Best Bomber of ww2 - Page 3 - Aircraft of World War II

11-27-2004, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

Quote:

B-24 carried a little bigger payload a little further a little faster. But the B-17 was much more resiliant and able to survive much more damage, and had a little better gun arraingement.

the B-24 could take just as much damage as the B-17 and the gun arangement meant very little as even the up to 13MGs of the B-17 still offered little protection from fighters, the B-24 was the better bomber............

I disagree, the B-17 was known to be much more durable. The wing of the B-24 was particularly subject to folding up when taking hits at the root. It was also less fire-resistant. B-17's had better gun arcs, espeically beneath. The fixed ball turret was faster than the retractable ball, and many (maybe most) B-24's had no ball turret at all.

Good defensive armament was not particularly effective at killing enemy fighters, but it did make them change their attacks and thus make them less effective at killing the bombers.

=S=

Lunatic

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-27-2004, 06:01 AM

they still had a damn good chance of gettin a bomber though..............

Hot Space · 11-27-2004, 06:41 AM

The B-24 had it's Fuel Tanks above the Main Spar. Once, it was dead, m8

Hot Space

R Pope · 11-27-2004, 10:51 PM

All great planes, but the Lanc has to be #1, then B-17, Halifax, and B-24 tie for #2. B-29 was another generation, but rushing production caused too many problems.

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-28-2004, 09:45 AM

i see what you mean with the lanc but i still don't see why everyone rates the B-17 so highly, it was nothing special as a bomber, it's only good points were it's damage tollerance and maybe ceiling (i've left out defensive armourment and but a maybe on the ceiling because neither made it safe from attack).............

cheddar cheese · 11-28-2004, 01:26 PM

It made it safer. It was accurate too.

I fail to see how the Lancaster rates above the B-29, it was all the good points of the Lancaster with none of the bad points. Although it wasnt as successful this was only because it came late. If the 2 planes had seen the same amount of service you'd be telling a different story.

Adolf Galland · 12-06-2004, 10:48 PM

the b-17 is way more safer than the b-24 because the b-17 can somehow bring its crew back to england even if deep inside germany and missing a major component like if it losses 2 engines, losses half a wing, tail section COMPLETE blown off, etc, and i think that the b-29 IS the best bomber in the war, it's even safer that the b-17s and it can carry about more than twice the b-24 can carry(the b-24 is considered to be a heavy-bomber)

and about the he-111 does looks good, but its so sad compare to the US heavy bombers, lets put it this way:
# of 20MM shells to down one(normally)
He-111 5-10
B-24 20-30
B-17 35-45
B-29 50-65 (kinda chazy)

Adolf Galland · 12-06-2004, 10:49 PM

and i agreed w/ cheddar cheese

Cheap Labour · 12-06-2004, 11:13 PM

I was reading the memoirs of a B-24 pilot and he said that once you lost an engine in a B-24, everyone had better get their bail-out kit in gear because if you lost another one you were going down.

Not so with a '17.

BombTaxi · 12-07-2004, 12:34 AM

I read an account of a B24 campaign which also suggested that the Liberator was vulnerable to enemy fire, especially around the wing roots. Many pics you see of B24s going down show one or both wings folding too.

And Galland, Im sorry mate, but no aircraft could survive the kind of damage you're talking about. Half a wing or a whole tail gone? Its aerodynamically impossible for that a/c to keep flying. Even Boeing cant mess with the laws of physics!

Regarding the bomb-loads of the heavies, remember that the stats you see in many books are maximums, they had to be reduced to get the best balance between payload and range. And weight in absolute terms is not necessarily a measure of combat effective ness. A Lanc carrying a few 500lb GPs and a bunch of incediary SBCs (or a single 4000lb Cookie, for that matter) is carrying less weight than a Fort with 12 500lbers, but who's to say which does the more damage? That depends on the nature of the target, the skill of the bombardier and the reliability of the fuses, amongst other things.

Hot Space · 12-07-2004, 06:52 AM

I guess this is the best way of putting this:

Lancaster - Best Pay Load.

B24 - Best Range.

B-29 - Best Speed and Armament.

B-17 - The Stongest of all, by far.

Hot Space

cheddar cheese · 12-07-2004, 12:49 PM

Actually the 177 had the best range

However the plane was pants

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-07-2004, 02:24 PM

wel myou could argue that messerschmitt long range atomic "amerique" bomber had the longest range..............

BombTaxi · 12-07-2004, 03:03 PM

The Amerika bomber never became operational though. So you cant really count it as the longest-ranged bombe of WW2.

cheddar cheese · 12-07-2004, 03:55 PM

Quote:

"amerique"

What possessed you to type it like that

11-27-2004, 06:01 AM	#32
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	they still had a damn good chance of gettin a bomber though.............. __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

11-28-2004, 09:45 AM	#35
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	i see what you mean with the lanc but i still don't see why everyone rates the B-17 so highly, it was nothing special as a bomber, it's only good points were it's damage tollerance and maybe ceiling (i've left out defensive armourment and but a maybe on the ceiling because neither made it safe from attack)............. __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

12-06-2004, 11:13 PM	#39
Cheap Labour Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 35	I was reading the memoirs of a B-24 pilot and he said that once you lost an engine in a B-24, everyone had better get their bail-out kit in gear because if you lost another one you were going down. Not so with a '17. __________________

12-07-2004, 12:34 AM	#40
BombTaxi Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Brownhills, W. Mids, UK Posts: 1,189	I read an account of a B24 campaign which also suggested that the Liberator was vulnerable to enemy fire, especially around the wing roots. Many pics you see of B24s going down show one or both wings folding too. And Galland, Im sorry mate, but no aircraft could survive the kind of damage you're talking about. Half a wing or a whole tail gone? Its aerodynamically impossible for that a/c to keep flying. Even Boeing cant mess with the laws of physics! Regarding the bomb-loads of the heavies, remember that the stats you see in many books are maximums, they had to be reduced to get the best balance between payload and range. And weight in absolute terms is not necessarily a measure of combat effective ness. A Lanc carrying a few 500lb GPs and a bunch of incediary SBCs (or a single 4000lb Cookie, for that matter) is carrying less weight than a Fort with 12 500lbers, but who's to say which does the more damage? That depends on the nature of the target, the skill of the bombardier and the reliability of the fuses, amongst other things. __________________ Good generals think about tactics. Great generals think about logistics. "If freedom is to be saved and enlarged, poverty must be ended. There is no other solution." - Nye Bevan "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee" - John Donne, Meditation XVII

12-07-2004, 02:24 PM	#43
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	wel myou could argue that messerschmitt long range atomic "amerique" bomber had the longest range.............. __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

11-27-2004, 06:41 AM	#33
Hot Space Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,172	The B-24 had it's Fuel Tanks above the Main Spar. Once, it was dead, m8 Hot Space

11-27-2004, 10:51 PM	#34
R Pope Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 134	All great planes, but the Lanc has to be #1, then B-17, Halifax, and B-24 tie for #2. B-29 was another generation, but rushing production caused too many problems.

11-28-2004, 01:26 PM	#36
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	It made it safer. It was accurate too. I fail to see how the Lancaster rates above the B-29, it was all the good points of the Lancaster with none of the bad points. Although it wasnt as successful this was only because it came late. If the 2 planes had seen the same amount of service you'd be telling a different story.

12-06-2004, 10:48 PM	#37
Adolf Galland Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York City Posts: 105	the b-17 is way more safer than the b-24 because the b-17 can somehow bring its crew back to england even if deep inside germany and missing a major component like if it losses 2 engines, losses half a wing, tail section COMPLETE blown off, etc, and i think that the b-29 IS the best bomber in the war, it's even safer that the b-17s and it can carry about more than twice the b-24 can carry(the b-24 is considered to be a heavy-bomber) and about the he-111 does looks good, but its so sad compare to the US heavy bombers, lets put it this way: # of 20MM shells to down one(normally) He-111 5-10 B-24 20-30 B-17 35-45 B-29 50-65 (kinda chazy)

12-06-2004, 10:49 PM	#38
Adolf Galland Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York City Posts: 105	and i agreed w/ cheddar cheese

12-07-2004, 06:52 AM	#41
Hot Space Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,172	I guess this is the best way of putting this: Lancaster - Best Pay Load. B24 - Best Range. B-29 - Best Speed and Armament. B-17 - The Stongest of all, by far. Hot Space

12-07-2004, 12:49 PM	#42
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	Actually the 177 had the best range However the plane was pants

12-07-2004, 03:03 PM	#44
BombTaxi Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Brownhills, W. Mids, UK Posts: 1,189	The Amerika bomber never became operational though. So you cant really count it as the longest-ranged bombe of WW2. __________________ Good generals think about tactics. Great generals think about logistics. "If freedom is to be saved and enlarged, poverty must be ended. There is no other solution." - Nye Bevan "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee" - John Donne, Meditation XVII

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode