The Best Bombers of WWII

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#41

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

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.

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![/quote]

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

#42

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.

#43

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

#44

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.

#45

[quote]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. [/quote]

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]

#46

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

#47

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?

#48

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

#49

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.

#50

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

#51

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.

#52

HEY, You guys VOTE! I SAID VOTE!

#53

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

#54

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

#55

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.

#56

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

#57

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.

#58

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.

#59

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.

#60

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