Best Bomber

Concorde247 · 03-27-2005, 05:35 PM

he saves money on choclates - he buys her winalot dog biccies instead!!

It gives her such an glossy coat

BountyHunter15 · 03-27-2005, 06:22 PM

The B-17 was the best bomber.

Concorde247 · 03-28-2005, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BountyHunter15

The B-17 was the best bomber.

In terms of Bombload, The Lancaster was better, as was the B29 thought it did come in later in the war.

03-28-2005, 12:37 PM

The Lancaster and the B-29 were both wartime designs.

The Lancaster entered service in March 1942. The B-29 entered service in April 1944 (though it was actually ready for service about 3 months eariler but there were no suitable bases ready in reach of Japananese stratgetic targets). So the Lancaster entered service after Britian had been at war for 3.5 years, where the B-29 entered service after the USA had been at war for 2.5 years.

Lancaster specs - max speed: 287 mph @ 11,500 feet max. continuous cruise:234 mph @ 21,000 feet, 200 mph @ 15,000 ft ceiling: 24,500 feet (nominal) defensive armament: 8 x .303 mg's bombload: 14,000 lbs normal bombs. range: 2,530 miles with 7,000 lbs bombload, 1730 miles with 12,000 lbs bomload, 1550 miles with 22000 lbs grandslam. (I believe all ranges are at 11.5k - 15k)

B-29A Superfortress specs - max. speed: 357 mph @ 30k max. continuous cruise: 342 mph @ 30k ceiling:33,600 feet defensive armament: 12 x .50 hmg's bombload:20,000 lbs normal bombs. range: 3200 miles with 5000 lbs bombload @ 25k, or 12000 lbs at 15K.

Clearly, the B-29 is the superior bomber.

By comparison, the B-17, which was a pre-war design, had the following specs:

B-17G Flying Fortress - max. speed: 287 mph @ 25K max. continous cruise: 182 mph @ 25k. ceiling: 35,800 ft defensive armament: 12 x .50 hmg's bombload: up to 17,600 lbs. including ext. bombs, 9600 lbs. internal max, 6000 typical. range:2000 miles with 6000 lbs bombload.

It should also be noted that the B-17 did not utilize four engines that could otherwise be utilized in fighters. B-17's with Merlins or R-2800's or R-2600's would have performed much better, but it would have had a cost in fighters. Every Lancaster cost four Spitfires or P-51's!

=S=

Lunatic

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-28-2005, 01:01 PM

but every lancaster cost the enemy more than the fighters...............

and you've given the stats for a wartime varient of the B-17, if you're gonna say

Quote:

the B-17, which was a pre-war design, had the following specs:

you should atleast give the specs of a pre war varient..........

and just because britian had been in the war longer than the americans, did the americans only start to think of the B-29 the day war began for you guys?? before that date there was nothing of a B-29 or similiar?? no, there were designing it pre-war as well...............

and the B-29 had several problems on entry into service, the lanc however, had none..........

and a bomber that came along in 1944 would have been useless in Europe, no matter how good it was, simply because of the fact it came in 1944, the lanc was there from the beggining of the offensive in Europe............

Concorde247 · 03-28-2005, 01:31 PM

Plus the lancaster was designed when there was a surplus of the merlin engines available. We all know its forerunner the Avro Manchester was a flop, which is why Roy Chadwick, Avros designer came up with the Lanc. the Merlins just couldnt be spared for the bomber.

03-28-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

but every lancaster cost the enemy more than the fighters...............

You miss the point, which is that the B-17 did not impose such a cost in fighters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and you've given the stats for a wartime varient of the B-17, if you're gonna say

Quote:

the B-17, which was a pre-war design, had the following specs:

you should atleast give the specs of a pre war varient..........

No, that is not true. All pre-war designs go through evolution in wartime. But the fundimentals of their design are still pre-war. Usually, the later variants are very much bound by the constraints of the original design, which defined the producition facilities. For the B-17, this was certainly the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and just because britian had been in the war longer than the americans, did the americans only start to think of the B-29 the day war began for you guys?? before that date there was nothing of a B-29 or similiar?? no, there were designing it pre-war as well...............

Well, sure there was some consideration of what would follow the B-17. But it didn't really solidify into a feasability study until late 1940, and it didn't really become a serious project until late 1941.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and the B-29 had several problems on entry into service, the lanc however, had none..........

Well, I'd not say "none", but very few. But then again, the Lancaster was an offshoot of the Manchester, which had many problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and a bomber that came along in 1944 would have been useless in Europe, no matter how good it was, simply because of the fact it came in 1944, the lanc was there from the beggining of the offensive in Europe............

And the evidence is that the night bombing campaign had almost no real effect on the German war-making ability. Only very select strategic bombing missions - those targeting petrolium, aircraft production, and communications/transportation centers, had any appreciable effect, and these were not generally carried out by night bombing missionsl... with a few exceptions starting in mid-1944. Even then, as it turned out, the USAAF fighter attacks probably had more effect on the German war machine than the heavy bombers.

Besides, why does it matter? You seem to think the ETO was the "real war". It was not, the PTO was just as real as the ETO. It was just not as imporant to you Brits. Ask your Aussie cousin's if it was a "real war".

=S=

Lunatic

Concorde247 · 03-28-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Besides, why does it matter? You seem to think the ETO was the "real war". It was not, the PTO was just as real as the ETO. It was just not as imporant to you Brits. Ask your Aussie cousin's if it was a "real war".

It WAS a real war to us, but we had to finish the war on our front doorstep first!! We lost a lot of good men & ships in the pacific, dont forget that!

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-28-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

the lancaster kicks ass wrote:
and you've given the stats for a wartime varient of the B-17, if you're gonna say

Quote:

the B-17, which was a pre-war design, had the following specs:

you should atleast give the specs of a pre war varient..........

No, that is not true. All pre-war designs go through evolution in wartime. But the fundimentals of their design are still pre-war. Usually, the later variants are very much bound by the constraints of the original design, which defined the producition facilities. For the B-17, this was certainly the case.

so you're saying that the B-17G is similar to the B for example?? you're saying the B was little different to the G??

red admiral · 03-28-2005, 03:10 PM

The line in bomber evolution goes B17 -> B24 -> B29

US bombers were designed for war over mainland europe mainly, even the B29. For daylight bombing raids, all these bombers were/would have been monumental losses. The sole reason they were not shot out of the sky with even more frequency was the abundance of escort fighters. These bombers were not designed with escort fighters in mind. As such their designers made a very large mistake. Have a look at the US raid on Ploesti oilfields, that was a resounding success wasn't it?

The Lancaster was designed as a day bomber but quickly switched to night bomber, a role in which it was much more effective. A Lancaster would have performed as well as the B17/B24 at day bombing, but was clearly superior at night.

The B29 was the most technically advanced bomber to see service but best? It had 2 separate bomb bays which restricted it from carrying the larger bombs at the end of the war. It has roughly twice as much power and 2-3 years more technology than the Lanc, why should it not be better. The technical innovations introduced with the B29 were actually out of date, remote controlled turrets having been in service with the P108 from 1940-41.

Who cares if the Merlin engined Lanc meant that you couldn't put those engines in fighters? There was no shortage of engines in the first place.

For the ultimate Lanc that compares to the B29, look at the Lincoln or Shackleton bombers instead.

Altogther, although the B29 was a better aircraft, it wasn't there when it was needed.

mosquitoman · 03-28-2005, 05:03 PM

The Lancaster airframe was used into the 90's. That just shows it's use. Shackleton's were used in the AEW until we got Boing Sentry AWACS

Nonskimmer · 03-28-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

The Lancaster airframe was used into the 90's.

Really? Where?

mosquitoman · 03-28-2005, 05:12 PM

As I said, in Shackletons

Nonskimmer · 03-28-2005, 05:22 PM

Oh yeah, so you did. Sorry.

03-29-2005, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

so you're saying that the B-17G is similar to the B for example?? you're saying the B was little different to the G??

I'm saying that the G was derived from B airframe. This defined the design. Sure it underwent improvements over time, but by the D (the war-entry variant) it was pretty much defined as an airplane.

=S=

Lunatic