Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: B17Skull12 on June 07, 2003, 11:24:44 PM
-
Hey i just to know what you all think was the best WWII bomber mine is the B-29
-
once again, the P47D30
-
The Arado Ar234 for sure
-
Depends completely on the task you need to do.
Lancaster for its ability to carry extreme bombloads
Arado 234 for being the most advanced WW2 bomber in operational use
Junkers Ju 88 for multirole
B-29 for the extreme in daylight high altitude armed bomber
Ju-87 for the ultimate in CAS & "long range cannon" of Wehrmacht
---
-
Hi Skull,
De Havilland Mosquito.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Mosquito
It was a great bomber from its introduction to the end of the war.
-
B29 of course. Think of it this way if you could only have 1000 bombers of only one type in your whole WW2 airfoce what would you choose? Nothing combines the range, speed, altitude performance, survivability, protection and payload of the B29 - in fact no production bomber even comes close.
-
Hi Grünherz,
>Think of it this way if you could only have 1000 bombers of only one type in your whole WW2 airfoce what would you choose?
You have a point there. However, I'd not ask for a fixed number of bombers but for a fixed amount of money to spend on them. I'm not sure about the cost of a B-29, but I'd bet it was the most expensive of them all.
So the adequate comparison might be something like 300 B-29s versus 1000 Mosquitos - which would yield a quite different picture.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
comparing capabilities of late war bombers with rather early designs, even with ones which are designed for totally different purpose... is like comparing apples and oranges.
-
Mosquito got lowest loss rate as a % of sorties than any other aircraft in british bomber command...
-
Does anyone have numbers on sorties flown, loss rates or tons of ordiance dropped.
That would be interesting to compare.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Does anyone have numbers on sorties flown, loss rates or tons of ordiance dropped.
That would be interesting to compare.
http://www.danshistory.com/ww2/britishb.shtml
http://www.danshistory.com/ww2/usab.shtml
http://www.nucleus.com/~ltwright/bc-stats.html
http://www.nucleus.com/%7Evwright/Groups.htm
:rolleyes:
-
mossie! and it was just as multi-role as the ju88
-
most advanced B29
-
Ar-234 hands down.
BTW, in AH it's funny to keep the RATOs, bomb, and as 35 bish fighters line up on you...
zooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
Wer bremst verliert ! Haha !
-
Ar234 is neat, but it doesn't have the fuel endurance to be considered seriously.
I'll add my vote to the Mosquito, though the B-29A, B-17G and Lancaster were all very good as well.
-
B-24, larger bomb load than the '17' and more reliable than the '29'
-
Fairey Swordfish
-
Originally posted by Otto
B-24, larger bomb load than the '17' and more reliable than the '29'
But much harder to fly and more 'fragile''.
Don't crash land in the B-24 either especially on water. Not sure if was the B-24, but one of the American bombers in a crash landing could have that upper turret break loose and crush the cockpit.
-
"Bang for the Buck" award goes to the Boeing B-17 and the Avro Lancaster. B-29, too late, B-24, not as reliable or as sturdy as the B-17 (close 2nd though and a fine bomber).
At least in the "Heavy" category, thats how I would score them. Its too ez to pick the most technologically advanced. The P-80 was the best USAAF fighter, but it flew at the closing weeks of the war and saw no action. You have to consider service during the war for the discussion to have any point.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"Bang for the Buck" award goes to the Boeing B-17 and the Avro Lancaster.
Mossie could carry 4k bombs on long missions, which is same normal load as a b17 apparently
-
Thats the problem, you are taking the "max load" of the Mosquito and comparing it to the "typical" load of the B-17.
B-17F could carry 9600lbs max, but often rolled with 4000-6000 due to range requirements.
Mosquito B.IV carried 4 x 500s as standard load, or 2000lbs on operations, all internal. The 4000 lb load is from a later mark, the B.XVI (Spring 1944) which had an enlarged bay.
The Lancaster could carry 14000lbs max (for standard bombs) but often flew with less than that, again because of range and ordnace requirements of the target.
Besides, the Mossie is in the medium category I think, its kind of apples and oranges.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Thats the problem, you are taking the "max load" of the Mosquito and comparing it to the "typical" load of the B-17.
What was the 'typical' load carried by a B-17 to Berlin?
-
Stuka bomber for sure because of the dang big bomb and since it was the most usefull during ww2 :D :eek: :D :eek: ;) :p :rolleyes:
-
500 lbs x 10 for Berlin was a typical load. 500 lbs x 12 for targets in France and Western Germany was also common for B-17s.
-
Squire,
There were Mosquito B.Mk IVs and Mosquito B.Mk IXs modified to carry a 4000lb bomb and they were in service before the Mosquito B.Mk XVI. The Mosquito B.Mk XVI was the first Mosquito purpose built to carry a cookie.
Still, it is a 1944/45 thing. The first cookie enabled Mosquito B.Mk IV raid was on the night of March 5/6, 1944.
-
mosquito was best high speed bomber/attack...
best night heavy was lanc...best day was b17...comparing b29 and lanc is comparing apples and oranges...b29 was latewat and designed for daylight bombing...lancaster was made relativly early and was designed for night raids...during the day the americans would bomb the **** outta them...during the night the british would...
-
Originally posted by Squire
Thats the problem, you are taking the "max load" of the Mosquito and comparing it to the "typical" load of the B-17.
Sorry notice i said long range range missions, shoulda made it more clear.
Also the mossie was brilliant as a fighter/nightfighter/pathfinder/fighter-bomber/P.R./Anti-shipping + almost any other role you can think of!
-
Agree on the Mosquito, it was a war winner, no question, and one of the all time great a/c of WW2. "Best debates" tend to get off track, but thats ok, its fun to trade off facts and opinions. :)
-
For a quick intruder bombing mission would you rather take a Mosquito or Ar-234 ?
-
Originally posted by Staga
For a quick intruder bombing mission would you rather take a Mosquito or Ar-234 ?
Mosquito, for I would be confidant the engines would keep operating.
-
AR-234, mossie a close second.
-
b29 best bomber in ww2 i think,,mossy and lancaster good too,,but b29 had remote controlled machine guns so the gunners were atleast some what protected with out having to be in the turret it self,,it was fast for being so big
it could carry a bigger bomb load than a lancaster,,speed,,high alt,,great guns,,and best bomb load of ww2,,makes it a tuff one to beat
12 .50-caliber machine guns, 1 20 mm cannon, 20,000-pound bomb load,365 mph
-
I read some RAF late-WW2 documents in the PRO concerning thinking about the type of bombers needed in the future.
Their conclusion was that for night bombing, the Mosquito type was by far the most efficient. With only two engines, two crew and no guns it was a small fraction of the cost of a heavy, and its high speed made it difficult to intercept. Also, each interception by a night fighter took time to set up, and the payback in shooting down a Mossie was relatively small. So for the same resources, you could have maybe three times as many Mossies as four-engined heavies, and they could swamp the night-fighter defences.
However, if it became necessary to launch daylight attacks the equations altered. There was some dispute between those who favoured a fast and powerful twin, armed with 20mm cannon in turrets, and those who wanted a really big plane, capable of carrying heavy artillery to match the stand-off distances achieved by the new German planes carrying 50mm cannon. They actually worked out the consequences of mounting a pair of turreted 3.7 inch AA guns firing proximity-fuzed ammo! Although by then the P-51 escort fighter was making such heavy fighters obsolete, the RAF was obviously thinking of very long range missions, which would be unescorted.
Of course, if you had escort fighters, you were better off with no bomber armament at all, as the weight and drag saved would increase the average speed and minimise the time in danger.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
B-17 is the most fameous I guess, it's a pretty good one too. also the B-24 was equal to the fortress, but it wasnt too well known
I like the B-25 the most :)
-
B-24 with B-17 as close 2nd
They got the job done.
-
dunno which was best but we made more liberators than any other. must have had something going for it.
-
I think the B24 dropped the larger tonnage of bombs on Germany, but i cant' be sure.I know it was the most produced heavy bomber and was the backbone of the US bomber fleet.(some 18,188 produced) (B17 12,731) (Lancaster 7,366)
For some reason it doesnt seem to get much of the attention.It was used as a transport,naval reconaissance aircraft and in Anti-submarine attacks, it was versatile and used by several countries like Great britain,Australia and south Africa etc.Always seems to be the B17 on the documentaries.
very similar to the spitfire and hurricane in the Battle of Britain.Often the Spitfire takes all the laurels when it was actually the hurricane which shot the most aircraft down and was the most numerous.
As for best bomber B29 wasnt the fastest :) 357mph for the B29 vs 460mph for the Arado 234. Also both had remote controlled guns.
If it comes to my personal favourite Id have to say He177. Its so ugly it actually scores points for it! :)
close 2nd would be the Wellington Bomber (Wimpy).
-
The B-24 had a range advantage over the B-17 which made it very useful in the long-range anti-sub patrol role. However, in the accounts I have read it wasn't as pleasant to fly as the B-17 and it was also less resistant to battle damage, so it tended to be less popular with crews.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
The question of 'best bombers' is largely one of 'horses for courses'. I recall many decades ago my French teacher, who had friends in a French village, recounting the tale of an incident there during WW2 around D-day. The Allies decided that they needed to take out a bridge near the village, so one day a large number of four-engined bombers roared over at medium altitude. They flattened everything within a half-mile radius of the bridge, but missed the target. So a couple of days later an even larger number of heavies paid a visit. This time they flattened everything within a one-mile radius, but still missed the bridge. So on the third attempt, a single Mosquito came in at zero altitude and dropped one bomb, which took out the bridge. Now there's cost-effectiveness for you...
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Hi Tony,
>However, in the accounts I have read it wasn't as pleasant to fly as the B-17 and it was also less resistant to battle damage, so it tended to be less popular with crews.
Reportedly it was faster though, which was a good characteristic as well.
With regard to damage: While Luftwaffe pilots took it as obvious fact that the B-24 was much easier to bring down than the B-17, the actual loss numbers for both aircraft show that they were almost equal - with the B-24 having the advantage! I've also found an article describing casualty statistics that showed that there were considerably fewer crew casualties (death/wounds) in the B-24 than in the B-17.
I'm not quite sure on how to make sense of this contradicting information.
One explanation might be that the B-17 died harder, but once shot up would be shot down in the end (at least in the majority of the cases). That would account for the equal loss rates despite the reportedly greater vulnerability of the B-24. (In fact, Reschke summarized it as "the B-17 needed two passes to be brought down while the B-24 went down in one".)
With regard to the crew casualties, I have no idea. Maybe flak was a greater factor for the slower B-17 than for the B-24, so that more B-17s were lost to flak than B-24s (with fighters shooting down relatively more B-24s so that the balance was equal).
However, that's all speculation.
The really suprising thing is that there was hardly any difference in survivability between the American bombers, while the British bombers were worlds apart (Lancaster:Halifax:Stirling loss ratios were about 1:2:4).
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Interesting, Henning. IIRC the B-24 flew higher than the B-17, which would certainly have reduced its vulnerability to Flak and perhaps made it harder for fighters to intercept. So perhaps it was hit less often, but when it was, it was more likely to go down.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
The safest postion in the B-17 and B-24 was the ball turret. Less WIA/KIA than any other position. The worst position was to be a waist gunner.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The safest postion in the B-17 and B-24 was the ball turret. Less WIA/KIA than any other position. The worst position was to be a waist gunner.
Well they had to be small to fit into the cramped ball turret, and they were so squashed up, with their kness around their ears, that they made a smaller target :)
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
while the British bombers were worlds apart (Lancaster:Halifax:Stirling loss ratios were about 1:2:4).
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Whilst the Stirling was abit of a string bag the Halifax and Lancaster were very similar and I often wonder why the Halifax sufferred such a significantly higher number of crew losses.
Harris obviously prefferred the Lancaster as it had a slightly higher bomb load and this suited his doctrine of terror bombing major cities.
My view is that its the ordance delivered(to target) per cost (be that cost in £/$ or lives) is the deciding factor.
Hence one would favour the Mossie but then it would be a pretty useless terror weapon which should be awarded to the B29.
-
B 25.
Anything that has a 75mm nose gun,can take off a CV,bomb Tokyo,land in China and boost the morale of an entire nation gets my vote..:)