Best Bomber of ww2

[Capt. Scott Tailwheel]

My vote is for the Douglas A-26 Invader which had the performance of a fighter and could actually outrun a P-51 It survived WW II to serve in Korea and Veitnam and if you count it... Central America with certain Govt. (Never happened or existed) agencies.

The Invader is an awsome aircraft and contiunes to serve in the capacity of Air Attack Tanker, although sadly they're now being slowly phased out due to aging and parts shortages. (sigh)

 

[Anonymous]

B-29 and B-17 where the best

i agree with the B-29 part but the B-24 was better than the B-17 an is always forgotten.........

i'm still interested in hearing peoples arguments for the B-17...............

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.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Yeomanz]

I say the He-111 H6 , its quite fast for a bomber and can carry 2 SC2000's , plus i love the plane as well

 

[cheddar cheese]

Ive noticed a theme with your choices

 

[Anonymous]

I say the He-111 H6 , its quite fast for a bomber and can carry 2 SC2000's , plus i love the plane as well

But the B-29 was quite a bit faster and could carry up to 10 2000 lbs bombs. Kinda looks more like a giant He111 than B-17 too don't ya think?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[cheddar cheese]

The He-111 was IMO the best looking bomber of the war 8) The B-29 was very nice too though

 

[Yeomanz]

The He-111 was IMO the best looking bomber of the war 8) The B-29 was very nice too though

Yep , I just live the way it looks 8) ,

Lunatic , I see your point , but H6 was made earlier than the 29 , 2 SC2000 is bout 4000bl's , and the b-29 has 4 engines , and the He111 is pretty

 

[Hot Space]

I was pretty once, but I'll won't go there for the moment

Hot Space

 

[Capt. Scott Tailwheel]

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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............

 

[Anonymous]

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]

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

 

[Hot Space]

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

Hot Space

 

[R Pope]

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]

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]

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]

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]

and i agreed w/ cheddar cheese

 

[Cheap Labour]

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]

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.