Henk
Master Sergeant
It is Ju-88 guys. If you say Bf-109 and not Me-109 it must thus be Ju-88 and not 88. Only 88 I know is the cannon, 88mm.
I would say the;
B-29, Ju-88 and the B-17.
I would say the;
B-29, Ju-88 and the B-17.
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
- Thread starter
- #142
syscom3
Pacific Historian
What I have been pondering the past several days is what makes up a great medium bomber.
For instance, the -88 was supurb in many roles, yet the A26 and B26 were both fast bombers, tough airframes and could carry a high payload. But that was for medium altitude operations. I wouldnt say either of them would make a good commerce raider or even hope to be a night fighter, so the -88 is superior there.
I also wonder how the -88 could handle the tough low altitude enviornment the B25 strafers had to operate in in the PTO.
Lots of things to pomder.
For instance, the -88 was supurb in many roles, yet the A26 and B26 were both fast bombers, tough airframes and could carry a high payload. But that was for medium altitude operations. I wouldnt say either of them would make a good commerce raider or even hope to be a night fighter, so the -88 is superior there.
I also wonder how the -88 could handle the tough low altitude enviornment the B25 strafers had to operate in in the PTO.
Lots of things to pomder.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
syscom3 said:
No, it had several advances over it´s competitors, with the most striking beeing faster:
-superior cockpit layout and -visiblity (according to post war RAF-tests), which eased cockpit operations. A very important point for a tactical bomber
-superior crit. Mach speed (.82)-allowed the plane to disengage in a dive
-very high degree of platform stability
-multirole compatible (with versions flying as recon, bomber, attacker and night fighter)
-all -234C and the post march1945 -234B beeing delivered with Askania computing bombsight (allows bomb dropping solutions for up to 1250 km/h TAS)
-plenty of space weight reserved for future developments as shown in the four engined -234C and swept back sichel wing -234 V27.
None of them is as striking as pure speed, but Your statement imply that it has noting comparable to other bombers except for speed, and to this I disagree.
Henk said:
Way off topic but the actual name of the 109 was the Bf-109 not the Me-109. After the change from the Bf to the Me, the 109 was the only one that kept the Bf.
syscom3 said:
I believe the Ju-88 was the best overall medium bomber but I will agree that the A-26 and the B-25 were better suited for the low level strafing and ground attack.
Henk
Master Sergeant
The Ju-88 are regarded as the best medium bomber and all round aircraft of WW2 and I have read it in many books and it proved it also such during the war.
Sorry for being off topic here, but Adler did the Bf-110 not also keep the Bf and not become the Me-110?
Sorry for being off topic here, but Adler did the Bf-110 not also keep the Bf and not become the Me-110?
I believe you are correct as well. The Bf-110 stayed the Bf-110. The general rule of thumb is this, everything passed the Bf-162 became the Me, hence the Me-163, Me-262.
Henk
Master Sergeant
Yes, correct Adler.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
k9kiwi said:
Robert Oppenheimerk9kiwi said:Who else but a genius pom would take a 33 foot long hole and build an airplane around it.
Oh wait, he just built the bomb that went in the 33 foot long hole, that being the B-29, the best bomber of WW2!!! 
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
the B-29's bomb bay was nowhere near as big or versatile as the lancaster's, there was no way she could've taken a tallboy internally, mostly because she actually had two separate bomb bays yes? whilst the B-29 was the better bomber the size of bomb bay and range of weapons it allowed to be carried is still one advantage the lanc had over the B-29, who had to carry outsized loads externally.............
There is also this one (although not in the bomb bay the lanc couldn't do this):
B-29 with 2 Tallboys (could also be Grandslams in the same positions). Source on right click.
VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS
B-29 with 2 Tallboys (could also be Grandslams in the same positions). Source on right click.
VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i struggle to believe the B-29 could take two grand slams, and quite what either of those pictures are supposed to prove is beyond me as i was simply commenting on their ability to carry internal loads, i actually explicitly said the B-29 had to carry outsized loads externally so again, what point are you trying to prove? do you actually think i wasn't aware of those two pictures they've been posted several times before.........
Those pictures prove the B-29 could carry just a diverse payload as the Lancaster. Mine proves the B-29 could carry the Tallboy and Grand Slam internally, or just as internal as the Lancaster. When the Lancaster had any of those bombs, they weren't any further in the bomb bay than they are on the B-29.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
only two weapons were ever carried semi-recessed in the lanc, the Upkeep, the riad for which it's questonable the B-29 could've completed anyway, and the Grandslam, tallboys and the 12,000lb HC bomb and the rest of her family could all be carried internally without any problems.........
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
firstly i don't count the simple job of replacing bomb doors as a problem and second most if not all tallboy carrying lancs had the bulged bomb bay long before the tallboy was used...........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
B-29's were flown and tested with 2 Tallboys on pylons - no sweat. There were also tests and plans to have it carry internally the 42,000 pound T-12. For that its bomb bay had to be modified. Testing in this configuration continued into 1946. Here's a site about it, good stuff....the lancaster kicks *** said:
VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS. Bomb, SAP, 25,000-lb, T28E4
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
