than one bird. With luck and statistics (and a lot of shotgun ammo) you will bring down some birds. But it doesn't have much to do with skill or ability or the worth of one shotgun (airplane) over another.
parsifal
Colonel
The Lancaster was not an innaccurate bomber. With all of the navaids and specialist training added to its repoitoirem, it proved itself one of the best heavy bombers at hitting pinpoint targets, day or night. The only other aircraft with a demonstrated capability for precision attacks at medium to high altitudes, in day or night, without regard to cloud cover was the Mosquito.
Whilst the flying qualities of these aircraft may have had some marginal effect on their bombing accuracy, it was principally due to the crew training and after market equipment additions and navaids that made them accurate in all weather conditions. Other aircraft could have done that as well, but as a rough rule, they didnt. Tough luck for them....they dont get the guernsey for most accurate bomber.
Whilst the flying qualities of these aircraft may have had some marginal effect on their bombing accuracy, it was principally due to the crew training and after market equipment additions and navaids that made them accurate in all weather conditions. Other aircraft could have done that as well, but as a rough rule, they didnt. Tough luck for them....they dont get the guernsey for most accurate bomber.
