The better Medium/Heavy bomber?

[B-17engineer]

I am curious what bomber you think was better and why? Any country......

I am going to go with the Avro Lancaster, For night bombing it was a terrific bomber, at an air show u could walk through one, when i dig up the photos ill post them. It was great, it dropped the skipping bomg, tallboy and Grandslam bomb. Just an all around nice bomber :mrgreen:

[snebold]

In WWII the outstanding heavy bomber to enter service was the B-29. (The end of that discussion).

Of the aircraft built to the requirement that gave RAF the Lancaster and the Halifax, the Supermarine 318 was initially the preferred aircraft. The not-so-far-from-complete prototype was destroyed in a German air raid in 1940, and it was decided that Supermarine should concentrate on turning out the maximum number of Spitfires and forget about their heavy bomber, so we´ll never know if it was better.

Anybody have an opinion on the B-17 vs. B-24? It seems to me that although 4 years younger, all the B-24 could do better was to fly a little farther (and work as a transport as well, but that´s hardly essential for a bomber).

[Twitch1]

The B-29 suffered severe teething problems that the B-17 never did. The B-17 was by far the best bomber for one reason- due to its construction it was able to RETURN ITS CREW home after cripplingly severe battle damage on a scale that preculded other bombers' survival.

While the B-17 lacked the ability to tote a humoungous bomb like the Lanc or to fly as high as the B-29, it could do its job excellently and safely return its crew. B-24s could NOT fly on 2 engines and the B-29 was more hard put to do it than was the B-17. The R-3350 was prone to catch fire easily and it took a major effort to rectify that. After the war in the civilian version of the B-29, the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser continued to have engine problems.

B-29s dropped 170,000 tons of bombs on Japan while the B-17 dropped 640,000 tons on Europe with the B-24 dropping 634,000 tons in all theaters. Lancasters dropped 608,000 tons on Europe.

The B-29 owed any successes to its stalwart Boeing predecessor the B-17. What they learned was put into the B-29 making it a better craft. That said I love 'em all!

[Firefly]

I am curious what bomber you think was better and why? Any country......

I am going to go with the Avro Lancaster, For night bombing it was a terrific bomber, at an air show u could walk through one, when i dig up the photos ill post them. It was great, it dropped the skipping bomg, tallboy and Grandslam bomb. Just an all around nice bomber :mrgreen:

Yes I am partial to the old Lanc too. Must be the all round best Bomber of the war. No other bomber could carry as much weight of bombs.

[Panzerknacker]

Two different categories, medium and heavy :rolleyes:

I ll go for the Ju-188 in the medium bomber question and for the B-17G in the heavy bomber role.

Ju-188.

http://www.kg200.org/images/ju188e.jpg

[Firefly]

If it was a medium bomber my choice would be a Mosquito. I dont think any other bomber was as versatile:

http://www.mossie.org/Mosquito.html

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, the Mosquito was a great plane. The German reaction to it (trying to waste project funds to produce both an equivalent, and interceptor, of it) show what a brilliant wooden aircraft she was...

[B-17engineer]

Thanks Guys!

For a Medium I would pick a Ju-88 it was a multi-role plane

[gumalangi]

Medium,. would go for Ju88,.. but for the heavy,. Lancs!,.. the looks,. so elegant,..

[Major Walter Schmidt]

I pick Ta 400 or Fugaku for heavy bomber, I pick He277 for medium. If that is too big, I pick Ju188.

[snebold]

B-29 or B-17?

Which aircraft stayed in production until aug1946

Which aircraft was still around to be used as a bomber in the Korean War

Which aircraft was lend to RAF in the 1950´s when they needed a stop-gap strategic bomber

Which aircraft was considered worth developing (into the B-50) postwar

Which aircraft was developed into a civil airliner post war (and the development of which into a civil airliner was not produced postwar)

Which aircraft served as the basis of nearly 1000 tankers postwar

Which one do you think the US planners preferred?


The Douglas A-26 (later B-26) also enjoyed a long postwar life, something that can be taken as a measure (but surely not alone) of an aircrafts worth.

If only they´d made the Ju 288 work or put the Douglas A-42 in production. On paper at least, they were in a different class than the other medium bombers.

[namvet]

the B-25 mitchell. flown by the Dolittle raiders in the apr 42 raid on Japan. launched from the deck of the USS Hornet. what a mission. what guts !!!! my mom built this model during the war. she was a rosey the riveter.

http://www.b25.net/images/b25slnfs.JPG

B-25 "Heavenly Body"on takeoff from the flight deck of the carrier U.S.S. Ranger (CV-61) in San Diego Bay.
In April 1992, "Heavenly Body" was the first B-25 in fifty years to fly from the deck of an aircraft carrier.


http://www.b25.net/images/b25cv61takeoff.JPG

the Dolittle raid: link (link)

[pdf27]

I ll go for the Ju-188 in the medium bomber question and for the B-17G in the heavy bomber role.
I thought the B-17 WAS a medium bomber - bombload was virtually identical to the Mosquito, and nobody has ever claimed that was a heavy bomber...

[Nickdfresh]

B-29 or B-17?

Which aircraft stayed in production until aug1946

Which aircraft was still around to be used as a bomber in the Korean War

...
The Douglas A-26 (later B-26) also enjoyed a long postwar life, something that can be taken as a measure (but surely not alone) of an aircrafts worth.
..


Much to the chagrin of their crews that complained of being the second rate, mothball air force fighting in Korea...

[Nickdfresh]

I thought the B-17 WAS a medium bomber - bombload was virtually identical to the Mosquito, and nobody has ever claimed that was a heavy bomber...

But only at certain ranges, the B-17 could carry loads for longer...

[pdf27]

In theory, but they way they were used negated most of the B-17s performance advantages. For instance, the bombload routinely carried to Berlin by both was 4,000lbs. The B-17 was capable of carrying perhaps 6,000lbs, but the extra load was needed to allow extra fuel for flying in formation, etc. and via different routes. The Mosquito had the performance to make it there in an almost straight route, and didn't need the defensive armament which so weighed down the B-17.

[redcoat]

But only at certain ranges, the B-17 could carry loads for longer...
Its the other way round ;)
On short range missions the B-17 could carry up to 17,000Ib of bombs, but on long range missions like Berlin this went down to around 4,000Ib, mainly due to the extra fuel and ammo needed.
The Mosquito bomber (from mid 1944) could carry 4,000Ib of bombs all the way to Berlin, but this was the maximum weight she could carry on any mission

[Nickdfresh]

Its the other way round ;)
On short range missions the B-17 could carry up to 17,000Ib of bombs, but on long range missions like Berlin this went down to around 4,000Ib, mainly due to the extra fuel and ammo needed.
The Mosquito bomber (from mid 1944) could carry 4,000Ib of bombs all the way to Berlin, but this was the maximum weight she could carry on any mission

Aha!!