The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

He said he was not going to bother, so i did it for him. Just a flaming statement designed to get us going.......

You and i both know it was a great bomber, very versatile, and effective. But there is no way that it can be claimed as the best bomber bar none....even if you were to break bomberws down into more specialized categories.

Even as a medium or divebomber it is not the best....one of the best yest, but THE best....no
 
parsifal said:
He said he was not going to bother, so i did it for him. Just a flaming statement designed to get us going.......

You and i both know it was a great bomber, very versatile, and effective. But there is no way that it can be claimed as the best bomber bar none....even if you were to break bomberws down into more specialized categories.

Even as a medium or divebomber it is not the best....one of the best yest, but THE best....no
Click to expand...


Winding you up by design mate. Mr Ratsel is good at that....
 
parsifal said:
He said he was not going to bother, so i did it for him. Just a flaming statement designed to get us going.......

You and i both know it was a great bomber, very versatile, and effective. But there is no way that it can be claimed as the best bomber bar none....even if you were to break bomberws down into more specialized categories.

Even as a medium or divebomber it is not the best....one of the best yest, but THE best....no
Click to expand...

I don't think we will get a response with facts, because as you and I know, it is not true.

Let try not to flame though...:)
 
Wasn't the B-29 maybe too big for the ETO? How long does it take a fully loaded B-29/Lancaster to reach their maximum height, take it that the B-29 would have to circle instead for climbing over mainland Europe and Luftwaffe, or am I wrong?
 
Lucky13 said:
Wasn't the B-29 maybe too big for the ETO? How long does it take a fully loaded B-29/Lancaster to reach their maximum height, take it that the B-29 would have to circle instead for climbing over mainland Europe and Luftwaffe, or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't too big.

8th AF B-17s and B-24s would climb over England as each group joined the formation until the formation was complete. This could take hours and would allow the attack altitude to be reached, or nearly so, before heading off to the target. I assume that B-29s and/or B-32s would have gone trough the same process, at least initially.

I think that 8th AF tactics would quickly evolve to make better use of the strengths of the B-29 - speed and altitude.

The only proviso on the size would be the length of the concrete runways that had been prepared in the UK. They were designed around B-17s and B-24s, and I wonder whatthe diference was in take off between those three. Though in Europe the B-29 would rarely, if ever, need a full fuel load, which may have mitigated the problems the B-29 was having in the PTO with overload takeoffs.
 
Lucky13 said:
Well, since it's all seem bugged down around the Lancaster and the B-29, I was wondering....

1. How many missions did each type fly?
2. What's tonnage dropped by each type?
3. What's the percentage in accuracy for each type?
4. Survivability for each type?
5. Mission abort percentage for each type?
6. Adaptability for each type and different missions?
7. Ease of maintenance for each type?

Can probably think of a few more.....

How did the B-29 compare to the Lancaster and flying night missions?
Click to expand...


If anyone has the report that was prepared in 1943 which compared the Mosquito and Lancaster in terms of bombing efficiency, it would be interesting to see the criteria that was used.

At the moment I can think of only a few criteria which could be used to compare bombers, specifically the B-17 and B-29.

Code: 
Criteria                          B-17          Lancaster           B-29
Crew (normal)                       10                  7             11  
Maximum Internal Bomb Load       9,600lb           14,000lb       20,000lb
Maximum Internal Bomb size       2,000lb           12,000lb          ???
Defensive armamemnt          13 X 0.50mg        8 x 0.303mg    10 x 0.50mg
                                                                  1 x 20mm
Range                            2,000mi            3,000mi	       3,250mi
Maximum Speed                      287mph             280mph         357mph
Service Ceiling                 35,600ft           23,500ft       33,600ft
Rate of Climb                      900ft/min          ???            900ft/min
Cost                        US$238,329         £45-50,000     US$639,188

These numbers are from Wiki and may not be 100% accurate. For instance the range of the Lancaster is given with a low bomb load as 3000 miles, whereas I would expect around 1800 miles with normal bomb load. The ceiling for the B-29 I would have expected to be higher, and its range longer with a normal bomb load.

But it is a start. Any other criteria, not related to the aircraft's actual service, that we could use? Can anyone convert UKP of the 1940s to USD?

Also, while the Lancaster could carry the Tallboy comfortably in terms of weight it could not carry them without modification, and the Grand Slam required even more modification. It could, however, carry the 12,000lb HC bomb internally without mods. The B-29 could not carry the Tallboy internally, nor the Grand Slam.
 
Last edited:
wuzak said:
Also, while the Lancaster could carry the Tallboy comfortably in terms of weight it could not carry them without modification, and the Grand Slam required even more modification. It could, however, carry the 12,000lb HC bomb internally without mods. The B-29 could not carry the Tallboy internally, nor the Grand Slam.
Click to expand...


Bingo.
 
Shortround6 said:
We are back to comparing the war record. Due to numbers built and time served this can lead to some rather absurd conclusions. Like comparing the Blenheim to the A-26.

1. How many missions flown by each during WW II?
2. what was the tonnage dropped by each in WW II?
3. Accuracy? measured how?
4. Survivabilty? Ok the A-26 gets this one :)
5. Mission abort????
6 Adaptability Paragraphs on this one,
7. Ease of maintenance?? Blenheim wins hands down. Two 9 cylinder engines vs two 18 cylinder engines put it far ahead to begin with :)

In three out of seven catagories the Blenheim is way ahead. Does this mean that the Blenheim is a better light bomber than the A-26? NO WAY.

It may have done more to help win the war with thousands built vs hundreds (during the war) and serving for years vs months. I don't think that means it was a better or more capable aircraft.

I know that these are not the bombers under discussion at the moment, just pointing out that a methodology that relies too heavily on war record can give some strange results.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with this, but the flip side is just as convincing....if the war could be won with just sticks and rocks, why go to the trouble of a complex solution? Is not achieving the mission with the simplest, cheapest, most survivable aircraft a prefereable option over a design that does the same thing but costs a bucket to design annd build? Why is it that "best" has to be equated to "most expensive" or 'heaviest" or "most complex". on that basis the He177 was abetter aircraft than the Ju88. I dont believe that it was.

The problem is with the thread parameters....what exactly does "best" mean???? it means different things to different people. My favourite discussion that revolves "best tank of WWII" which inevitably devolves to the quality verus quantity argument....do you have 100 Panthers, or 1000 Shermans....which is the better tank????

I dont have an answer for this conundrum, and i admit i am not even consistent in my own thinking. i happen to think the T-34 was the best tank of WWII....a quantity based argument, but then I happen to think the b-29 was the best bomber of WWII....a quality and technology based argument....go figure that. Oh, and its not because the panther is German, whilst the B-29 is American. I happen to think the best MG was the MG 42, the best SMG was the MP38, and the best side arm the the STG44.
 
As William Green put it:
"Many aeroplanes of the Second World War became famous; few were truly great. Greatness is a quality that cannot be instilled in an aircraft on the drawing board or the assembly line. A great aircraft must have that touch of genius which transcends the good, and it must have luck - the luck to be in the right place at the right time. It must have flying qualities above the average; reliability, ruggedness and fighting ability, and, in the final analysis, it needs the skilled touch of crews to whom it has endeared itself. All these things the Lancaster had in good measure."
 
Lucky13 said:
As William Green put it:
"Many aeroplanes of the Second World War became famous; few were truly great. Greatness is a quality that cannot be instilled in an aircraft on the drawing board or the assembly line. A great aircraft must have that touch of genius which transcends the good, and it must have luck - the luck to be in the right place at the right time. It must have flying qualities above the average; reliability, ruggedness and fighting ability, and, in the final analysis, it needs the skilled touch of crews to whom it has endeared itself. All these things the Lancaster had in good measure."
Click to expand...

Well said sir.
 
You know I looked at the first pages of this thread and it seemd like tere was a pretty good battle going on between some people in here.

So I looked up some numbers for the entire war and came up with the following:

1) Lancaster: Bomber sorties: 148,403 (not the 156.192 for all sorties) , losses: 3,832, loss / 1000 sorties: 20.8, tons bombs: 608,612, tons / sortie: 4.1
2) B-24: Bomber sorties: 226,775 (in Europe, 1942 - 1945) , losses: 3.626, loss / 1000 sorties: 16.0, tons bombs: 452,508, tons / sortie: 2.0
3) Hallifax: Bomber sorties: 73,312 (not the 82,773 for all sorties) , losses: 2,232, loss / 1000 sorties: 30.4, tons bombs: 224,207, tons / sortie: 3.1

Please don't quibble with the numbers unless the changes are significant. If not significant, the general stuff that follows won't change.

So, it looks to me as if the B-24 is the safest to fly on a combat sortie but not by a great margin, the Lancaster delivers twice the bomb tonnage per sortie, with the Hallifax being more dangerous to fly per mission but still delivering more bombs per sortie than a B-24.

As a Prime Minister, I'd opt for the Lancaster for bombs delivered. As a crew member, I'd opt for the B-24 as safer but, again, not by a large margin ... could go either way. For maritime pattrol, I'd opt for air cooled engines as not susceptible to failure due to coolant issues. For other missions, I'd probably take the Lamcaster for per-mission effitiveness (bombs per sortie).

After the war, the B-24's were taken out of service, not due to any aircraft shortcomings, but due to not needing a huge strategic air force after the war was over. We weren't going to be bombed anytime soon by anybody, as far as we knew. We still had B-29's (perceived as our best bomber, and the war's heavyweight champion) and B-17's (very well though of) if needed, plus a few medium bombers to fall back on. Really, we didn't need 3 or 4 types of heavy bomber in 1946. Likewise, we retired a lot of piston fighters while still keeping a few types around, notably Mustangs and Corsairs.

The Lancasters were kept in service because there were still a bunch left after the war and it was perceived, not incorrectly, as the best British heavy bomber of the war still in service. The Brits needed SOME bomber, why not choose their best one? We did! The British loved Lancasters like we loved the B-17 and flew them until the first-gen jet bombers were in service. They gave yeoman service and did everything asked of them.

There was no hatred of the B-24 after the war, it became superfluous to the military needs of the USA and was removed from service as a simple economic result.

I didn't post this to restart a fight.

I think both planes did very well in the war. The Lancaster unquestionably carried more bombs per sortie, but wasn't safer in combat or as long ranged. But if you needed to fly a mission that was outside the normal range of the Lancaster, you could drop the bomb load and add fuel or take B-24's. I believe the British did both as dictated by the situation at the time and resources available to the commander.

While I am American and feel I shoud, "take up the cause" for the B-24, in reality I am also a Lancaster fan. Looking at it from a hopefully unbiased viewpoint, the USA had more heavy bomber types to choose from. We had the B-29, the B-17, and B-24. The B-25, and B-26 were also available for some missions. The P-38's could be presed into carrying bombs too, as could any number of fighters, but not much bomb load.

The British had the Lancaster and Hallifax. The Short Sterling wasn't a great success and neither was the Whitley or Hampden. So they really had two heavy bombers and several great ships like the Mosquito and Beaufighter / Blenheim that could be pressed into being medium bombers, but they generally had fewer choices. It happens when you get bombed on a regular basis during several years in a long war. Part of the reason the US had more choices and more production was lack of attack from above by anything heavier than pigeons.

All in all, I think the British made their best choice after the war was ove in keeping the Lancasterr, and so did the USA in keeping the B-29. We were still flying B-29's well into the 1960's, about as long as the faithful Lancs served England and went on serving in the guise of Shackletons into the 1970's. People may SAY the Shacks weren't Lancs, but they were close relatives if not, and also did great service. Neither type need be embarassed of the war record and both were good planes for what they were asked to do at the time. I think the Lancaster was better on a one-on-one basis, but there were a LOT of Liberators in the theater. Was a Lancaster better than two Liberators? Maybe, but I don't think by a large margin. And we had both Lancasters and two Liberatos per Lancaster available. Life was good for a commander who had those options!
 
One element that is worth including here is cost.

As unreliable as Wiki can be - and please, anyone who knows better feel free to correct if wrong - they list unit costs as follows

- Lancaster................£45,000 - £50,000
- Boeing B17.............$238,329
- Boeing B29.............$639,188
- Consolidated B24 -..$297, 627

Whether or not those numbers are entirely accurate is a little besides the point, the general truth is obvious.
Lancaster gave vastly more bang for buck.....and to a nation pressed for finance it was exactly what was needed in that regard, surely?

(sadly I couldn't find a costing for the Halifax)
 
GregP said:
All in all, I think the British made their best choice after the war was ove in keeping the Lancasterr, and so did the USA in keeping the B-29. We were still flying B-29's well into the 1960's, about as long as the faithful Lancs served England and went on serving in the guise of Shackletons into the 1970's. People may SAY the Shacks weren't Lancs, but they were close relatives if not, and also did great service. Neither type need be embarassed of the war record and both were good planes for what they were asked to do at the time. I think the Lancaster was better on a one-on-one basis, but there were a LOT of Liberators in the theater. Was a Lancaster better than two Liberators? Maybe, but I don't think by a large margin. And we had both Lancasters and two Liberatos per Lancaster available. Life was good for a commander who had those options!
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Brits used the B-29 as well until the Canberra and V bombers started coming into service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
1
Views
141
EwenS
E
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
1K
dedalos
D
INTX7568
The best fighter of the 1930s
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
9K
bf109xxl
B
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
3K
NTGray
NTGray
fannum
A query I sent to my Midwest aviation gang - WWII bomber growth
Replies
0
Views
496
fannum
fannum
Back