Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[carpenoctem1689]

True, the Model III lanc was similar to the previous one in just about every respect. While i like the Lancasters abilities as a bomber, i would just have to go with the B-17G. I love that aircraft, and even the name is awesome, "flying fortress". And dammit it was, ball turret, dorsal turret, chin turret and nose guns, and that awesome looking tail turret, along with windows in the sides of the fuesalague for guns. Theyre both good aircraft, and while statistically the Lancaster may have been a better bomber, in a daylight raid, i would much rather be in a B-17.

[V-1710]

The B-17 was the best high-altitude day bomber in the ETO. The Lancaster was the best low altitude night bomber in the ETO. It's as simple as that. The B-29 was technically the best heavy bomber of the war, I think.

[mosquitoman]

I would disagree with the B-17 being the best ETO daylight bomber and say that the B-24 was better

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by V-1710

The B-29 was technically the best heavy bomber of the war, I think.

No, the B-29 was absolutely the best heavy bomber of the war, PERIOD!

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

No, the B-29 was absolutely the best heavy bomber of the war, PERIOD!

Agreed FBJ, it had no equal (although the B-36 was almost ready)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed during WW2 the B-29 had absolutly no equal. Not even your beloved Lancaster Lanc was as good as the B-29. She was the most advanced heavy bomber to be see service in WW2.

[syscom3]

We should be debating on what was the 2nd best bomber of WW2

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed.

Here is a short comparison of the 3 aircraft that I think would be up for debate on that. Obviously these will not tell which aircraft was the best but still some interesting figures.

B-17

Crew: 10
Length: 74 ft 4 in (22.7 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft 10 in (31.6 m)
Height: 19 ft 1 in (5.8 m)
Wing area: 1527 ft² (141.9 m²)
Empty: 54,900 lb (24,900 kg)
Loaded: 72,134 lb (32,720 kg)
Maximum takeoff: 74,000 lb (34,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-1820-97 turbo-supercharged radials, 1,200 hp (895 kW)

Maximum speed: 300 mph (480 km/h).
Range: 3,400 miles (5,500 km)
Service ceiling: 35,600 ft (10,900 m)
Rate of climb: ft/min ( m/min)
Wing loading: 47.2 lb/ft² (231 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.0655 hp/lb (110 W/kg)

Armament
13× Browning M-2 0.50 calibre (12.7 mm) machine guns (with optional extra nose armament fitted in glazed nose)
8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of bombs

B-24

Crew: 7-10
Length: 67 ft 8 in (20.6 m)
Wingspan: 110 ft 0 in (33.5 m)
Height: 18 ft 0 in (5.5 m)
Wing area: 1,048 ft² (97.4 m²)
Empty: 52,200 lb (23,700 kg)
Loaded: 55,000 lb (25,000 kg)
Maximum takeoff: 65,000 lb (29,500 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 turbo-supercharged radials, 1,200 hp (900 kW)

Maximum speed: 290 mph (470 km/h)
Cruising speed: 215 mph (346 km/h)
Range: 2,100 miles (3,400 km)
Ferry range: 3,700 miles (6,000 km)
Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m)
Rate of climb: 1,025 ft/min (312 m/min)
Wing loading: 52.5 lb/ft² (256 kg/m²)
Power/mass: .0873 hp/lb 144 W/kg

Armament
10× .50 calibre (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns
12,800 lb (5,800 kg) of bombs

Lancaster

Length 69 ft 5 in 21.18 m
Wingspan 102 ft 31.09 m
Height 19 ft 7 in 5.97 m
Wing area 1,300 ft² 120.8 m²

Weights
Empty 36 828 lb 16,705 kg
Loaded 63,000 lb 28,636 kg

Powerplant
Engines 4 Rolls-Royce Merlin XX piston engines
Power 1,280 hp 954 kW
Performance
Maximum speed 280 mph at 15,000 ft 448 km/h at 5,600 m
Combat range 2,700 miles with minimal bomb load 4,320 km with minimal bomb load

Service ceiling 23,500 ft 8,160 m

Armament
Guns 8 x Browning 0.303 in (7.62 mm) machine-guns in three turrets
Bombs normal 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
special versions 22,000 lb (10,000 kg)

My breakdown is this on which aircraft had the advantage in what:

Speed: B-17
Range: B-17
Service Cieling: B-17
Bomb Load: Lancaster
Defensive Armament: B-17

Based on just these stats each aircraft had its advantages and disadvantages. I go with the Lancaster, B-17, and then B-24 as the 2nd, 34rd, and 4th best bombers of WW2. I still like the B-17 better than the Lancaster though.

[syscom3]

Maybe we need to add the B32 to the list.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Maybe we need to add the B32 to the list.

It was used in combat....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

While it would have proven to be a great bomber, I would not classify it as one of the best bombers of WW2 only because of its limited use. Had it been used more, I am sure it would second only to the B-29.

[FLYBOYJ]

I agree, I think many would of compared it to the same way the B-17 was compared to the B-24

[syscom3]

I have to agree with you regarding the B32. It didnt see enough action to be included.

Im still not decided on what #2 is. For each advantage the B17, B24 and Lanc has, its offset by a fault.

One thing I was thinking of, is if there was a version of the Lanc built with tandam cockpit seating and equiped with .50 cal turrets, that would have made it a true "ass kicker" in the PTO. The range and payload would allow it to fly all over the PTO and do some serious damage!

[FLYBOYJ]

It had potential, but I think it only participated in about a half dozen missions

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah but the Lancs range was not as good as the B-17's or the B-29's.