Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
I'm curious as to why you chose the Baltimore in the MTO theatre. It's a plane I am not very familiar with.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.
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.
Agreed, plus, where's the Pe-2 or Tu-2 in all this?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.
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
There must be a "what if" thread around about using Lancasters in a daylight bombing role.
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.The Lancaster carried 22000lbs of bombs on operational sorties. What was the maximum carried by other 4 engined bombers during operational sorties?
Agreed, plus, where's the Pe-2 or Tu-2 in all this?
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.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.
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.
Curtis LeMay is rolling in his grave presently.
this 22,000 bomb, in other word the Grand Slam, was internal (and enclosed) bomb load?