The Best Bombers of WWII

[BDL]

EDITED by South African Military: Debate about which country had the best bombers of the second world war. I already had to split this topic and then move it, because 15 pages was about something totally different. Please vote!


Britain - Lancaster heavy bomber and Mosquito tactical bomber

[Gen. Sandworm]

Its a hard topic because all the countries produced bombers with different objectives in mind. But the Americans had the best strategic bombers of the war.

[pdf27]

B-29 was far and away the best bomber of WW2. However, it is worth noting that all previous British and American bombers were either optimised for range and bombload at the expense of armament (UK) or range and armament at the expense of bombload (US) hence dictating the night and day bombing tactics of the respective sides. The B-29 was the first bomber advanced and large enough to do both with success, and even then was never used against the Germans where it may have done less well.
German bombers were generally awful, while the Soviets never really had the resources to put into a true strategic bomber. Many of their other aircraft were very good indeed though.

[maninblack]

Consider this........


The USA has spent billions of dollars to design a light bomber with an operational speed of 400mph, no defensive armament, a 4000lb bomb load and the radar cross-section of a goose......F117

The UK spent thousands of pounds doing the same using a few sheets of spare birch ply and half a dozen toothless cabinet makers in a country house in the 1940s........DH Mosquito


....and you still ask who made the best bombers in World War II.



:twisted:

[South African Military]

Id have to say the Mosquito is the plane that wins the vote. The Lancaster is a fair competitor too, however it was a bit slow, and had a low ceiling rate comapared to the B-29. The Lancaster had a bigger bomb load though.

[South African Military]

I also believe that the Lancasters had more advanced technology compared with the other American bombers.

H2S radar-First used in 1943 it was used for navigation and ground mapping for "all weather bombing". Used to Identify targets.

GEE-Something similar to GPS it tracked and gave the location of a bomber. two broadcasters emmited timed signals which the navigators onboard the heavy bombers could tell how long it took and therefore get the exact location of the plane. Its extreme range was 400 miles, and had an accuracy at that distance of 2 miles. However it was accurate up to 165 yards, depending on the distance.

Oboe-Tracking/Targeting system. See further info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oboe_%28navigation%29

[Cactus]

I'd say US had the best bombers but I must say overall plane wise UK

[Gen. Sandworm]

I'd say US had the best bombers but I must say overall plane wise UK

I agree. I think the Brits are having too much fun blowing smoke up each others asses at the moment. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[IRONMAN]

The US's B-29 was ceretainly the best.

[Sturmtruppen]

The US's B-29 was ceretainly the best.
the b29 was bomber who dropped the atomic bomb,so it`s the best of the best.
vote 4 america

[Sturmtruppen]

if a bomber could drop one of this: http://www.radgraphics.net/images/main/atomic%20explosion%20-%201.jpg

it was the best

[South African Military]

The US's B-29 was ceretainly the best.
the b29 was bomber who dropped the atomic bomb,so it`s the best of the best.
vote 4 america

Your statement above proves nothing. So it dropped the Atomic bomb, does that make it the best?? Im sure Lancasters could easily be fitted with the Atomic bomb if necessary. The Lancaster bomber, could hold the greatest load, able to drop the biggest bomb the "Grand Slam Bomb". No American bomber could hold the "Grand Slam Bomb".

Basically you are giving your vote for the Atomic bomb, not the B-29. We are talking about Bombers, not Bombs.

[Bluffcove]

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/miscellaneous/tallboy/tallboy.html
The most effective "IRON" bombs of the war.
conventional explosive used to devestating effect, the Grand Slam destroyed structures from beneath, by pentrating the ground and detonating beneath the target the shockwaves would shake the building apart.
http://www.constable.ca/bombs.htm
I believe that they were also the precursor of the bunker busting bombs in todays air forces due to their hollow/shaped charge design for penetration of armour.

better photograph below. http://www.johnmullen.org.uk/aerospce/pics/bombs.jpg
*********************************************Early summer 1945, three Boeing B-29s were modified to carry a 22,000 lb Grand Slam on external bomb racks under each wing between the inboard engine and fuselage. After experiments at Eglin AAF in Florida, an order for fifty modified aircraft was placed. If the war hadn’t ended with the dropping of the atom bombs, dual Grand Slam B-29s might have been available to see action over Japan by the first week of September. Postwar publicity photographs never show more than three of the dual bomb modified B-29s flying in a formation. That may have been all that were built. Another B-29 was modified so that the lower part of the double bomb bay section would permit the semi external carriage of one large bomb (Tallboy, Grand Slam or T-12?). 20

Sorry SAM only just saw the end of your message! maybe we can start bombs thread! I have an idea for a proximity detonated bomb that I am going to patent!

[South African Military]

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/miscellaneous/tallboy/tallboy.html
The most effective "IRON" bombs of the war.
conventional explosive used to devestating effect, the Grand Slam destroyed structures from beneath, by pentrating the ground and detonating beneath the target the shockwaves would shake the building apart.
http://www.constable.ca/bombs.htm
I believe that they were also the precursor of the bunker busting bombs in todays air forces due to their hollow/shaped charge design for penetration of armour.

better photograph below. http://www.johnmullen.org.uk/aerospce/pics/bombs.jpg
*********************************************Early summer 1945, three Boeing B-29s were modified to carry a 22,000 lb Grand Slam on external bomb racks under each wing between the inboard engine and fuselage. After experiments at Eglin AAF in Florida, an order for fifty modified aircraft was placed. If the war hadn’t ended with the dropping of the atom bombs, dual Grand Slam B-29s might have been available to see action over Japan by the first week of September. Postwar publicity photographs never show more than three of the dual bomb modified B-29s flying in a formation. That may have been all that were built. Another B-29 was modified so that the lower part of the double bomb bay section would permit the semi external carriage of one large bomb (Tallboy, Grand Slam or T-12?). 20

Sorry SAM only just saw the end of your message! maybe we can start bombs thread! I have an idea for a proximity detonated bomb that I am going to patent!

Great Idea!, I suggest you should make the topic. Id like to hear about the bomb that you have thought up. I have an intrest for aviation and bombs...

[Sturmtruppen]

The US's B-29 was ceretainly the best.
the b29 was bomber who dropped the atomic bomb,so it`s the best of the best.
vote 4 america

Your statement above proves nothing. So it dropped the Atomic bomb, does that make it the best?? Im sure Lancasters could easily be fitted with the Atomic bomb if necessary. The Lancaster bomber, could hold the greatest load, able to drop the biggest bomb the "Grand Slam Bomb". No American bomber could hold the "Grand Slam Bomb".

Basically you are giving your vote for the Atomic bomb, not the B-29. We are talking about Bombers, not Bombs..
ok,without talking about atomic bombs.

my vote is for B-29 :wink:

[pdf27]

Incidentally, the B-29 was the only Allied bomber of the war that really had the performance to drop an A-bomb safely. While a Lancaster could have carried it, it had substantially lower speed/altitude performance. This means that unless the bomb spent far longer dropping by parachute (making it much more vulnerable to AA weapons - a surprising fraction of the weight was actually armour to protect against this) the bomber would not survive the mission. This means that realistically the B-29 was the only allied bomber of the war capable of dropping the early nukes.

[IRONMAN]

Your statement above proves nothing. So it dropped the Atomic bomb, does that make it the best?? Im sure Lancasters could easily be fitted with the Atomic bomb if necessary. The Lancaster bomber, could hold the greatest load, able to drop the biggest bomb the "Grand Slam Bomb". No American bomber could hold the "Grand Slam Bomb".

Basically you are giving your vote for the Atomic bomb, not the B-29. We are talking about Bombers, not Bombs.

True that the lancaster could have carried a nuke. But you are incorrect about the rest. The B-29 had better range, a larger payload (the B-29 could carry 69% more payload than the lancaster), far better armament, and was faster. The B-29 also had remotely controlled guns. The B-29 far exceeded the capabilities of the Lancaster at everything, and was far and away a better bomber than the Lancaster. The B-29 represented a virtual new class of long range bomber.

Lancaster
max payload: 13,839 kg
max speed: 280 mph (448 km/h)
range: 4,320 km
8 x Browning 0.303 in (7.62 mm) machine-guns in three turrets

B-29
max payload: 20,300 kg
max speed: 357 mph (574 km/h)
range: 5,230 km
12× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns in remote controlled turrets
1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail

[IRONMAN]

The B-29 was the first bomber advanced and large enough to do both with success, and even then was never used against the Germans where it may have done less well.

I doubt that seriously, since the Luftwaffe was badly reduced by 1942, and the B-29 had so much armament and would have been escorted like any other bomber. B-29 had no less than 12 .50 calibre machineguns and a 20mm cannon! It was also fast (maximum speed 357 mph (574 km/h). That is faster than the Lancaster (280 mph (448 km/h). I see no reason to think it would have faier worse than any other bomber, especially since it was faster and had tremendous armament.

[IRONMAN]

Consider this........


The USA has spent billions of dollars to design a light bomber with an operational speed of 400mph, no defensive armament, a 4000lb bomb load and the radar cross-section of a goose......F117

The UK spent thousands of pounds doing the same using a few sheets of spare birch ply and half a dozen toothless cabinet makers in a country house in the 1940s........DH Mosquito


....and you still ask who made the best bombers in World War II.
:twisted:

The resourcefullness of the British under the tremendous hardship of German bombing is commendable, but has nothing at all to do with which was the better bomber. The US had other bombers besides the B-29, such as the B-17 and the B-24 Liberator.

[IRONMAN]

A Luftwaffe Test Pilot's Account of a Captured American B-17 Bomber

Luftwaffe Test Pilot Hans Werner Lerche

"Perhaps there were other aircraft that were even more pleasant to fly than the B-17, because it did have its drawbacks: for example, the forces acting on the ailerons were relatively high, and the rudder felt as if it were set in concrete. But it was much more important that the aircraft was easy to fly and land. When one had become accustomed to the higher all-up weight and the strange instruments, it could be compared with our He 111 in the degree of effort needed to fly it.

What was really outstanding about the B-17 which made it, together with the Liberator, the standard day heavy bomber in the European theater of war? It certainly was not fast in low altitudes; only the exhaust-driven turbosuperchargers gave the B-17 its good performance at higher altitudes. All in all, that was for me the most admirable thing about American planning, namely the consequential pursuit of a concept once it had been recognized as correct, in this case the effectiveness of raids carried out by well-armed high-altitude bombers flying in close formations.

One must remember that several years would pass between planning and execution of a concept. Possibly only the idea of keeping the attacking fighters at bay with heavily armed bombers flying in close formation and firing from all 'portholes' had to be revised. This consequently happened after the raid on Schweinfurt which, due to the long distance involved, had to be carried out without fighter escort, During this raid the USAAF bombers suffered heavy losses from twin-engined Zerstorer and single-seat fighters attacking with rocket missiles, which naturally caused quite a crisis. The correct solution to this problem was soon found: elimination of the sluggish, rocket-carrying Luftwaffe 'destroyers' by escort fighters -- and several versions of these, with excellent performance, were also soon available. Nor did the rather poorly adjusted control forces on the American bombers have much detrimental effect, as this was certainly not decisive during the approach at great height, and even less so after the bombers had been equipped with an excellent three-dimensional autopilot. It must be stressed that the respectable speed of the B-17 at higher altitudes was due solely to its excellent exhaust-driven turbo-superchargers. But for the production of these devices one required not only the know-how but also large quantities of heat-resisting materials which we were lacking in Germany.

Occasionally I would receive via Switzerland foreign reports on German aircraft, and it was interesting to read that they quite often not only praised the construction of the machines but the engines as well, more often than not concluding that the Germans just did not have the necessary heat-resistant metals for even better performance."

[pdf27]

I doubt that seriously, since the Luftwaffe was badly reduced by 1942, and the B-29 had so much armament and would have been escorted like any other bomber. B-29 had no less than 12 .50 calibre machineguns and a 20mm cannon! It was also fast (maximum speed 357 mph (574 km/h). That is faster than the Lancaster (280 mph (448 km/h). I see no reason to think it would have faier worse than any other bomber, especially since it was faster and had tremendous armament.
Problem is, the US never really got the turrets working properly on the B-29 (IIRC they were stripped out post-war to increase the speed/ceiling - this was certainly done with the B-36).
The real advantage of the B-29 was the ability to fly high and fast, something only really the Mosquito was also able to do.

[IRONMAN]

I doubt that seriously, since the Luftwaffe was badly reduced by 1942, and the B-29 had so much armament and would have been escorted like any other bomber. B-29 had no less than 12 .50 calibre machineguns and a 20mm cannon! It was also fast (maximum speed 357 mph (574 km/h). That is faster than the Lancaster (280 mph (448 km/h). I see no reason to think it would have faier worse than any other bomber, especially since it was faster and had tremendous armament.
Problem is, the US never really got the turrets working properly on the B-29 (IIRC they were stripped out post-war to increase the speed/ceiling - this was certainly done with the B-36).
The real advantage of the B-29 was the ability to fly high and fast, something only really the Mosquito was also able to do.

Only reeealy got them to work...

Only reeeealy the Mosquito....

Uh huh. You work in the media, right? :roll:

[Bluffcove]

I think if you read his military service record it doesnt involve the Media,
What is your military service incidentally (not entirely related to bombers of course but more the infantry knowledge you were earlier displaying)

[Voluntary Escaper]

Wasn't the B29 misemployed at relatively low level in raids on Japan? I seem to recall this from McNamara's "Fog of War" documentary.

[South African Military]

Lancaster
max payload: 13,839 kg
max speed: 280 mph (448 km/h)
range: 4,320 km
8 x Browning 0.303 in (7.62 mm) machine-guns in three turrets

B-29
max payload: 20,300 kg
max speed: 357 mph (574 km/h)
range: 5,230 km
12× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns in remote controlled turrets
1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail

Correction about the above. The Lancaster was able to carry 22 000 pounds, the heaviest load of any bomber during WW2.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Wasn't the B29 misemployed at relatively low level in raids on Japan? I seem to recall this from McNamara's "Fog of War" documentary.

A great film for every to watch. Actually McNamara urged LeMay to deploy the bomber at a lower altitude for greater efficency. I never knew(untill I watched this movie) how much damage we did to Japan even before we dropped the Abombs.

[Voluntary Escaper]

A great film for every to watch. Actually McNamara urged LeMay to deploy the bomber at a lower altitude for greater efficency.

I remember now! It was because the faster and higher B29s were far less accurate - their bombs fell on a wider area.

[IRONMAN]

A great film for every to watch. Actually McNamara urged LeMay to deploy the bomber at a lower altitude for greater efficency.

I remember now! It was because the faster and higher B29s were far less accurate - their bombs fell on a wider area.

I suppose it had inferior landing gear because it was prettier too eh? :lol:
Living with such compulsions must be agony.

[Voluntary Escaper]

suppose it had inferior landing gear because it was prettier too eh?
Living with such compulsions must be agony.


Alas, it is physics...

If the aircraft flies higher it takes longer for the bombs to hit the ground.

The bombs have a forward momentum as well as a downwards terminal velocity.

If the aircraft flies faster, the forward momentum of the bombs is greater.

If the aircraft flies faster, the bombs will be dispersed over a wider area.

If the forward momentum is greater, so is the margin of error in aiming.

Please don't tell me you are going to pick a fight with Robert McNamara?!? He's old for a start. He has learned a lot painfully, and was no fool to start with.

[pdf27]

Only reeealy got them to work...
Only reeeealy the Mosquito....
Uh huh. You work in the media, right? :roll:
Nope, I'm a professional engineer working on high speed turbopumps and have an (MEng) degree in both Aeronautical and Mechanical engineering. I'm also an AMIMechE, and when I get around to it will also be an AMRAeS. I should get my CEng, MIMechE and MRAeS in 3 years or so.
I know you're going to claim I'm lying here, so should a mod wish to verify this, I'm quite happy to do so - they should PM me for details. I'm not willing to post my details in public, but am quite happy to give them and a way of verifying them to any mod you care to mention on this site or one or two others.

A great film for every to watch. Actually McNamara urged LeMay to deploy the bomber at a lower altitude for greater efficency. I never knew(untill I watched this movie) how much damage we did to Japan even before we dropped the Abombs.
The major benefit of the low-level fire raids was in bomb concentration - IIRC for much of the time the jetstream winds are parked right above much of Japan, and played havoc with the bomb aiming. The shift to low-level raids allowed much higher bomb concentrations, which are critical in the efficient starting of firestorms.
Had the fire raids been carried out in daylight, the B-29s would have had to stay high. When running high/fast (as it would be on penetration and over the target) a B-29 was right on the ragged edge of what the Japanese could actually intercept, making escort fighters largely unnecessary (this continued with the B-36, which was effectively uninterceptible until the mid 1950s). Since the Japanese nightfighter defences were so primitive the B-29s could come in low and (relatively) slow with practical impunity, giving much better bomb concentrations and so better firestorms.
Incidentally, the fire raids did have valid military targets. The dispersed nature of Japanese industry of the time (very dispersed indeed - I've seen figures suggesting every fourth house in Tokyo was involved in some way or another fabricating military equipment, spread out over the entire city) meant the only way to deal with the industry was to destroy the city.

Please don't tell me you are going to pick a fight with Robert McNamara?!? He's old for a start. He has learned a lot painfully, and was no fool to start with.
I would strongly dispute that - IMHO he was probably the worst thing to happen to the US since WW2. Many of his "reforms" (ditching "obselete" manned bombers in favour of missiles for example, while scrapping working missile defence projects to ensure the ICBMs remained "uninterceptable" is a classic example) made both the US and the world as a whole a much more dangerous place. Another example was his demand that since the F-110 Sceptre and F4H-1 Phantom were being developed for the USAF and USN but had almost identical performance, one should be scrapped to save money. Both aircraft were of course what is now known as the F-4 Phantom.
Incidentally, I've recently seen an article where he decries the state where the US president has only minutes to react to a missile attack - all because of reforms he himself pushed through. Cnut!

[FW-190 Pilot]

ironman, if you dont like someone's post, you have the right to ignore it
insulting the others does not help

[IRONMAN]

suppose it had inferior landing gear because it was prettier too eh?
Living with such compulsions must be agony.


Alas, it is physics...

If the aircraft flies higher it takes longer for the bombs to hit the ground.

The bombs have a forward momentum as well as a downwards terminal velocity.

If the aircraft flies faster, the forward momentum of the bombs is greater.

If the aircraft flies faster, the bombs will be dispersed over a wider area.

If the forward momentum is greater, so is the margin of error in aiming.

Please don't tell me you are going to pick a fight with Robert McNamara?!? He's old for a start. He has learned a lot painfully, and was no fool to start with.

So, the faster the bomber, the less worthy it is? Good gracious! You are trying to support your opinion that one bomber is better than another because it was slower?
Nope, I'm a professional engineer

...who thinks a jet engine twice the size of another weighs about the same, and other such curiosities?

[Crab_to_be]

suppose it had inferior landing gear because it was prettier too eh?
Living with such compulsions must be agony.


Alas, it is physics...

If the aircraft flies higher it takes longer for the bombs to hit the ground.

The bombs have a forward momentum as well as a downwards terminal velocity.

If the aircraft flies faster, the forward momentum of the bombs is greater.

If the aircraft flies faster, the bombs will be dispersed over a wider area.

If the forward momentum is greater, so is the margin of error in aiming.

Please don't tell me you are going to pick a fight with Robert McNamara?!? He's old for a start. He has learned a lot painfully, and was no fool to start with.

So the more recent the bomber, the faster it is, the less accurate and worthwhile it is? Good gracious. You are trying to support your opinion with ludicrous reasoning.

The conclusions drawn by Voluntary Escaper seem entirely reasonable for unguided bombs, but not true for guided ones. As guided weaponary was very much in its infancy during the period in question, I'd say VE's statement is correct as a generalisation, even though it is no longer true given the predominance of guided weapons used in modern warfare.

[Crab_to_be]

FOR F*CK'S SAKE IRONMAN! Once you've posted something, leave it be OR include a brief note explaining what you've changed.

[FW-190 Pilot]

suppose it had inferior landing gear because it was prettier too eh?
Living with such compulsions must be agony.


Alas, it is physics...

If the aircraft flies higher it takes longer for the bombs to hit the ground.

The bombs have a forward momentum as well as a downwards terminal velocity.

If the aircraft flies faster, the forward momentum of the bombs is greater.

If the aircraft flies faster, the bombs will be dispersed over a wider area.

If the forward momentum is greater, so is the margin of error in aiming.

Please don't tell me you are going to pick a fight with Robert McNamara?!? He's old for a start. He has learned a lot painfully, and was no fool to start with.

So the more recent the bomber, the faster it is, the less accurate and worthwhile it is? Good gracious. You are trying to support your opinion with ludicrous reasoning.

The conclusions drawn by Voluntary Escaper seem entirely reasonable for unguided bombs, but not true for guided ones. As guided weaponary was very much in its infancy during the period in question, I'd say VE's statement is correct as a generalisation, even though it is no longer true given the predominance of guided weapons used in modern warfare.
glided missiles in world war 2 are fist use by the german, but they are not very effective as the allies would jam their signals and send the missiles to a wrong direction instead of the target

[Crab_to_be]

Apparently HMS Warspite was damaged using a Fritz X anti-ship missile. An Italian warship was sunk by one. The Fritz X was first used in 1943.

The point I was trying to make was that as a sweeping statement, VE was right, as the vast majority of bombs dropped were unguided, even if some guided weapons were used.

[FW-190 Pilot]

Apparently HMS Warspite was damaged using a Fritz X anti-ship missile. An Italian warship was sunk by one. The Fritz X was first used in 1943.

The point I was trying to make was that as a sweeping statement, VE was right, as the vast majority of bombs dropped were unguided, even if some guided weapons were used.
yeah, they are effective in the initial period, but as soon as the allies knows how to jam them, they are no longer effective
and i agree to VE too, thanks for the info though

[Bladensburg]

Ironman is also ignoring the differing methods used in bombing and vast improvements in predictive aiming.
In WWII strategic bombers simply flew straight and level over the target, opened their bays and disgorged their load leading to the scattering previously described. This still happens, look at the huge swathes of countryside devastated by unguided bombs from B52s in Vietnam, the first Gulf War and Afghanistan. One of the reasons that strategic bombers carry such heavy loads is to set up a "shotgun" effect where sheer numbers of bombs compensate for their inherent inaccuracy.
High speed strike aircraft, on the other hand, when dropping unguided ordnance use a selection of methods to aid accuracy. They either drop from low altitude - often a few hundred feet - at high speed or use divebombing techniques to point the bomb at the target before release. Modern jets are aided in this by computers that place an impact prediction on the HUD.


Edited for spelling.

[Voluntary Escaper]

So, the faster the bomber, the less worthy it is? Good gracious! You are trying to support your opinion that one bomber is better than another because it was slower?


That is an interesting argument and it appears in the case of the B-29 that it has some truth, with regard to the accuracy of bomb aiming! I wonder what effect flying slower and lower had on fuel consumption, fuel load and consequently bomb load.

I was referring to the WW2 practice of opening the bomb doors and simply dropping them. Does anyone have any information about how bomb aiming evolved during/after WW2? The reduced accuracy of the B29 must have set some minds working.

When the fighter-bomber entered service, the technique evolved so that the aircraft tossed the dumb bomb into a ballistic path according to a predicted impact point. This preceded guided munitions and I am sure that there are many who could describe the workings of these!

There are many viewpoints regarding McNamara but I would humbly point out that Rumsfeld is certainly no improvement!

[IRONMAN]

The conclusions drawn by Voluntary Escaper seem entirely reasonable for unguided bombs, but not true for guided ones. As guided weaponary was very much in its infancy during the period in question, I'd say VE's statement is correct as a generalisation, even though it is no longer true given the predominance of guided weapons used in modern warfare.

And your argument that the British bomber is better than the American one is based on the fact that the American bomber was faster and therefore it dropped it's bombs with less accuracy?

Good gracious boy. Stiffle yourself.

suppose it had inferior landing gear because it was prettier too eh?
Living with such compulsions must be agony.


Alas, it is physics...

If the aircraft flies higher it takes longer for the bombs to hit the ground.

The bombs have a forward momentum as well as a downwards terminal velocity.

If the aircraft flies faster, the forward momentum of the bombs is greater.

If the aircraft flies faster, the bombs will be dispersed over a wider area.

If the forward momentum is greater, so is the margin of error in aiming.

Please don't tell me you are going to pick a fight with Robert McNamara?!? He's old for a start. He has learned a lot painfully, and was no fool to start with.

Actully, the American bomber was better because the British bomber was painted a brownish color which absobs more light and that makes it too hot to be comfortable in.

See how much sence that makes? Stiffle yourself. The B-29 was faster and you hate that hence you find some way to support your claim that the British bomber was better by using the better speed of the B-29 as some kind of supposed disadvantage when fighters are chasing it to shoot it down. :roll: :roll:

Stiffle yourself!

[2nd of foot]

As an interesting side line test were done by Great Britain on guided bombs. They trained a pigeon to peck at a picture of a German ship by giving it food when it pecked the centre. The trials were very successful but never used in action.

The grand slam was designed to break the sound barrier on it fall. It was also designed to spin to improve its targeting.

The US bombsight was a very closely guarded secret during the war as it was supposed to be so advanced.

In the initial part of BC campaign following research it was found that munitions could land up to ten miles from the target. Churchill’s reaction to this can be understood. The problem was navigation as much as bomb aiming. This resulted in better navigation aids and the use of radio beams for targeting. The use of the pathfinder sqns to locate and mark the targets with coloured flares. Different colours were used for primary, secondary and alternate targets. The bomb leader in the pathfinder aircraft could switch target during an attack as he perceived the effectiveness of the attack. By the end of the war BC ability to hit targets was very good


The conclusions drawn by Voluntary Escaper seem entirely reasonable for unguided bombs, but not true for guided ones. As guided weaponary was very much in its infancy during the period in question, I'd say VE's statement is correct as a generalisation, even though it is no longer true given the predominance of guided weapons used in modern warfare.

And your argument that the British bomber is better than the American one is based on the fact that the American bomber was faster and therefore it dropped it's bombs with less accuracy?

Good gracious boy. Stiffle yourself.

suppose it had inferior landing gear because it was prettier too eh?
Living with such compulsions must be agony.


Alas, it is physics...

If the aircraft flies higher it takes longer for the bombs to hit the ground.

The bombs have a forward momentum as well as a downwards terminal velocity.

If the aircraft flies faster, the forward momentum of the bombs is greater.

If the aircraft flies faster, the bombs will be dispersed over a wider area.

If the forward momentum is greater, so is the margin of error in aiming.

Please don't tell me you are going to pick a fight with Robert McNamara?!? He's old for a start. He has learned a lot painfully, and was no fool to start with.

Actully, the American bomber was better because the British bomber was painted a brownish color which absobs more light and that makes it too hot to be comfortable in.

See how much sence that makes? Stiffle yourself. The B-29 was faster and you hate that hence you find some way to support your claim that the British bomber was better by using the better speed of the B-29 as some kind of supposed disadvantage when fighters are chasing it to shoot it down. :roll: :roll:

Stiffle yourself!


I see you have edited your post again on the sly

VE also did not mention wind in its effect on bomb drift. The bomb sight has adjustments that need to be put into it so that it can make adjustments for aircraft speed, altitude, wind, type of ordinance and probably air temperature. This was not computer controlled but dialled in and so was not as effective. Bombing from high altitude has to be less accurate than 100 ft off the ground, more thing had longer time to effect the fall of shot. I would also imagine that aircraft speed over the target was not max as all aircrafts must synchronise their attack. The speed is for getting to and returning from the attack.

The Lancaster was the most versatile bomber of the war. The early US bombers had short range and had been designed for costal defence not strategic bombing. By the time of the B29 the US had a strategic bomber designed for the task.

And what has colour of bomber to do with it, unless you remove all paint to save on weight.

edited to change VU to VE

[Voluntary Escaper]

See how much sence that makes? Stiffle yourself. The B-29 was faster and you hate that hence you find some way to support your claim that the British bomber was better by using the better speed of the B-29 as some kind of supposed disadvantage when fighters are chasing it to shoot it down.


Nonsense!

The B29 was more advanced than other bombers of its era - altitude, speed - but paradoxically was less accurate because it flew high and fast.

The King Tiger was a more advanced tank than many others of its era but moved at a snails' pace and drunk fuel like a wino on a binge.

At no time did I claim a British bomber was better than an American one!

The most advanced bombers were probably the German jet bombers - only the Arado 234 flew operationally, with mixed success. The forward-swept wing Ju 287 was particularly visionary, as was the Ju EF 132 - a forerunner of the B47. I would hesitate to call them the best as they never entered operational service.

In my opinion the Lancaster was the best all-round bomber, although it was not the most advanced.

[Voluntary Escaper]

VU also did not mention wind in its effect on bomb drift. :oops:

[IRONMAN]

The Lancaster was the most versatile bomber of the war. The early US bombers had short range and had been designed for costal defence not strategic bombing. By the time of the B29 the US had a strategic bomber designed for the task.

And what has colour of bomber to do with it, unless you remove all paint to save on weight.

Well, you have your opinion, I have mine. The B-29 was the better bomber. I do think it is ridiculous to say that because a bomber is faster than another it is a worse bomber, which is what you have been saying without all of the later determined material for an excuse to support your contention.

perhaps the Lancaster had better sights. I do not believe that in itself made it a better bomber. A bomber is more than sighting.

[Crab_to_be]

Crab_to_be wrote:
The conclusions drawn by Voluntary Escaper seem entirely reasonable for unguided bombs, but not true for guided ones. As guided weaponary was very much in its infancy during the period in question, I'd say VE's statement is correct as a generalisation, even though it is no longer true given the predominance of guided weapons used in modern warfare.


And your argument that the British bomber is better than the American one is based on the fact that the American bomber was faster and therefore it dropped it's bombs with less accuracy?

Good gracious boy. Stiffle yourself.

Actually, my purpose was to suggest that the rabid screaming about VE's post was misguided - that you had correctly concluded that his argument was not universally applicable to all bombers. I did this by explaining my reasoning rather than justs posting abuse. I also made no judgement on which bmber was better. But, let's not let matters like the truth obstruct your wild ranting.
On another note, please advise me on how I should best 'stiffle' myself. I suspect you would like me to stifle myself, but as you are unable to spell it, I shall decline to do so. Thank you for deigning to patronise me, old man.[/img]

[2nd of foot]

Actully, the American bomber was better because the British bomber was painted a brownish color which absobs more light and that makes it too hot to be comfortable in.

See how much sence that makes? :roll: :roll:

Stiffle yourself!

And if it was so hot in the Lancaster why did we issue them with flying jackets?

[maninblack]

Actully, the American bomber was better because the British bomber was painted a brownish color which absobs more light and that makes it too hot to be comfortable in.

See how much sence that makes? Stiffle yourself. The B-29 was faster and you hate that hence you find some way to support your claim that the British bomber was better by using the better speed of the B-29 as some kind of supposed disadvantage when fighters are chasing it to shoot it down. :roll: :roll:

Stiffle yourself!

The B29 was a superb aircraft and eventually replaced some Lancaster aircraft in service with the RAF. A fact.

It was a later generation aircraft. Fact.

However, the assumption that the colour of an aircraft's paint scheme makes the slightest difference to the interior temperature is fatally flawed for this period of time in that solar radiation and skin friction were irrelevant at speeds of between 200 and 400 mph ground speed. The outside air temperature at altitude of -20 to -35 celsius at between 15 and 35 thousand feet would more than eliminate any radition or friction heating of the skin.

In short, if the Lancaster was so warm due to the paint scheme why did the crew wear electrically heated suits, sheepskin jackets etc instead of shorts, cotton shirts and sweatbands?

[2nd of foot]

I beat you. :P :P :P :P with nobs on :P

[Voluntary Escaper]

Well, you have your opinion, I have mine. The B-29 was the better bomber.

Absolutely fine by me! Why should everyone have the same opinion?

perhaps the Lancaster had better sights

Now I must disagree! The USAAF had more accurate sights although the RAF had better navigation kit.

[South African Military]

I have finally cleared and sorted this mess out. Now we can really debate about Bombers! Please vote and happy debating! :)

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

I think that the U.S. had the most innovative bomber design with the B-29 Superfortress (Boeing Model 341/345). It was a superb aircraft with a pressurized cabin, a central fire-control system, and remote-controlled MG turrets. It also remained in service after the war and retired almost 20 years later in the '60s. It also took part in famous missions such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, under the alias of the Enola Gay. After the war the Russians took the original design and tweaked it to make the Russian version of the B-29. So I definately think the B-29 and America won the Bomber thing.

[South African Military]

HEY, You guys VOTE! I SAID VOTE!

[Walther]

There is nothing to vote. We are comparing bombers from various different periods and intended for various different purposes.
The Lancaster didn't have the reach of a B-17, but it could carry the heavier load. The Mossie could fly precision attacks, outrun and outclimb enemy fighters.
The Russian bombers were generally built for low level ground support operations from minimalistic forward airfields. The were often armoured to protect the crew.
German bombers were also primarely built as flying artillery.
Some WW2 bombers were on the technical level of the late 1930s, while the B-29 pointed already to the 1950s.

Jan

[South African Military]

well very good then. I am just asking you who had (in your opinion) the best (most effective) bombers that achieved the most. Debate!

[strangely_brown]

I think the Lanc must come out on top. The B17 doesn't even figure. Surely a heavy bomber should be about large loads. The B17s payload was pityfull compared with the Lanc. A mosquito could almost lift the same weight.
As for the B29 being best just because it dropped the a-bomb is a laugh. It probably was the best bomber, I wouldn't argue with that, but you should know that the Lancaster was seriously considered for the mission because of the massive problems Boeing was having with the B29 and the lanc was the only other plane capable of lifting the thing.
The Lancaster was hugely versatile as well, just look at the weird and wonderful loads it had to carry.

No competition apart from the B29. Maybe.

Sorry, that was a bit patriotic, but what the hell.

[Firefly]

Do you have any proof etc that backs up the statement that the Lanc was considered to drop the Bomb?

[strangely_brown]

I will get more details from my source (my boss, ex AWRE metalurgist and AWRE historian). You probably won't get any info on this from US sources. The idea of using a Lanc was very early on in the planning and as a last resort in case of the B29 problems not being sorted. So it probably acted as a huge insentive to get the Boeing working. The idea of having a British plane being used to drop the nuke must have been an horrific prospect, especially considering the amount spent on the bomb itself and then not being able to deliver it.

[pdf27]

Do you have any proof etc that backs up the statement that the Lanc was considered to drop the Bomb?
I've heard similar statements elsewhere, including one from a guy who used to targeteer nuclear weapons and so presumably can tell what was and wasn't possible. While the Lancaster could have carried the device to the target (just about) it was severely lacking in the performance to escape once the device was dropped. The B-29 itself was very marginal in this case - despite flying much higher and faster - and as such apparently had to perform some fairly dramatic manouvers to escape. While the Lancaster could probably have got away with dropping the device with a very large parachute attached, this is generally considered a bad thing and to be avoided (for a start, the device is much more vulnerable to defences).
Personally, if the Lancaster was the only option I would have gone for some kind of Mistel arrangement with a Mosquito parked on top. The Lancaster itself would then become expendable, making the whole process much simpler and safer. Drop accuracy would be reduced, but there are ways around that.

[Cash]

Britain.

The Avro Lancaster. The outstanding heavy bomber of WWII.
The only bomber capable of carrying the 12,000lb Tallboy
and 22,000lb Grand Slam earthquake bombs.

The De Havilland Mosquito. As part of the Light Night Striking Force
it was capable of flying to Berlin and back twice in one night.
Specially modified it could carry the 4,000lb Blockbuster bomb.

[Firefly]

Britain.

The Avro Lancaster. The outstanding heavy bomber of WWII.
The only bomber capable of carrying the 12,000lb Tallboy
and 22,000lb Grand Slam earthquake bombs.

The De Havilland Mosquito. As part of the Light Night Striking Force
it was capable of flying to Berlin and back twice in one night.
Specially modified it could carry the 4,000lb Blockbuster bomb.

Berlin and back twice in one night? I seriously dont thinks so. Prove it and Ill give you a Bannana.

[Cash]

Berlin and back twice in one night? I seriously dont thinks so. Prove it and Ill give you a Bannana.

I used two sources - The Bomber Command War Diaries, page 376.
In winter, individual Mosquitoes were sometimes able to make 2 flights to Berlin under the cover of darkness in the same night, changing crews after the first landing.

Bomber Command Handbook, page 65.
It was with Bomber Command's Light Night Striking Force that the Mosquito achieved the most dramatic results, often flying to Berlin and back twice in one night to drop 4,000lb Blockbuster Bombs.

:)

[pdf27]

London to Berlin is approximately 500 NM. Assume that the East Anglian airfields were used and they were approximately the same distance. Allow for a not-quite great circle route being used and that gives a total distance of 1100 NM.
A Mosquito B.IV had a flat-out speed of 330 kt (source http://www.vectorsite.net/avmoss_1.html#m6 ). That implies 3h 20 min for the round trip at full speed (implausible) and roughly 4 hours if cruising part of the way (the same source quotes a range of 1060 NM - implying Berlin is right at the ragged edge of the Mosquito's range and so it will have to fly at the cruise speed). This makes the total trip time in the region of 4-5 hours (I can't find a plausible source for cruise speed not having a library available at this time of night, but I would assume it to be in the range 200-250 kts true air speed). Assuming the ground crew is on the ball and can turn around the aircraft in an hour (probably do-able, but I wouldn't like to make a habit of it) that gives you a total duration of 9-11 hours of darkness required. In a Northern-European winter, that's pretty much assured.
Can I claim a banana too?

Edited to sort link

[Firefly]

Bannanas on hold until I do some research. I wouldnt like to be in a second crew to Berlin by those figures.

However I dont doubt it can be done, I just think is propaganda to say it was done with any regularity.

Just popping down to Grocer, I hope you both like Fyffes.

[Firefly]

OK guys. I have searched for any evidence of regular double flights and cant find any.

I'm not sure you are aware of the processes involved in turning around an ac in an hour that has just flown to Berlin and back though.

Anyway, Mosquitoes came in many guises. In Bomber Command they were invariably used as Pathfinders. I dont see a reason to go back to Berlin and re-mark a target after the show has started. Target marker tended to hang around and re-mark if necessary.

Any way, I agree that the premise is correct and it could be done. I'm not certain it was though. However I phoned the RAF Air Historical Branch and posed the question. Hopefully they can dig out the answer.

Bannanas on hold..............................

[pdf27]

I'm not sure you are aware of the processes involved in turning around an ac in an hour that has just flown to Berlin and back though.
If anything whatsoever isn't exactly right, you don't go back that night. The aircraft were relatively simple, so the maintenence needed between flights is likely to be limited to the engines and any electronics. The engines are likely to be on hours (10, 100, 1000, etc.) which will again give you a go/no go decision. If they're fine too just refill any consumables, run some checks and bomb it up again.
Electronics will be a binary situation - the way they fail, if it's working you generally don't need to do anything to it as the replacement is as likely to fail.
With a clued up ground crew I reckon that could probably be done within an hour.

[Firefly]

Rightie-O

Ive just had a wonderfull conversation about Mossie's and flying to Berlin 2 times in one winters night.

There was no directive from Command to do it. It may seem feasible but the normal Berlin trip was about 8 hours even in a Mossie.

This was due to the fact that aircraft did not take the direct route to Berlin and had to avoid certain areas on their way. Concentrations of Flak etc.

AHB, also stated that it may have been done as a one off, though they couldnt find evidence for even this.

As they should know - I have eaten your Bannanas.

[2nd of foot]

My question would be why? If it is so they can hit the same target why change crew. Were they short of AC to do the job? Why not have two waves 4 hours apart if you are trying to attack repair / rescue parties? Why put an experienced crew and a good AC at risk when another method can be found to do the job?

So why?

[Firefly]

I would agree with the above. I would also add that if you have a specific Squadron in mind that did this the Air Historical Branch told me that they would pull the records and find out.

[WaistGunner]

My vote would have to be for the USA but not for any sort of patriotic reasoning. Specifically the B-17G. This in no way should indicate a lack of respect for the British or even the German bombers in anyway. I think the difference was the fact that the USA was seperated from the war, it gave them a relatively safe place to develope and test their designs. The B-17 wiins my vote because of its verstility and its reputaion of bringing its crew home in the most dire of circumstances. It served in the Pacific, Northat Africa and England. The B-29 was a great plane but it did have an accuracy problem due to its high altitude and speed. The B-24 had a better payload but is was a mule to fly and as I understand it was a nightmare when it came to maintainance. The Lancaster and the Mosquito were both excellant aircrafts and it makes me wish that England had better resources and a place to work from. If they had they most likely would have produced aircrafts that far outshone those the USA produced. But that is all a bunch of "what ifs". As it is the B-17 was used extnsively to great success in all theaters of operation and by most of the allied nations. Then again I guess it could depend on how you look at it. The Lancaster was designed to carry out night operations, a mission in which it excelled, the B-29 was designed for the long distances required for the South Pacific (part of the reason it never faced the German's, it wasn't meant for the ETO) again it excelled at its mission, the B-17 and the B-24 were designed for daylight strategic bombing and they both performed their missions excellently. So ach plane was superior to all the others at any given moment or mission. Overall though I still have to vote for the USA and the B-17G.

[Piotr]

I think I would question the premise of this forum. It's rather hard to compare OVERALL all of the bombers used and developed during WWII. For instance, how can you compare a Mosquito with the Lanc, with B-29? It makes no sense. Obviously, B-29 was a pinnacle of the tech development in WWII. But, was the Lanc better tahn Liberator? I dare say that Marauder was at least as good as a Mosquito, and DEFINITELY could take more punishment. I would suggest to split bombers into categories based on their designation and use. For instance, both Mosquito and Marauder were used more for strafing and low-level attack (just like a Beaufighter, which likely was better than both) while Mitchels, Bostons, and Wellingtons (sorry, Whimpy) had different use. But, in Africa, Liberators were fying missions with Marauders as escorts. And different theaters saw diferent use of the same plane. I even read about Ju88's used as long-range hunters against Blenheims and Halifaxes.
so maybe we should decide what was the best bomber for a specific task?

[Twitch1]

As for only the top 2 heavies alone it is totally a tie between the Lancaster and B-17. While both were quite different they both excelled in their tasks. They are mechanically very truely "apples and oragnes" yet potent in completion of their usually very different types of missions.

[Firefly]

Piotr, the Mosquito was not a ground attack aircraft, it was far too fragile fr that task on a regular day-to-day basis.

Although it did carry out some special Bombing missions.

The Mosquito was possibly the most versatile Bomber of WW2. It could carry almost the same bomb weight as a B-17 which needed 10 crew! It was a superlative Night Fighter, a recce ac as well as numerous other roles.

[Piotr]

OK, movies notwithstanding (633 Squadron) I KNOW I read about ground attack (strafing) Mossie missions. I mean that sucker had 4 machinguns in the nose, just like a specially fitted Marauders. And DO know that Mossie was a similar size as a Lightning, B-110, or a P-68 Now, I just GOT to get you a reference on that if anything to make sure I'm not making a fool out of myself. :?

[Piotr]

AHA!!!
"Like the bombers, de Havilland built sub-variants of the Mosquito adapted for day and night fighter operations. A Mosquito crew claimed the first air-to-air victory over a Dornier 217 twin-engine bomber on May 29, 1942. Many German fighters were also destroyed. From June 1944 to March 1945, Mosquitoes crews worked to defeat a menace hitherto unseen in warfare, mass attacks by low-flying, robot flying bombs propelled by pulse jet engines, the German V-1 'buzz bomb' vengeance weapons. In operations against shipping, Mosquitoes sank supply ships, and at least ten German U-boats along the French and Norwegian coasts. Mosquito crewmen flew many other unique missions including an unarmed, scheduled airline service between Scotland and Sweden. After the war, Mosquitoes laden with cameras surveyed all of India, Cambodia, and Australia. The last operational combat mission ended on December 21, 1955, when a Mosquito PR. 34A conducted a reconnaissance mission above suspected communist strongholds hidden in the jungles of Malaya"
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/dehavilland_mosquito.htm

[Twitch1]

Sorry Piotr- Around here it's just not possible, even on a topic that turned from "which country had the best bombers" to what was THE best bomber for a certian job, to not get killed for your opinion. And how is it possible to "prove" that one bomber was the "best"?

It's just who thinks what anyway so don't take it seriously. Your opinion is a godd as anyone's, maybe better.

[Firefly]

AHA!!!
"Like the bombers, de Havilland built sub-variants of the Mosquito adapted for day and night fighter operations. A Mosquito crew claimed the first air-to-air victory over a Dornier 217 twin-engine bomber on May 29, 1942. Many German fighters were also destroyed. From June 1944 to March 1945, Mosquitoes crews worked to defeat a menace hitherto unseen in warfare, mass attacks by low-flying, robot flying bombs propelled by pulse jet engines, the German V-1 'buzz bomb' vengeance weapons. In operations against shipping, Mosquitoes sank supply ships, and at least ten German U-boats along the French and Norwegian coasts. Mosquito crewmen flew many other unique missions including an unarmed, scheduled airline service between Scotland and Sweden. After the war, Mosquitoes laden with cameras surveyed all of India, Cambodia, and Australia. The last operational combat mission ended on December 21, 1955, when a Mosquito PR. 34A conducted a reconnaissance mission above suspected communist strongholds hidden in the jungles of Malaya"
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/dehavilland_mosquito.htm

I agree with you, its just that the Mosquito wasnt used as a Ground Attacker of choice every day, although it was an 'Intruder'. What I meant is it was not used in the close support role. I very much agree that it did all the other things.

[Piotr]

Gotcha. BTW that article was very interesting in describing various problems faced by the De Havilland in, among others, making the plywood for the wings covers strong enough, and placing the radiators in the wings with slits in leading edges to let the air flow through. Apparently, this made the Mosquito so fast, unlike the Spitfire which had the rads hanging under a wing creating drag.

However, my statemnt about the cathegories still stands.
Here are my picks (non-technical, purely based on the books I read)
1. Mosquito (light)
2. Mitchel (medium)
3. Lancaster (early heavy) and Liberator (later-heavy)
4. B-17 (late heavy)
5. B-29 - completely set apart, really the first post-war bomber.

[Twitch1]

Piotr- that's a very logical list. :)

[Piotr]

Twitch, I'll take it as a compliment. Obviously, I skipped Beaufighter that was LOVED for the same reason as Lightning and A-20 ( the Warthog) - heavily shielded cockpit between 2 engines.
BTW, I'm going to get in trouble re the size of my avatar, aren't I? But, I don't know how to make it smaller... :oops:

[Firefly]

Post your avatar in the avatars bit and someone will shrink it for you mate.

[arhob1]

Cash wrote:

I used two sources - The Bomber Command War Diaries, page 376.
The Bomber Command War Diaries wrote:
In winter, individual Mosquitoes were sometimes able to make 2 flights to Berlin under the cover of darkness in the same night, changing crews after the first landing.


Bomber Command Handbook, page 65.
Bomber Command Handbook wrote:
It was with Bomber Command's Light Night Striking Force that the Mosquito achieved the most dramatic results, often flying to Berlin and back twice in one night to drop 4,000lb Blockbuster Bombs.



Strange how the BCWD uses the word "sometimes" whereas the BCH uses the word "often". To me these different words suggest a bit of urban myth. No doubt there were some COs who went for the maximum effort of two trips in one night it doesn't sound like it was Bomber Command policy to do so though. Certainly the latter day crabs I have flown with are too keen to get to their 5 star hotels and BA air hostesses to consider doing two sorties in one night :wink:

[Timbo in Oz]

if we think about

strategic materials savings and cost of production.

range / fuel consumption.

Crew losses (max 2), including in OTU's and development units.

Aircraft losses - (one of the better records among WWII aircraft.)

Accuracy of bombing achieved, as in NOT over Texas!

Weight of bombs/HE delivered.

IF all the above scores are taken against the number of sorties achieved,

then .....

I would expect the Mosquito BMkIV would come out way ahead, of any other bomber type. It was 'half serously' put among the Air Staff if dropping prod'n of the Lanc and Halifax might not be a good idea.

IIRC the Pathfinder BMkIV's, and 'own unit' marker Mossies (Viz Cheshire), had specially tuned engines on very lean mixtures increasing their endurance and allowing loitering over targets.

IIRC - When Le May decided to fly the B29's low and carrying mostly incendiaries, the remote turrets - whose performance really was problematic - were not fully manned/ammo'd up, only the tail stinger 20mm was.

This was done to improve endurance / lower fuel consumption / increase bomb load.

No other bomber had an uninterrupted bomb-bay like the Lanc, hence fitting Grand Slams under the wings of the b29! DRAGGGGGGG!

For me the vote for Best bomber is the Mossie biv, by a long chalk, and a tied 2nd for the Lanc and b29.

JBTW I have a friend, still alive, who was the navigator/radar guy on the only BMkIV - of the PFers - ever chased at night (AM and quite well-lit) by an Me rocket fighter, they only just pulled away, at a ground speed of 440 knots as the Me's 'energy' dropped away, the Me did not open fire. He helped write the official war history for Aussie.

Strangely PF and Mossie bomber crews seem to be the only crew who knew that NF's really were the main threat. The fighter the Mossie crews really feared were the 88's and the Heinkel 219 UHU.

Timbo

[Gen. Sandworm]

My My My the Brits and the Yanks are head to head on this one! :D

[Panzerknacker]

The best Bomber was the B-29 no question, but off course there is other tactical aicraft that was as good their task. For example low level attack bombers like the B-25 and Ju-88A, torpedo bombers like the SM-79 and Beaufighter, etc.

[Kurtis]

The Soviet P-=E-8 was the Best Bomber in WW2. No it didn't DO enough to get on most list. The Soviets did not have enough of this craft to be used effectively (or for any length of time). The attack on Berlin and a few other targets was all that was accomplished.
I would appreciate comments. And especially any and all information on articles and sources which cover the PE-2' few missions. Details are lacking.

[Nickdfresh]

The Soviet P-=E-8 was the Best Bomber in WW2. No it didn't DO enough to get on most list. The Soviets did not have enough of this craft to be used effectively (or for any length of time). The attack on Berlin and a few other targets was all that was accomplished.
I would appreciate comments. And especially any and all information on articles and sources which cover the PE-2' few missions. Details are lacking.

Somehow I doubt that. The Soviets copied the B-29 from examples that crash landed after missions to Japan, down to the minutest respects, including some of it's American writing. So, I do not know how you can say that the PE-8 was better. Although, the PE8 looks rather impressive and certainly must have had potential from what little I read on it...

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, I'd make the Mosquito a candidate for the best light bomber, by far...

[Digger]

I hate debates/polls like this, as there too many variables. the problem is each major nation operated under different bombing doctrines and I agree the whole issue should have been probably split into different categories.

I can claim no patriotic bias here, because Australia did not developa bomber during the war.;)

Because of the different bombing doctrines and means of attacking the enemy I will split my answers a bit, sorry if it's a bit long winded. Firstly for the RAF the Lancaster and the Mosquito win hands down, remembering the doctrine of RAF Bomber Command was predominantly night bombing, thats why I don't believe you can directly compare a B-17 to a Lanc.

For the US, there are three major contendors. The B-29, B-26 and the B-17, all excellent aircraft designed under differing circumstances. After problems in it's early development the B-26 was a truly ecellent aircraft and was most underestimated by the 'experts.'

For the Germans, the Ju-88/Ju-188 family easily the best after early teething problems and the ridiculous attempt to turn it into a dive bomber.

The Italian SM-79 was a very fine airplane, even if it looked a bit antiquated It was said to be as tough as anything else flying.

And finally I agree the Soviets had a very fine aircraft in the Pe-8. Fast and tough, it could get the job done and was perhaps the most underestimated bomber of the war.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[redcoat]

BTW, I'd make the Mosquito a candidate for the best light bomber, by far...
Interesting fact.
A late model Mosquito bomber could carry approximately the same amount of bomb load to Berlin as a B-17, 4,000Ib.
Though it should be qualified with the information that a B-17 could carry far heavier loads on shorter range missions

[angform]

the US B-29 was the greater and most important strategic bomber in the war.

[jaddik]

can anyone help me:confused: