 | Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3| Old Threads Discuss Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3 in the Old Stuff forums; 1) B29
2) B17, Lancaster
3) B24, Halifax... |
|
07-28-2005, 12:20 PM
|
#136 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 534
| 1) B29
2) B17, Lancaster
3) B24, Halifax | 
| | |
07-28-2005, 02:45 PM
|
#137 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,587
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by cheddar cheese I dont...B-17 or B-24.... | I thought you liked Twin tails? What up with that? 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 03:18 PM
|
#138 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:  | 
and smokey, why do you put the B-17 so high?? she was not on a par with the lanc............
__________________ 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 03:21 PM
|
#139 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,061
Country: | My list is reasonable based off A) Ability B) Combat record C) Impact.
The B-29 wins hands down on ability, it's combat record wasn't massive but it had a huge impact. The Lancaster is second in ability, and a great combat record and impact on the war in Europe (but not in Pacific). The B-24 dropped more tonnage than any other bomber of the war, it was third in overall ability and a great impact on all theatres. B-17 was good, had impact in both ETO and PTO but was not MASSIVE and had an impressive combat record. The Halifax was a decent bomber, with decent combat record and not a massive impact.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004  To those in that club. | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 03:24 PM
|
#140 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | that's fair enough, i'm baising mine more on ability...........
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 03:28 PM
|
#141 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ Quote: |
Originally Posted by cheddar cheese I dont...B-17 or B-24.... | I thought you liked Twin tails? What up with that? | I dont like ugly faces  A bird may have the biggest control surfaces in the land but thats all gone to waste with an ugly face
__________________  with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 03:40 PM
|
#142 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 534
| The Lancaster seems to be more maneuvrable (corkscrew) and has a larger bombload, the B17 seems to have an extremely tough airframe and tough radial engines, and is better armed
So they seem about equal | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 03:41 PM
|
#143 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,587
Country: | You got a point! 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 03:43 PM
|
#144 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Saffron Walden/Sheffield
Posts: 3,001
Country: | B-17 has a much smaller bombload though, I always thought that the point of a bomber was to get bombs to a target so more bombs in a plane= a better plane
__________________ 
When you realise that the light at the end of the tunnel is actually an oncoming train, you know it's time to run for your life | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 03:50 PM
|
#145 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 534
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by mosquitoman to get bombs to a target | The B17s extreme toughness and good armament help alot here | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 04:03 PM
|
#146 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | yes but what's the point in getting there, if you're gonna do barely any damage??
yes, the lanc couldn't take as much damage as a B-17, but she'd take you further, slightly faster and she'd cause more damage! and if you think all them defensive guns made her invincible, you're wrong
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 04:12 PM
|
#147 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass yes but what's the point in getting there, if you're gonna do barely any damage?? | Send more of them! 
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 04:25 PM
|
#148 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | there is no logic in sending numerous B-17s to do the same job as a single lancaster, when some of the B-17s will be lost anyway........
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 04:57 PM
|
#149 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,178
| The planes have to return after the raid to. I heard on 1 documentary so I take it with some skepticizum, that the worst loss of the Lanc was 103 planes one mission and the B-17 was 60 on 1 mission.
One thing though at night the target could not be located so area bombing of infrastructure was the focus. During the day the targets could be identified and strategic targets could be hit. Bombing in general had other problems to:
1. Bomb drift, Todays bombs are only capable of 6mil accuracy or +/-6ft per thousand feet dropped. At 22,000ft thats 120ft in any direction. WWII bombs were much worse.
2. Variable drift from winds.
3. Bombsight/Bombadier accuracy.
4. Mass drops, All bombs in a group were dropped at the same time as the leader so any error in the lead drop was magnafied by the relative position of the bombers in a group.
Thr resources available would not support both RAF and AAF bombers flying either night or day missions together.
My questions are
a. which was more effective in destroying a specific target, Night mass bombings or Daylite Strategic bombing.
b. Which aircraft/strategy was more productive towards ending the war.
c. What would have been the best way to utilize both aircraft in ending the war.
wmaxt | |
| | |
07-28-2005, 05:07 PM
|
#150 | | "Shooter"
Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moorpark, CA
Posts: 12,880
Country: | I think both were used effectively and with good reason. Having the RAF bomb at night and the AAF by day made the raids round the clock, thereby denying any respite to bombings. Daylight bombing with the technology of the day was better for specific accuracy, but it was far from perfect. For specific, pinpoint targets, the Mosquito was the plane for that time. HIgh altitude heavies, day or night, were more area bombings.
__________________  http://www.vg-photo.com Wherever their bones may lie, the courage of heroes is consecrated in the hearts and engraved in the history of the free. Lt Col Honner DSO MC, 39th Commander speaking of the dead from the battle of Kokoda. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 AM. | | |
