The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Glider]

We had nuclear depth charges on HMS Tiger, to be dropped using Sea Kings and or Wasps, but I admit I always believed that this must have been pushing the luck of the air crews.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep - just flying around with them could be a but "unnerving"

 

[syscom3]

The "Baker" underwater shot during Operation Crossroads in 1946 used a 22 KT nuke detonating 180ft underwater. Look at the damage it produced. I dont think a helicopter would stand a chance in dropping a nuke depth charge.

 

[Glider]

The nuclear depth charge had a variable charge, so the lower the depth of water, the lower the charge. If I remember correctly it varied from 1 to 10 KT but I do agree, it would be a nail biting moment.

 

[pbfoot]

They've become so much smaller over time

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I'd like to pitch up in support of the Lancaster being the best bomber of WWII...

 

[syscom3]

I'd like to pitch up in support of the Lancaster being the best bomber of WWII...

Good god ... is that the real Lancaster Kicks Ass?

 

[Ratsel]

Easy. JU 88. Bar none.

 

[syscom3]

Easy. JU 88. Bar none.

Why's that?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'd like to pitch up in support of the Lancaster being the best bomber of WWII...

There is the Lanc I remember...

Easy. JU 88. Bar none.

Yeah okay.

Certainly one of the most verstatile and best aircraft of the war, but in the bomber role it was hardly the best.

Is there anything not built in Germany, that you would consider the best? Just asking...

 

[parsifal]

Germany was very good at military engineering, and their equipment reflected that. But excellence comes with a price.

The Ju88 was an outstanding aircraft, unquestionably. Versatile, capable, but still limited. It very much represented the compromises made in the German procurement machine in the lead up to the war. Its capability should be neither under or over estimated.

Saying it was the best, bar none is, in my view a clear over-estimation. Without introducing the contention of comparing it to types of foreign manufacture, there are german types that outshone the Ju88. My own favourite was the Ar 234, but even the Ju188, or HS 129 were better in my view.

 

[Shortround6]

Aw, common, the Hs 129? as a bomber? even as a ground support machine it had a number of flaws.

 

[parsifal]

I dont draw any distinction between ground support or general purpose level bombers, other than one was specialized and the other was not. Same reason I would include torpedo bombers in this general category of "best bomber". (this is a similar discussion about best artillery piece.....the thread title doesnt say best heavy bomber, or best strategic bomber, or best level bomber....just best bomber.....which means best at what????). The HS 129 was one of those pieces of German kit that actually was built to maximise resources....in this case using foreign manufactured engines that were not really being used for any other purpose. The type used highly innovative cannon armament that provedd very effective against its intended targets. So it was cheap and effective.....similar to items like the MG 42, the MP38 and the Ju87 and Me109, but unlike items like the Tiger, Panther Me262, or their K-18.

 

[Shortround6]

I am not at all sure that bit of very specialized kit, no matter how good it is at it's particular niche, deserves to be rated at the top (or near to it) in a general category. This sort of like claiming a very specialized AT gun (like the German 75mm/55mm taper bore) was the best artillery piece.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Good god ... is that the real Lancaster Kicks Ass?

Of Course, did you miss me? Are you willing to admit yet that the Lanc's better than the B-24?

 

[syscom3]

In the ETO, it was the better of the three main types. PTO is still a B24 affair.

 

[Ratsel]

There is the Lanc I remember...
Is there anything not built in Germany, that you would consider the best? Just asking...

Not really. But if I must pick one, the Boeing B-17 practically won the war in the ETO. So I would pick that one. Even though it was limited in what it could do besides drop bombs.

 

[woljags]

overall my vote would be for the Lancaster just because the best types aircraft still used for each job fighters and bombers a like were still used in service well after the war ended,i do have a soft spot for the B24 but by the end of the war the americans had B29's and don't forget 2 B29's finished the war with just 2 bomb raids and the bomb,i think i'm right in saying nothing else could have carried it to its target but stand to be corrected by people with more knowledge

 

[syscom3]

Not really. But if I must pick one, the Boeing B-17 practically won the war in the ETO. So I would pick that one. Even though it was limited in what it could do besides drop bombs.

The USSBS showed that the Lanc was superior in the categories that counted ... payload, bomb types and percentage of hits on target.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not really. But if I must pick one, the Boeing B-17 practically won the war in the ETO. So I would pick that one. Even though it was limited in what it could do besides drop bombs.

B-17 won the war in ETO? That is surely backed by some master/doctoral thesis?