Top ten Allies bomber

[Vincenzo]

As title
Bomber: land, with bomb bay, multi-engine, actual bombing in WW 2

ranks for max internal (and enclosed) bomb load (if same weight smaller bomb preference, if again same the older)
B-29: 9072 kg (40x227 kg)
B-32: 9072 kg (40x227 kg)
Lancaster: 7258 kg (1x1814 kg + 12x454 kg)
Stirling: 6350 kg (6x907 kg + 4x227 kg)
Halifax: 5897 kg (2x907 kg + 6x454 kg + 6x227 kg)
B-17: 5806 kg (8x726 kg)
B-24: 5806 kg (8x726 kg)
PB4Y-2: 5806 kg (8x726 kg)
Manchester: 4695 kg (4x862 kg + 2x454 kg + 3x113 kg)
Farman 222: 4000 kg (20x200 kg)

ranks for Take Off power available (if same power lesser engine preference, if again same the older)
B-29: 8800 (4x2200)
B-32: 8800 (4x2200)
Pe-8: 6800 (4x1700)
Lancaster: 6540 (4x1635)
Stirling: 6460 (4x1615)
Halifax: 6460 (4x1615)
PB4Y-2: 5400 (4x1350)
TB-3: 4800 (4x1200)
B-17: 4800 (4x1200)
B-24: 4800 (4x1200)

ranks for max internal fuel available, excluding tanks in bomb bay (if same the older)
B-29: 31260
B-32: 20668
Pe-8: ~18000
PB4Y-2: 15005
(DB-A: 14000)*
B-24: 10652
B-17: 10523
Stirling: 10247
Halifax: 9956
Lancaster: 9792
(TB-3: 7960)*

* is probable that the DB-A was used only as transport in WW2, so i add the next

ranks by production (recce included) post war variant excluded, maybe
B-24: ~18000
B-17: ~12500
Wellington: ~11500
Pe-2: ~11000
B-25: ~9800
Lancaster: ~7400
A-20: ~7000
DB-3/Il-4: ~6800
SB: ~6500
Halifax: ~5600

 

[Big Jake]

What's the point?

 

[Vincenzo]

To share data

 

[Schweik]

Unfortunately I don't have all this data to hand right away, but I think you need a few more objective stats like

CEP
Mission Loss Rate
Key battles won or lost
Maybe a few hard data points on performance and maneuverability

and some subjective ones like

Handling qualities
Popularity with pilots
Versatility

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What's the point?

The point?

It's a forum. The point of a forum is open discussion. People create threads with specific topics in an effort to spark this discussion.

If someone does not like a topic, or does not see the point in it, they don't have to post in that thread.

 

[Shortround6]

i would correct the American planes to start with, at least the B-17, B-24 and PB4Y.

The often quoted bomb load 12,600lbs or so requires eight 1600lb AP bombs. a bomb which, while well beloved by specification writers, was actually very little used in land combat.
In size it was actually smaller than the 1000lb GP bomb (at least in diameter and distance across fins) while holding less explosive that a 500lb GP bomb. Unless you needed to go through 5 in or more of armor or a crap load of concrete it was actually fairly useless. I believe only about 200 and some odd were dropped in Europe.

For the B-17 at least the max internal load was 8000lbs eight 1000lb (454kg) GP bombs.

 

[Schweik]

I wouldn't put any four engined bombers in my top 10

 

[MiTasol]

What's the point?

So people can compare the aircraft. From a quick glance the Lanc wins - small fuel load, large bomb load. To me range (Lanc had it) and cruise speed would be good additions. Maybe also the size of the largest single bomb carried

I have no doubt this post will get quite warm with various people trying to prove their favourite was the absolute best. That is good as it promotes thought and discussion (what most countries call a debate) of the pros and cons of all those types.

 

[GrauGeist]

What's the point?

If you have to ask that, than perhaps this is not the right forum for your interests.

That being said, I notice the aircraft being examined are all Allied types.

 

[Shortround6]

That being said, I notice the aircraft being examined are all Allied types.

Well, that is what the thread title says

 

[Vincenzo]

i would correct the American planes to start with, at least the B-17, B-24 and PB4Y.

The often quoted bomb load 12,600lbs or so requires eight 1600lb AP bombs. a bomb which, while well beloved by specification writers, was actually very little used in land combat.
In size it was actually smaller than the 1000lb GP bomb (at least in diameter and distance across fins) while holding less explosive that a 500lb GP bomb. Unless you needed to go through 5 in or more of armor or a crap load of concrete it was actually fairly useless. I believe only about 200 and some odd were dropped in Europe.

For the B-17 at least the max internal load was 8000lbs eight 1000lb (454kg) GP bombs.

all true, i've started a research for a uniform load of 200/250 kg class GP/HE bombs for both allies and axis bombers but is hard find data, and harder find data that are the same in different sources

 

[Vincenzo]

If you have to ask that, than perhaps this is not the right forum for your interests.

That being said, I notice the aircraft being examined are all Allied types.

some time ago i did a thread for the 5 best axis bomber, i upgraded to10 for the allies because they have much more bombers models

 

[TheMadPenguin]

objective stats:
CEP

This is more a function of the aerodynamics of the bombs, the weather (wind speed & direction & visibility of the target) and the make/mark of the bomb aiming equipment than of the bomber itself; The CEP of a bombing mission varies with the cohesiveness of the bomber flotilla.

Mission Loss Rate

This is more a function of the enemy and the ground crews than the plane itself, no?

Key battles won or lost

How would this be measured? Seems to be a subjective, not objective, measure.

Handling qualities
Popularity with pilots
Versatility

That'd be a good book to read.

 

[Schweik]

This is more a function of the aerodynamics of the bombs, the weather (wind speed & direction & visibility of the target) and the make/mark of the bomb aiming equipment than of the bomber itself; The CEP of a bombing mission varies with the cohesiveness of the bomber flotilla.

They have done tests comparing like with like in ideal conditions and otherwise. For example the US Navy did tests comparing the CEP of bombs dropped by Corsairs vs. SBD Dauntless and I think some other aircraft. There was a notable difference.

Hard to measure? Sure I don't know how many of these kinds of tests were done. Important? Yes, very. I would say critical. Tons and tons of bombs were dropped that did basically no material damage to the enemy. Some did damage to our own troops and military assets instead. So having some idea of the accuracy of the bombing is key to evaluating the merits of the bomber. Comparing them on the basis of tons of bombs carried is almost pointless in comparison (above a certain functional minimum). That is the mentality that lost the Vietnam War in fact.

This is more a function of the enemy and the ground crews than the plane itself, no?

No I don't think so, not entirely. Many aircraft operated in the same environments against the same enemy with basically the same ground crew. For example, A-20, Martin Baltimore and Bristol Blenheim in North Africa, but loss rates were wildly different. The Soviets famously compiled statistics on this comparing their various bombers on a loss per sortie rate, and noted for example significant changes to this number after they added defensive armament to the Il-2 attack bomber.

How would this be measured? Seems to be a subjective, not objective, measure.

Frankly there is always some subjectivity and / or random element to all data on WW2 aircraft. Even top speed and climb rate numbers varied widely by aircraft, ground crew, and decisions made by the pilots. But we also can say definitively there are some cases where a particular aircraft was critical to a given victory - Swordfish at Taranto, the SBD Dauntless at Midway, arguably the Stuka during the Battle of France and so forth.

That'd be a good book to read.

Factors like handling and popularity with pilots were known quantities during WW2. For example the Vaught Vindicator earned the nickname 'Vaught Vibrator' due to it's unpleasant flying qualities. Complaints about a wide variety of issues with the SB2C Helldiver almost ended that program, and led to a wide range of emergency fixes. If you looked at it on paper in many respects it looks better than an SBD (faster, better armed, heavier bomb load etc.) but it probably wasn't, overall.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

That is the mentality that lost the Vietnam War in fact.

I'd dispute this fact.
From my keyboard, we were asserting a political posture and conducting a police/defense action, the NVA were fighting a war to conquer, and were willing to spend the blood and money it took to win. So, we won every battle, and we lost the war. How well we bombed changed the price of victory, but was not the cause of victory.

 

[GrauGeist]

some time ago i did a thread for the 5 best axis bomber, i upgraded to10 for the allies because they have much more bombers models

I'll have to look for that thread, not sure how I missed it!

This Allied bomber thread should be a good one

Well, that is what the thread title says

On this cellphone, I miss some of the thread titles because the upper ad banners skew the text (I really miss my computers), so all I was able to make out was "Top (jumbled text) Bombers"

 

[Schweik]

I'd dispute this fact.
From my keyboard, we were asserting a political posture and conducting a police/defense action, the NVA were fighting a war to conquer, and were willing to spend the blood and money it took to win. So, we won every battle, and we lost the war. How well we bombed changed the price of victory, but was not the cause of victory.

Well, I don't agree we won all the battles, especially those where the North Vietnamese / Viet Cong were making extensive use of caves and underground tunnels. But if we want to debate Vietnam we definitely have to start another thread for that, it's way beyond the scope of this one.

My point however is that when it comes to the AIR WAR in Vietnam, and I would also say the Korean War as well, the most effective 'bombers' in terms of causing damage to the enemy, were not the ones carrying the most tonnage. B-29s in the Korean War carried a lot of bombs for their day, and B-52s carried a huge bomb load no doubt about it, the F-105 was no slouch either, but were they the most effective weapons of War on the Allied side? I think the tendency to look at the amount of tonnage dropped, and the massive amounts of earth moved along the Ho Chi Minh trail and so on, led to a false sense of accomplishment in Vietnam, and more broadly both during WW2 and in subsequent Cold War engagements. The Corsair, B-26, and F-9F were probably more conducive to winning battles than the B-29 in Korea, and the A-1 Skyraider was probably more useful than the B-52 in Vietnam.

Tactical bombers like the A-4 Skyhawk and the A-37, light aircraft like the OV-1 and OV-10, and of course the various helicopters may have actually mattered more in terms of successes (battles won) during the war.

In WW2, I'd say clearly the most important Allied bomber in the Pacific Theater was the SBD, as it won the battles which turned the tide of the war. Fighter bombers and other tactical aircraft like the TBF / TBM, the SB2C (as troubled as it was) and the various army bombers like the A-20, B-26 and B-25 also played important roles... the B-29 was obviously a devastating Strategic weapon but would it have ever managed to get in range without the tactical successes? B-17 and B-24 were used a lot but didn't seem that great at sinking ships or even destroying island bases for the most part. B-17 and particularly B-24 were good as an ASW / maritime patrol / recon aircraft but that is stretching the definition of 'bomber' a bit.

In the MTO I would say fighter-bombers and US light and medium designs such as the A-20 / DB-7, Martin 167 and 187, B-25, and A-36 dive bomber all played the most important roles. The B-24 was in the mix for sure and did some damage, as was the B-17, but I would not say they were decisive. The single most important bomber type I would say was the Martin 187 Baltimore in British use. The Wellington was also pretty important for longer ranged strikes.

The one area where the heavy bombers were arguably decisive was in NW Europe, but not until fairly late in the war. Arguably already past the tipping point. And it's also arguable how much of a difference they really made to the overall war effort. We know from post-war analysis the most telling Strategic raids were against oil infrastructure, but those were a relatively small number. Perhaps strikes on heavy water plants may have saved the day too, though it's debatable how far along German nuclear scientists actually were.

On the Russian front no US or British bomber types really made a difference. They used several but they were all basically relegated to second or third tier, the important bombers were the Il-2 and the Pe 2, later augmented by the Tu-2.

The battle of the Atlantic was won by Short Sunderlands, B-24s, and a motley assortment of other aircraft, but again mostly in the ASW role. The Swordfish for all it's antiquated features was clearly important in the early war.

 

[Schweik]

IMO the most important role of the heavy bombers was in forcing the Luftwaffe to fight, and defeating them in an attrition battle - though credit for their destruction is primarily at the hands of the fighter escorts. The bombers were basically the bait.

 

[soulezoo]

Curtis LeMay is rolling in his grave presently.

 

[MiTasol]

IMO the most important role of the heavy bombers was in forcing the Luftwaffe to fight, and defeating them in an attrition battle - though credit for their destruction is primarily at the hands of the fighter escorts. The bombers were basically the bait.

In some ways I agree but damaging the oil processing facilities and bearing factories etc no doubt helped. I was always surprised that the allies did not hammer other critical factories like aluminium plants. It is difficult to make aircraft without the main structural material.