The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

personally the lancaster hands down (in the role of a heavy anyway) The B17 in my opinion gets nailed because it was a flying fortress and not a bomber.
The B 24 is nice but it has already pointed out why the Lanc was superior.
The B 29 did not see enough service sure it nuked Japan but that is quite differn't to going through germany for over 3 years dropping bombs while getting shot down by aircraft and flak.

How did the B-29 not see eneogh service. It flew over Japan for over a year and dropped plenty of bombs. Over Germany it would have been better than anything else because of its advanced technology and its ability to fly higher.

The B-29 is the best heavy bomber hands down and it really cant be argued.

[FLYBOYJ]

And not only did the B-29 drop bombs, it dropped mines through out Japan's waterways helping in the blockade of the country.

[lancaster mad]

So did the Lanc

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by lancaster mad

So did the Lanc

But not 1300 miles from base.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

And the Lib took bigger bombloads to Rabual Rangoon and numerous other places in the CBI and PTO and the Lib sank more subs then the Lanc and the Lib had the advantage of 2 pilots

I used that line of argument too. The B24 was the superior of the two in the PTO.

But, in Europe, the ultimate decider was the USSBS results which showed the Lanc was the better of the three types.

The main purpose of a bomber is to accurately place bombs on target. And the most and biggest is the winner.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by lancaster mad

So did the Lanc

The lanc was a great bomber and arguably the best in ETO (apart from that belly turret ), but the B29 was just half a generation further in development. It did prove it's worth against the Japanese homeland in the last year of the war. I'm not sure how it would have fared against the German air defence as it was much better than the Japanese but I suspect equally if not better than the B17, B24, Lanc and Halifaxes, but with a higher payload.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by lancaster mad

So did the Lanc

So did the Lanc what? Have the most advanced defensive fire control system in the world at that time? No. Carry the same bomb load at the same distances as the B-29? No. Fly the durations the B-29 had to do doing its bombing of Germany? No. Shall I keep going?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Man too bad Lanc is gone. He would love this guy!

[Civettone]

Even the P-38 was used as a strategical bomber, attacking the Ploiesti oil refineries.

And about the Lanc ... the Halifax was as good as the Lancaster but was around two years before the Lanc! And was more versatile. And faster...

Kris

[helmitsmit]

I think the Lancaster was the best heavy of the war (accept for maybe the B29 but that was very late on in the war). I mean it could carry 14,000lb to Berlin! And some very heavy special presents! 22,000lb Glam slam! With the B24 second. I don't rate the fortress at all! I read in "Mosquito stories" that the Fortress in order to get to Berlin could only carry 4,000lb at a speed of 200mph! Yet the pregnant mossie light bomber could carry a 4,000lb cookie to berlin at 300mph! and complete the trip in half the time! It also didn't waste millions of .50 rounds or five crew members (as it carry two crew compared with seven)

[helmitsmit]

I actually see the mosquito as the best bomber. Purely on a strategic view but still. It was the most efficient in terms of human life (only two crew), minimal time over enemy territory, hardest to shoot down, beautiful (oops that isn't strategic!), manoeuvrable, long range matched with very high cursing speed (higher cursing speed then a P51!), very cheap and easy to build, parts can be built in random places over the country so production less likely to be effected by enemy bombing, Hitler hated it (oops not strategic either!) and versatile.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by helmitsmit

I think the Lancaster was the best heavy of the war (accept for maybe the B29 but that was very late on in the war). I mean it could carry 14,000lb to Berlin! And some very heavy special presents! 22,000lb Glam slam! With the B24 second. I don't rate the fortress at all! I read in "Mosquito stories" that the Fortress in order to get to Berlin could only carry 4,000lb at a speed of 200mph! Yet the pregnant mossie light bomber could carry a 4,000lb cookie to berlin at 300mph! and complete the trip in half the time! It also didn't waste millions of .50 rounds or five crew members (as it carry two crew compared with seven)

Yet the B-24 had about the same crew as the B-17. Carried a bomb load comparable to the B-17 and as you say wasted millions of .50 rounds.

The B-17 was more dependable than the B-24 and overall a better bomber than the B-24.

I dont understand how you can rate the B-24 but not the B-17....

[helmitsmit]

because the liberator was useful in other less common bomber roles like mining and actually had much better range which was useful in the pacific war.

[Screaming Eagle]

but you can't beat the ruggedness of a B-17

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by helmitsmit

because the liberator was useful in other less common bomber roles like mining and actually had much better range which was useful in the pacific war.

The B-17 was as well. Infact the B-17 was probably used in more roles than the Liberator and flew better and was more rugged and dependable.