The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

If nothing else....it provides another amusing proof that raw statistics can be interpreted in different ways to support most any argument.

parsifal said:

Just remember, this is a guy that believes the germans won the Battle of Britain, or at least did not lose. He has told me that he believes they achieved all they set out to do, and then moved onto to bigger and better things.

Hard to have a serious objective conversation with someone who has those beliefs.....

Click to expand...

I have already asked a few posts above to keep this thread on topic and in order!

That goes for you as well, do not ignore that. Sometimes I feel we are speaking to ourselves.

looney said:

I will give it a try. I hope I got it ready tonight. I'm fairly busy

P.s. I'm thinking about accuracy, imho it all depends on the Bomb sight and bombs used. Where can I find info on accuracy achieved?

According to wiki the german used a copy of an early Norden, so I'm gonna rate it a bit below the Norden. I don't know how the british Mk XIVcompared to the Norden, and the Japanese is even harder to find.

Found me another problem, the sturdiness of each plane. I know the B24 was weaker than the B17, but I don't know how the He-177 and Lanc compare. I'd say B17, b24, Lanc, He177 and last G4m.


1st draft list done:

We need to assign weight to different fields. Cause an He-177 can't be better than a B17

Oh please check for errors also, I took the data from wiki.

Click to expand...

It is important to specify the amount of fuel which is offset by the bomb load for distance as an example the different versions of the he177 with a comparison of range vs fuel/bombload

Also don't forget the first bomber to put bombs on Berlin....The Pe.8


The Piaggio P.108 had 12000 liters of fuel and could deliver 1000kg to 3600km or 3500kg to 2500km.

The B-17F could deliver 2720kg to 4828km on 11022 liters

The Lancaster B.1 had 9791 liters to deliver 6350 kg to 2671KM or 5443kg to 2784KM

and the G8N1 with 14000 liters could deliver 4000kg to 6482KM

more to come....

looney said:

I will give it a try. I hope I got it ready tonight. I'm fairly busy

P.s. I'm thinking about accuracy, imho it all depends on the Bomb sight and bombs used. Where can I find info on accuracy achieved?

According to wiki the german used a copy of an early Norden, so I'm gonna rate it a bit below the Norden. I don't know how the british Mk XIVcompared to the Norden, and the Japanese is even harder to find.

Found me another problem, the sturdiness of each plane. I know the B24 was weaker than the B17, but I don't know how the He-177 and Lanc compare. I'd say B17, b24, Lanc, He177 and last G4m.


1st draft list done:

We need to assign weight to different fields. Cause an He-177 can't be better than a B17

Oh please check for errors also, I took the data from wiki.

Click to expand...

A good first pass. Initial comments are
i) The rating for the payload between the B17 and B24 should be similar if not the same as the B24 had a slightly longer range with a certain payload.
ii) I admit I don't understand the crew figure
iii) I would drop accuracy as a factor as most if not all (I don't know about the Japanese) had sophisticated bomb sights by the middle/end of the war.

is type of bomb being factored in? From what i've read, the British heavies had a distinct edge here vs. the US heavies. (B-17/24)

Good point, one that I forgot to mention.

Krieghund I think you forgot the Wellington which was the first bomber to hit Berlin. There was a well known story about the Germans who were still at peace with Russia, having a meeting with Russian officials. The meeting was distrupted by an air raid and they went to the shelters. The Germans started telling the Russians that the British were finished and would soon be after peace terms. The Russian Minister turned to the Germans and asked if thats the case, why am I in a bomb shelter and not the British.

It was a hell of a question.

krieghund said:

Also don't forget the first bomber to put bombs on Berlin....The Pe.8

Click to expand...

Well, no wonder Hitler wanted to invade Russia so badly.

If the Russian were bombing Berlin in the Spring/summer of 1940 It is a wonder the Germans waited as long as they did.

French claim to have put one bomber over Berlin in June of 1940. Farman NC 223.4

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I have already asked a few posts above to keep this thread on topic and in order!

That goes for you as well, do not ignore that. Sometimes I feel we are speaking to ourselves.

Click to expand...

I understand, and will back off . The point i was making goes to objectivity. People can have a helluva lot of knowledge and still argue 1+1=3

I will mention again, the USSBS that provided some unarguable truths;

The Lanc had more bombs upon target, and the size of the bombs often had a direct correlation with target destruction and target damaged.

In the end analysis; The Lanc takes #2 in the best bomber of WW2. The B29 of course was #1.

Forget about the He-177 and Mossie. They were non factors. And The B17 and B24 got a lot of press but didnt do as much as what the Lanc accomplished.

Just a question but are we looking at the aircraft from the technical angle or from the employment angle of these aircraft. Depending on this criteria can change the outcome of your quest.

You can have the best car and driver in F1 but if your ground crew sucks there you go!!

If the B-29 had the same apathy that was bestowed to the He177 where would we be? For the B-29 suffered its share of engine fires in its beginning and continuing throughout its service life.

krieghund said:

If the B-29 had the same apathy that was bestowed to the He177 where would we be? For the B-29 suffered its share of engine fires in its beginning and continuing throughout its service life.

Click to expand...

No doubt the B-29 had its share of teething pains during its early development but the USAAF placed the B-29 in an extremely high position of strategic importance, especially when the aircraft got connected to the Manhattan project. The Luftwaffe never placed that emphasis on the He177 and there was still a lot of hostility within the Luftwaffe ranks to the aircraft and its development.

krieghund said:

Just a question but are we looking at the aircraft from the technical angle or from the employment angle of these aircraft. Depending on this criteria can change the outcome of your quest.

You can have the best car and driver in F1 but if your ground crew sucks there you go!!

If the B-29 had the same apathy that was bestowed to the He177 where would we be? For the B-29 suffered its share of engine fires in its beginning and continuing throughout its service life.

Click to expand...

FJ is correct when he says the B29 was given the highest priority and as a result the bugs were worked out of the system. Its worth reminding ourselves that the same happened to the Lancaster which was a significant development of the Manchester which was a failure.
It would have been a very easy and understandable decision to drop the Manchester, concentrate on the Halifax as the core of the bombing campaign and use the development resources of Avro on something else such as a long range convoy escort covering the air gap in the Atlantic.
As it was Avro was given the priority to fix the Manchester.

At the end of the day it was about priorities and available resources. It is a major mistake to blame the ground crew who I am confident moved heaven and earth to make the 177 as good as they could get it.

krieghund said:

.....For the B-29 suffered its share of engine fires in its beginning and continuing throughout its service life.

Click to expand...

The B29 engine fires became far less frequent as engine mods were introduced. As it was, even at its worst, the engines were reliable enough to still allow the plane to go 12 hour missions.

Oops bad analogy didn't mean the knuckle draggers (I are one) were the fault of the he177 debacle but I was trying to show if one main component (or support) of a system falters it can bring down even a good design.

I have been reading "Boeing B-29 Superfortress - The ultimate Look: from drawing board to VJ day" W. Wolf 2005 and "He-177 Grief - Heinkel's Strategic Bomber" Smith Creek 2008 of late.

Both provide insight of the pivotal points for the success of one and the failure of the other. because of the R-3350 issues the B-29 almost went to V-3420.

The He177 failure was the poor integration of a successful engine into the aircraft (No Firewall!!!,etc)

The B-29 problem, "they used magnesium where on the engine?"

The RLM took one He177A-5 from the line and researched 57 fixes into it. It flew many hours with no problems however it was too late to incorporate the changes into the assembly line so only a few were accomplished at the bases by maintenance. Reliability did improve greatly but was too late thank god.
Just think if the same political pressure for the B-29 was applied to the he177......fortunately I like sauerkraut and bratwurst washed down with a bitte ein Bit or Konigsbacher.

Just to complete this part of the thread I have cross referenced the claims with the details as listed in the Bomber Command War Diary.
Before I go any further, I don't want anyone to think that I am knocking the pilots who made the claims. I am confident that these were made with the best possible intentions and the firm belief that they were true. Accurate claims were always difficult to achieve and aircraft identification in the heat of battle is tricky. All countries had similar problems.

1489 20.06.42 Fw. Heinrich Nöcker: 3 3./JG 1 Mosquito  westl. Helgoland 13.54 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630
No Mosquito's flew any combat missions this day

1643 02.07.42 Uffz. Almenröder aka. Nocker 3./JG 1 Mosquito  7587: 28 km. S.W. Helgoland: 5 m. 13.54 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. 56
1646 02.07.42 Fw. Heinrich Nöcker: 3 3./JG 1 Mosquito westl. Helgoland 13.54 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630
2 Mosquito's were lost one to fighters and one to AA fire. The AA casualty crash landed in Germany and the crew were POW.

1679 11.07.42 Uffz. Herbert Biermann: 3 2./JG 1 Mosquito  Flensburg 19.09 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630
1 Mosquito was lost in this area, it was thought due to flying into the ground but certainly could be to fighters. Note one Mosquito hit a chimney and came home with part on the chimney in the co pilots lap.

1683 12.07.42 Ofw. Erwin Leibold: 11► 3./JG 26 Mosquito  Licques (Pas-de-Calais) 14.35 Film C. 2036/II Nr.104207/43
No Mosquito's flew any combat missions this day

2581 14.09.42 Fw. Anton-Rudolf Piffer: 1 11./JG 1 Mosquito  Osnabrück: 8.500m. 14.41 Reference: 1 JG 1 Lists f. 630
Mosquito's did fly combat missions but without loss

2662 19.09.42 Fw. Rudolf Piffer: 1► 11./JG 1 Mosquito  7349D9: 6.000 m. (Osnabrück) 14.41 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr.1
1 Mosquito was lost to a fighter

1799 28.07.42 Uffz. Karl Bugaj 11./JG 1 Mosquito  6238/ 05 Ost: 5.800 m. North Sea 19.50 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.9
1 Mosquito was lost

1809 29.07.42 Oblt. Reinhold Knacke 1./NJG 1 Mosquito  5243: 8.000 m. 01.10 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.53
Mosquito's did fly combat missions but without loss

1939 01.08.42 Uffz. Karl Bugaj: 2► 11./JG 1 Mosquito  nördlich Langeoog 13.18 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630
1 Mosquito was lost

2023 15.08.42 Uffz. Max Kolschek: 1 ► 6./JG 1 Mosquito  5 km. N.W. Ghent 14.20 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630
1 Mosquito was lost

2202 19.08.42 Ltn. Gerd Steiger 2./JG 1 Mosquito  10 km. N.E. Scharmbeck: 8.800 m. 15.48 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.45
2205 19.08.42 n.n. (6 abschuss) 2./JG 1 Mosquito  Bremerhaven 16.15 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630
1 Mosquito was lost this day on a mission to Bremen

2375 29.08.42 Ofw. Wilhelm Philipp: 22 ► 4./JG 26 Mosquito  15-20 km. S.E. Hastings: tiefflug 12.53 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. -
2379 29.08.42 Ofw. Philipp 4./JG 26 Mosquito IV  Sea: S.E. Hastings: No. 105 Sqn. 12.53 22. Reference JG 26 List
2391 29.08.42 Ofw. Philipp 4./JG 26 Mosquito IV  Sea: S.E. Hastings: No. 105 Sqn. 12.53 22. Reference JG 26 List
1 Mosquito was lost this day, another force landed at base

2448 06.09.42 Fw. Roden: 1 ► 12./JG 1 Mosquito  41/2/8 F7: 9.000 m. 18.30 -Film C 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1
1 Mosquito was lost

2464 Night Phase: 6-7. September 194206.09.42 Fw. Roden 12./JG 1 Mosquito  4128F7: 9.000 m. 18.30 - C2036/I Nr.
No Mosquito's flew any combat missions this night

2501 08.09.42 Ltn. Strohal 12./JG 1 Mosquito  622 8D3: 9.200 m. 19.03 -Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 2*
2506 08.09.42 Ltn.Strohal: 1 12./JG 1 Mosquito  - 19.03 -Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630
No Mosquito's flew any combat missions this day

2822 09.10.42 Fw. Fritz Timm: 1► 12./JG 1 Mosquito  - 08.05 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr.3
1 Mosquito was lost

2841 11.10.42 Uffz. Günther Kirchner: 3 5./JG 1 Mosquito  2 km. westl. Utrecht 18.32 Reference: JG 1 List f. 631
2842 11.10.42 Uffz. Max Kolschek: 2 4./JG 1 Mosquito  westl. Hoek-van-Holland 19.05 Reference: JG 1 List f. 631
1 Mosquito was lost this day

3012 06.11.42 Ltn. Heinz Knoke: 2 2./JG 1 Mosquito  50 km. nordl. Helgoland: 50 m. 14.55 Reference: JG 1 List f. 631
No Mosquito's flew any combat missions this day. Interesting note. 14 Wellingtons and 5 Lancaster's did daylight raids on Essen, Osnabruck and Wilhelmshaven, while 12 Bostons bombed an airfield at Caen and 10 Venturas carried out raids to Holland. The only casualties were three Venturas.

3400 22.12.42 Flak: 2. lei.Abt. 847 I-III. Zug 2./847 Mosquito £ E. Axel: 50 m. (Zeeland) 16.47 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr. - - C.2027/I
1 Mosquito was lost this day

So to sum up we seem to have 12 losses that match claims

tnx for repliing to my scoring table at the end of page 58.

Crew I was mentioning to put efficiency in effect. The number or crew aboard a plane is in direct relation to the ergonomics of the aircraft. For instance the Mossie had a crew of 2 while a B17 had a crew of 10. Thus you could outfit 5 Mossies with the same crew. And thus deliver more bombs. However more crew means also better protection (in theory at least).

I rather discus if crew is a viable factor in how good an airframe is compared to other points. I think we can compare number built as a vable way of how liked the airframe is, only by looking at the other bombers from the same airforce (US and Russia built more bombers than the Japs).

Lets talk about what our dream bomber would look like and then match the ww2 era bombers to it.

P.s. I'm not going to advocate for any1 bomber, simply cause I do not know enough of each.

looney said:

Crew I was mentioning to put efficiency in effect. The number or crew aboard a plane is in direct relation to the ergonomics of the aircraft. For instance the Mossie had a crew of 2 while a B17 had a crew of 10. Thus you could outfit 5 Mossies with the same crew. And thus deliver more bombs. However more crew means also better protection (in theory at least).

Click to expand...

No. you cannot crew 5 mossies with the 10 men from a B-17. Pilots and Navigator/bombardiers require much more training than air gunners and not every airman can qualify for pilot. In fact in the US service many navigators and bombardiers were men who had "washed out" of flight school to be pilots. Some ground crewmen were aircrew 'wanna be's' (in a good sense) who found that they got violently air sick in some of the confined backwards facing crew positions in some of these bombers.

You cannot supply 3-5 times the number of pilots without a massive change in the whole training program. Including building many more multi engined trainers.

looney said:

I rather discus if crew is a viable factor in how good an airframe is compared to other points. I think we can compare number built as a vable way of how liked the airframe is, only by looking at the other bombers from the same airforce (US and Russia built more bombers than the Japs).

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Number built is subject to emotion and interpretation. While we know haw many were built we don't always know why.
Was a B-24 easier to build than a B-17? or cheaper?
Did it promise better performance?
Remember that the planning and contracts for many planes had to done/signed several years before the planes could really prove themselves in combat. It could also take months to change a factory over from one type to another (and in the case of the B-24/B-17 you also have to change the engine factories over as they used different engines or try to design a version of which ever plan you choose to other engine). If the Americans had discovered in late 1943/early 1944 that the B-17 was markedly better than the B-24 how much choice did they have in changing factories/contracts to alter production totals by thousands of bombers by the end of the war?

Some good points here. I would suggest that Pilots and Navigators need the same level of training and the others a third or a half. Its rough and ready but you have to start somewhere. I would ignore cost as it depended on so many factors such as production runs and development costs plus the money available to the country involved. The USA could afford almost anything but the British and Germans couldn't. Also the labour Russian and German labour would be much cheaper than British or US.

Just any bomber could not deliever the A bomb unless it was a suicide mission. The bomber needed to be fast enough and high flying enough to escape the blast effect of the bomb, not to mention big enough to carry it.