Top ten Allies bomber

[Vincenzo]

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

CEP, performance and manoeuvrability, also handling qualities i can agree but find it and find it that can be compare it's hard work so i don't researched on it
mission loss rate, key battles are heavy influenced from many factors not related to bomber capability
popularity is influence from the pilots previously experience, if you came from a Ba.88 also a Ca.310 became popular
versatility is a bit vague, versatility in use as not a bomber? versatility in the load?

 

[SaparotRob]

The B-17 was one of the top ten. I'm not saying it was the best. The Lancaster has a strong claim as does the B-24. It just did it all and looked good doing it. I'm being real subjective here.

 

[SaparotRob]

The B-17 was one of the top ten. I'm not saying it was the best. The Lancaster has a strong claim as does the B-24. It did it all and looked good doing it.
I'd like to know why Schweik chose

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.

I'm curious as to why you chose the Baltimore in the MTO theatre. It's a plane I am not very familiar with.

 

[Schweik]

Well that's from reading the day by day combat reports from both sides for the course of four years, the Baltimore seemed to be the single aircraft which did the most damage on raids against the Axis while taking the fewest losses. Until I started reading those Mediterranean Air War books I had never even heard of it.

The Baltimore, like the Maryland, was made for the French prior to the war. I don't think the French got any though, they all went to the British. Eventually the British took over the production run and shaped it to suit their needs.

It was a skinny, high speed (300 mph top speed, with a max dive speed, as determined in postwar testing, of 0.72 mach) early war light bomber, very strongly made, stressed for turning, with a power to weight ratio better than some of the fighters in the Theater. It was temperamental on takeoff and required skilled piloting, and it's bomb load of 2,000 lbs was no better than later war fighter-bombers.

But once they had consistent fighter escorts, it's combat loss rate fell to almost nothing. This was important because it's not something you can say about many Allied bomber types at that time with or without escorts. And raids by Baltimores, especially against Axis airfields, seemed to result in more losses than any other type except maybe the B-24s, which were active in Theater for a much shorter time.

Overall it had a role pretty similar to the DB-7 / A-20, and similar performance and bomb load etc. as well, but because the US never used it and the British didn't make it, it got less press than most other types, in spite of the fairly important role it had in the Desert. It's cousin the Martin Maryland was also good, and was particularly suited for recon on the early war, but it seemed to have a little less potential for improvement and eventually started taking too many losses as a bomber. The Baltimore was substantially improved on the basis of British requests, they changed the dorsal defensive guns from the original open 7.7 mg to a twin .50 cal turret for example. I think the bomb load increased a bit too.

In some respects I think in British hands it eventually showed the promise that the (IMO, somewhat over-engineered B-26) never quite achieved. B-26s were also used side by side with Baltimores incidentally.

 

[Schweik]

Another nice pic of one where you can kind of see the shape, which is a bit like a Hampden

 

[macguba]

If I've learned one thing in my years of reading this kind of thing, it is that the big headline numbers don't matter very much. Nobody cares about the datasheet data, like the 'top speed' or the 'theoretical maximum bomb load'. By "very much" I mean "at all". And by "nobody" I mean "the enemy" .... and to a [much] lesser extent the air/ground crews.

The things that matter a little are the boring things, like reliability and maintainability. And they depend partly on how much damage a rookie fitter can do in 3 foolish, thoughtless, unsupervised seconds. Or how much vibration there is in the bomb aimer's compartment during a typical bomb run. (Remember, they fixed - fixed - 900 of these things for the Helldiver, and it was still a bit crap.}

Next level up are things like, do the crews get the feeling the wretched machine is trying to kill them? Or does it feel like it's on your side? And what state are you in when you get to the crux of the mission?

The most important stuff is nearly impossible to discuss because it is mired in a mixture detail and grand strategy. The bomb load you can take to Berlin on a cold night in September with the freezing level at 9,000 feet and a north-easterly airflow sounds like it's going to be the real question, but even that isn't. What matters is, with that bomb load and weather, can you get back to the Dutch coast again before it gets light? And if you can't, do we try and get faster engines or build airfields in Tunisia? And remember, that is likely to involve invading Tunisia.

Or to put it another way, if a firewatcher on the roof of the factory that's the target wouldn't care about it, neither should you.

Production stats, however, are a good start. Within the constraints of practicality - re-tooling time is an infinitely bigger issue than any Top Trumps datapoint - they mostly got it right.

--------------------------

To illustrate the point: I once asked a fighter pilot (Tornado F3 ... no arguments about whether that counts as a fighter, please!) whether the top speeds quoted everywhere - which I always found suspiciously high - were real.

'Oh yes', he said. 'But there are three conditions.

Firstly, you have to have the best cab, stripped down to the right configuration; only just enough fuel to pop up to the ideal height, do the run and come home; perfect weather and all that good stuff.

Secondly, the pilot must not have had any lunch.

Finally, and most importantly, you have to not want to use the engine again.'

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

*Read in the voice of a horse racing commentator* "Aaand, we're off to a good start here in this thread about the top ten Allied bombers of WW2..."

In these figures provided, the de Havilland Mosquito doesn't qualify, yet it was one of the outstanding bombers of the war. It should be in every list of the top ten bombers overall, of WW2.

 

[Schweik]

I agree 100% about the Mosquito

 

[GrauGeist]

In these figures provided, the de Havilland Mosquito doesn't qualify, yet it was one of the outstanding bombers of the war. It should be in every list of the top ten bombers overall, of WW2.

Agreed, plus, where's the Pe-2 or Tu-2 in all this?

 

[RCAFson]

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

The Lancaster carried 22000lbs of bombs on operational sorties. What was the maximum carried by other 4 engined bombers during operational sorties?

 

[SaparotRob]

No denying it, the Lancaster was one of the best. There must be a "what if" thread around about using Lancasters in a daylight bombing role.

 

[nuuumannn]

There must be a "what if" thread around about using Lancasters in a daylight bombing role.

I suppose you mean like the US 8th AF used the B-17s and B-24s? That'll be intriguing. The thing was, Lancasters flew lots of daylight raids, primarily raids against targets in France and occupied territories. Harris, that notorious bomber baron directed that ops over French territory should be during daylight and at low level to improve accuracy, primarily to avoid civilian casualties. The majority of these raids were considered a success. I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where exactly, dammit) that the percentage was something like nearly 30 percent of the Lancaster's operations were daylight raids.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Lancaster carried 22000lbs of bombs on operational sorties. What was the maximum carried by other 4 engined bombers during operational sorties?

That was for special ops...average loadout was 14,000 pounds (less if longer range) and if we qant to go down that road, the B-29 was capable of carrying two 22,000 pound grand-slams on external hardpoints.

It would appear that the spirit of the thread is aimed at averages, not exceptions.

 

[CORSNING]

Well, I am not much of a bomber guy. (That means I haven't researched enough to
be useful hear). But I gotta agree with nuuumannn. A slot must be opened up for
the Mosquito. I would put it somewhere in the lower middle of the top ten.
That is my two cents worth, carry on gentlemen.

 

[Schweik]

Agreed, plus, where's the Pe-2 or Tu-2 in all this?

They were in my list...

 

[SaparotRob]

I suppose you mean like the US 8th AF used the B-17s and B-24s? That'll be intriguing. The thing was, Lancasters flew lots of daylight raids, primarily raids against targets in France and occupied territories. Harris, that notorious bomber baron directed that ops over French territory should be during daylight and at low level to improve accuracy, primarily to avoid civilian casualties. The majority of these raids were considered a success. I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where exactly, dammit) that the percentage was something like nearly 30 percent of the Lancaster's operations were daylight raids.

Yes, that's what I meant. I knew the Lancaster had participated in daylight raids over France. I was thinking about deep penetration raids into Germany. Personally, and without any study, I think the Lancaster would have done as well as my beloved B-17.

 

[Vincenzo]

The Lancaster carried 22000lbs of bombs on operational sorties. What was the maximum carried by other 4 engined bombers during operational sorties?

this 22,000 bomb, in other word the Grand Slam, was internal (and enclosed) bomb load?

 

[Vincenzo]

That was for special ops...average loadout was 14,000 pounds (less if longer range) and if we qant to go down that road, the B-29 was capable of carrying two 22,000 pound grand-slams on external hardpoints.

It would appear that the spirit of the thread is aimed at averages, not exceptions.

the bomb load i indicated in the first post are not average are maximum possible* with closed bomb bay/baies

*excluding a ever possible wrong

 

[swampyankee]

Curtis LeMay is rolling in his grave presently.

There's a lot of things that should cause LeMay to be rolling in his grave, but if he's rolling because people are saying that tactical air operations are critical shouldn't be one of them. With conventional bombs, it's pretty much impossible to win a war without ground troops; with nuclear ones, the enemy may all be killed, but I'm not sure I'd count genocide as "victory" in any sane sense.

 

[swampyankee]

this 22,000 bomb, in other word the Grand Slam, was internal (and enclosed) bomb load?

If I recall, not really: it was too big to fit entirely within the bomb bay. On the other hand, I don't think any US bomber to see service in the ETO or Med could either the Tall Boy or the Grand Slam.