Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

cheddar cheese · 02-05-2005, 01:53 PM

Continued from old topic, now in archive forum.

Gemhorse · 02-05-2005, 03:47 PM

So, with all the previous posts packed away, we're agreed then, that because of the Lancaster's superb design, rapid development, very reliable performance and economy of materials, fuel, firepower and crew, and the lengthy and deadly service it performed, bombing the German War Machine to rubble,... exemplary, in fact, that's why it's a bloody legend,.... that it EARNED the title of '' BEST BOMBER ''........

I mean, they were all set to fly off to Japan after that, as ''Tiger Force'', to bomb them to dust too, but it took from 1940 until June 1944 before a B-29 was built and starting to drop a bomb there, but using RAF Bomber Command tactics, B-29's started to get the job done, and then they decided to try out a couple of nukes, and that was the 2nd World War over...........

DaveB.inVa · 02-05-2005, 04:32 PM

Dude, just because the thread is locked away and gone does not mean that the Lancaster was the best bomber of WWII. An assumption like that is a bit naieve.

I will give you that it was a great design (although it needed a copilot).

When Tiger Force would have been involved in the Pacific it would have been operating off of Okinawa and eastern India. The Lancasters destined there had an 1800 liter fuel tank installed in the rear part of the bombbay and were limited to just over 7000 pounds of bombs to enable them to get the range to make it to Japan.

While I'm sure the effort would have been greatly appreciated and sucessful, the PTO wasn't the area where the Lancaster would have excelled, especially compared to the B-29.

You state that the B-29's only started to get the job done until they switched to firebombing. This is only about half true as I submitted in the last thread that even when firebombing was adopted it was only used about 50% of the time. I know you can bring up the Yawata mission and how it failed but I think you assume that all high altitude GP/HE missions were a failure as well when this was not the case.

I'll give you that the Lancaster was best bomber of the ETO at night, but nothing more.

Gemhorse · 02-06-2005, 06:08 AM

Yeah, I accept the Lancaster was the ''Best Night Bomber in the ETO'', although I feel it did pretty well later in the War as a Day-bomber too, with escort....
- The bombing-radar worked well in the daytime too, and defensive armament was moving into .50 cals in the rear, and the real shine on the coin was that Allied air supremacy was finally making the 'Strategic Bombing Offensive' a successful campaign......

I feel that Lanc would accept that....?...........

I accept that the B-29 was much more advanced with greater capacities, and that it's service in destroying the Japanese ability to further wage war was it's accolade.........by the end of the War, it was the biggest, most advanced bomber of the War.......some would say it should therefore be the 'Best Bomber'......

In saying that, about the only thing these two aircraft had in common was they both had 4 engines and were bombers......

I feel that the Lancaster and Bomber Command's whole contribution should be recognised for it's overall advancement to the Strategic Bombing Offensive, because the big lesson was learned by the British early, doing daylight raids, and the 8th's supreme effort may have been at less cost if Air Supremacy had been established first.....Germany could not have sustained a successful night defence for long if both Allies night-bombed;..... even initially just for awhile, while the day-fighters continued to draw up the Luftwaffe fighters....The volume of Allied fighters would have run them down, despite the Luftwaffe's incredible production, that was what was being bombed.....

This is all great in hindsight, I guess, it was a shame that getting the B-29 on stream took so long......plans were even made to base a heap of them in N.Ireland for the ETO, but they were never ready in time.....
US Aircraft development was ever advancing, there were other excellent aircraft that could've been on stream quicker, and may have greatly shortened the War, I believe.....the A-26 in mumbers, for example........or there was one called a Republic 'Rainbow', that was a fast 4 engined bomber design, although not of the B-29's capacity.......

And capacity was the one other thing the Lancaster and B-29 had, that made them 'Best', in their theatre's, respectively,........

the lancaster kicks ass · 02-06-2005, 11:22 AM

we agreed the lanc was the best bomber in the ETO as a whole and the most successfull having the most impact on the war................

cheddar cheese · 02-06-2005, 11:28 AM

Yep...

cheddar cheese · 02-06-2005, 11:30 AM

I think in terms of significance and impact though that the B-17 runs in pretty close.

the lancaster kicks ass · 02-06-2005, 11:31 AM

perhaps but not in ability..............

it's not in the running for best bomber of the war.........

cheddar cheese · 02-06-2005, 11:33 AM

I think the Lancaster was better but I think it is in the Running...I dont see why it shouldnt be...

mosquitoman · 02-06-2005, 11:44 AM

A Mosquito could carry a B-17s bombload over short distances- and the mossie's a LIGHT bomber

cheddar cheese · 02-06-2005, 11:56 AM

B-17's normal bombload that is...it couldnt carry 17,600lbs.

mosquitoman · 02-06-2005, 11:59 AM

in kilograms please

DaveB.inVa · 02-06-2005, 12:32 PM

When they talked of stationing the B-29's in North Ireland I always wondered why they'd want to do that. Why not place them closer and load them with more bombs.

The Rainbow was the F-12. It was meant to be a fast recon aircraft. It was powere by 4 R-4360's and had a top speed over 450mph. Pretty slick aircraft!!

http://www.air-and-space.com/Republic%20XF-12.htm

cheddar cheese · 02-06-2005, 02:22 PM

Nice!

You work in Kilos MM? I cant stand metric...

DaveB.inVa · 02-06-2005, 02:57 PM

Mosquito just divide by 2.2 to get pounds into kilograms.

17600/2.2=8000kg