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
