Most capable bombers of WWII by nationality

[Karnak]

With the addition of the Mosquito B.Mk XVI we have the best British bomber of WWII.  Even those who disagree with my assessment that the best British bomber was the Mosquito B.Mk XVI will almost certainly select the Lancaster Mk III as what they think the best British bomber was, and we have that too.  We also have a candidate for both the best German bomber, Ar234B, and the best Japanese bomber, Ki-67, in the game as well.  These are what I think are the most capable bombers, by nationality, of WWII are.

American:
B-29A Superfortress
Also ran:
A-26 Intruder

British:
Mosquito B.Mk XVI
Also ran:
Halifax B.Mk VI
Lancaster B.Mk III

German:
Ar234B
Also ran:
Ju188A
Do217E
*(I don't consider the He177 a contender due to its extremely poor reliability, though it may very well be wonderful in AH2)

Italian:
Cant Z.1007
Also ran:
SM.79-II
*(I don't consider the P.108 a contender simply because it saw such light service)

Japanese:
B7A2
Also ran:
H8K2
Ki-67
P1Y1

Russian:
Tu-2
Also ran:
Pe-8
*(the Pe-2 was clearly more important than the Tu-2, but it is also clearly inferior)

[Guppy35]

I take it were talking just performance, not actual impact on the airwar?

[Karnak]

I take it were talking just performance, not actual impact on the airwar?

Correct.  My choices for impact on the war would be totally different.  That is why I said "most capable" and not "most important".   

[SmokinLoon]

Ah yes, a "this is better than that" discussion.  Truth is, there is no such thing as "best" in most cases.  While the Mossi B Mk XVI is fast and had few losses, they carried 1/5th the bomb load of the Lancaster.  If the enemy was void over a certain bit airspace then the Lancaster was best for the job of leveling enemy relestate.  If the enemy had a formidable defensive fighter screen then the Mossi B Mk XVI would be better ot get in, drop ord in a precise manner, and get out with minimal losses.

On paper and in the opinion of most WWII enthusiast, the Panzer Vx "Panther" was the best tank of the war.  It was fast, had a more than powerful enough gun, and was armored well enough to stand up to the big boys at long ranges.  However, the early Panthers had a nasty habit of breaking down due to faulty transmissions.  I, like many others believe (with hindsight) that Germany would have better off upgrading the tried and true Panzer Mk IV, StuG, and Hetzer and not wasting all the resources on the Tiger, Panther, and other such "super" tanks.

Etc, etc.   

Fun topic, though.    

   

 

[Karnak]

Actually, the Mossie was better than the Lancaster no matter the enemy activity.  It carried more than a quarter of the Lancaster's load, not a fifth, and did so on fewer man hours and less fuel per pound of bombs.  It would have been more effective to build mass numbers of Mosquitos rather than fewer Lancasters.

[Nemisis]

Yeah, nothing that was aggressively unreliable would qualify as one of the most capable bombers.

[SmokinLoon]

Actually, the Mossie was better than the Lancaster no matter the enemy activity.  It carried more than a quarter of the Lancaster's load, not a fifth, and did so on fewer man hours and less fuel per pound of bombs.  It would have been more effective to build mass numbers of Mosquitos rather than fewer Lancasters.

Not to slice hairs, but the typical bomb load was 6/500lb bombs.  Not the 4k "cookie" and 2/500lb bombs.  I've read the comparison reports of manpower in building and maintenance, the ordnance delivered, damage obtained, the loss ratios, etc, etc.  But in the end, there are far more variables than the comparisons on paper can display.   

[milesobrian]

German:
Ar234B
Also ran:
Ju188A
Do217E
*(I don't consider the He177 a contender due to its extremely poor reliability, though it may very well be wonderful in AH2)

Italian:
Cant Z.1007
Also ran:
SM.79-II
*(I don't consider the P.108 a contender simply because it saw such light service)

I dont Think the Ar234 should count as their best bomber since i would assume that it  probably saw light service as well....not to mention it is the only jet powered bomber on the whole list.  Which means THE GERMANS NEED A NEW BOMBER.....


great topic tho look forwarding to following this discussion.

[curry1]

I dont Think the Ar234 should count as their best bomber since i would assume that it  probably saw light service as well....not to mention it is the only jet powered bomber on the whole list.  Which means THE GERMANS NEED A NEW BOMBER.....


great topic tho look forwarding to following this discussion.

Its not by service length but by performance

[milesobrian]

Its not by service length but by performance

then why did he exclude one of the Italian planes due to seeing limited use....i thought you said it was done by performance....not service length...o wait you are wrong never mind....

[curry1]

See Rule #4

[milesobrian]

See Rule #4

[StokesAk]

but thats not performance....which you previously said the list was based on so dont be a moron and stop contradicting your self...not to mention this statement is unclear....tho english might not be your primary language.   Next time you might want to avoid contradicting your self.  If you are going by performance how many were made dosent matter right....o wait you arent going by just performance....

the ar 234 dosent belong on that list, obviously a jet bomber is going to be better in an era of prop planes...

When you are comparing things, there will be outliers.

[Karnak]

The Ar234 saw service in squadron strength.  The P.108 did not, in fact it saw extremely little service compared to the Ar234.  The slight trickle of P.108s wasn't enough for me to include it, however, if you like, simply place it at the top of the list for best Italian bomber.

The Ar234's competition is the Ju188, Do217 and He177.  The He177 was a disaster and can be entirely eliminated from competition simply for its attempt to bring back WWI Gotha mission abort rates.

[curry1]

See Rule #4