ww2 bombers which was the best
Michael devonald
can anyone spare some thoughts on which was the best bomber of WW2. one of
my colleagues believes that the lancaster was far superior to the b17 (bomb
load, range ect) but inferior to the liberator.
regards michael
Kenneth P. Katz
It would be hard to argue with the Boeing B-29 as the best strategic
bomber of WW II. Technologically, it was a generation ahead of anything
else in the world.
My vote for the best light bomber of WW II would be the Douglas A-26.
Regards,
Kenneth P. Katz
Al Alpert
In article <01bc0de5$8194dd60$670127c0@devonalm>, "Michael devonald"
<michael...@unn.unisys.com> wrote:
IMHO the B-29 Superfortress was by far the best bomber in WW II.
Unfortunately it came along too late to make a real difference, except in
the last days of the Pacific theater. I think too many people forget about
the 29 when evaluating the other bombers. For the main part of the war, I
think the B-17 was more durable than the B-24, which, as I understand it
had too many maintenance and other weaknesses (such as susceptibility to
fire). I don't know enough about the Lancaster to compare it with the
others.
Al Alpert
Jeffery S. Harrison
Michael devonald wrote:
>
> can anyone spare some thoughts on which was the best bomber of WW2. one of
> my colleagues believes that the lancaster was far superior to the b17 (bomb
> load, range ect) but inferior to the liberator.
>
> regards michael
I think I would have to agree (qualified agreement) that the Lancaster
was the best bomber of WW2. Of course this topic is like asking what the
best fighter of WW2 or the sexiest/ugliest airplane is.
Jeff
Al Sumrall
Al Alpert wrote:
>
> In article <01bc0de5$8194dd60$670127c0@devonalm>, "Michael devonald"
>
> > can anyone spare some thoughts on which was the best bomber of WW2. one of
> > my colleagues believes that the lancaster was far superior to the b17 (bomb
> > load, range ect) but inferior to the liberator.
> >
> > regards michael
>
> Unfortunately it came along too late to make a real difference, except in
> the last days of the Pacific theater. I think too many people forget about
> the 29 when evaluating the other bombers. For the main part of the war, I
> think the B-17 was more durable than the B-24, which, as I understand it
> had too many maintenance and other weaknesses (such as susceptibility to
> fire). I don't know enough about the Lancaster to compare it with the
> others.
>
> Al Alpert
The B-29 of course, was superior to all the other bombers of WWII
and was the best bomber to come out of WWII without doubt. But it was
not there when the going was really rough. I think the bombers that
really did the job (dropped the most tonnage, more or less) during the
main part of the war and faced the most battle should only be
considered. These are the B-24, B-17, Lancaster, and Halifax.
In my opinion, it was the B-24. Why? The B-24 could do all the duties
of the other three and then some more. Although it was ugly, was not as
generally rugged as the B-17, couldn't carry the load of the Lanc or
Halifax but still could carry a good bomb load. It could fly at longer
range, could still carry a heavy load, day or night (would probably have
to have minor mods to make it less visible) was nimble and fast enough
to operate at low altitudes as well as high. Could defend itself in
daylight resonably well for the type, if necessary. The differences are
more in degree than any clear cut superiority in any area and the other
types are superior in some areas, but when you add it all up and want a
bomber for all seasons, the B-24 comes out on top without disparaging
the other types that fit particular niches quite satisfactorily.
Al
Pat Ryan
In <5coa7h$1...@tmpsu003.tmpprv.allied.com> "Kenneth P. Katz" <katzk>
writes:
Stupid question.
The one that brings you home from the Mission is the answer!
Karl Siegmund
shbj...@ix.netcom.com (Pat Ryan) wrote:
I agree! The B-24 brought me and my crew back home safely after 35
combat missions with the 15th AF flying out of Italy. It is, was, and
always will be the best to me!!!!
73's, Karl
Marcus Gustafsson
Michael devonald wrote:
>
> can anyone spare some thoughts on which was the best bomber of WW2. one of
> my colleagues believes that the lancaster was far superior to the b17 (bomb
> load, range ect) but inferior to the liberator.
>
> regards michael
but lacked the punch in defensive armament. This wasn't such a big deal
since the Lancaster mostly flew night missions and there were "less"
chance of being attacked by a fighter. i might take some heat for this
but I can't imagine the Luftwaffe having as many night-fighters as
day-fighters.
Marcus Gustafsson
www.mds.mdh.se/~kms95mgn
Michael devonald
hello pat
it wasn't a stupid question. it was born out of curiosity because it seems
that in recent years the American planes seem to have gotten most of the
limelight. just how does the Lancaster compare with the b17 or liberator
etc. or for that matter the Mosquito against its contemporaries.
regards michael
Joe Hegedus
In article <32EFFC...@livingston.net>, Al says...
>
>Al Alpert wrote:
>>
>> In article <01bc0de5$8194dd60$670127c0@devonalm>, "Michael devonald"
>>
>> > can anyone spare some thoughts on which was the best bomber of WW2. one of
>> > my colleagues believes that the lancaster was far superior to the b17 (bomb
>> > load, range ect) but inferior to the liberator.
>> >
>> > regards michael
>>
In terms of overall strategic impact, I think that the Douglas SBD should also
be considered. Remember Midway, Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, etc.
Joe
Jesse Nadel
Michael devonald wrote:
>
> can anyone spare some thoughts on which was the best bomber of WW2. one of
> my colleagues believes that the lancaster was far superior to the b17 (bomb
> load, range ect) but inferior to the liberator.
>
> regards michael
The whole issue of comparing the two (Lancaster and B-17) is silly.
They were designed in different countries, to meet different
requirements and different operational philosophies. They were designed
to use different available resources and were designed by people with
different cultures. It's worse than comparing apples and oranges; is
like comparing a redwood and some algae.
In fact, the RAF tried several B-17's, found them totally useless for
their bombing missions and diverted to less challenging missions. IMHO,
if the USAAC had tried to operate Lancasters at 25000 feet over Berlin
in daylight they would have been slaughtered.
OTOH, the B-17 vs B-24 comparison is valid and interesting. But I won't
get into that; since I work in the factory that built 3000 B-24's I'm
slightly biased.
Jesse
Michael Williamson
Jesse Nadel wrote:
>
> In fact, the RAF tried several B-17's, found them totally useless for
> their bombing missions and diverted to less challenging missions. IMHO,
> if the USAAC had tried to operate Lancasters at 25000 feet over Berlin
> in daylight they would have been slaughtered.
>
Actually, they did operate B-17s over Berlin in daylight, although
the AAC ceased to be before the United States entered the war. The
early bombers used by the British (Fortress I) were underarmed,
and armored by late war standards. In addition, the late war missions
were accompanied by escort fighters as of March 1944 (first appearance
of American escort fighters over Berlin).
By the way, the British also found that all of THEIR bombers were useless
for their bombing purposes early in the war, which, IIRC, were along the
same lines as the Americans (i.e. daylight point bombing). By moving to
night attacks, they were able to reduce their defensive requirements and
carry more gas and payload. Their later designs were well suited to this
purpose, with large fuel and payload capacities, but with very limited
defensive capabilities.
Mike Williamson
Emmanuel.Gustin
Michael devonald (michael...@unn.unisys.com) wrote:
: it wasn't a stupid question. it was born out of curiosity because it
: seems that in recent years the American planes seem to have gotten most
: of the limelight.
That has a lot do to with the power of the US media. It results in a
communications systems in which a lot goes out, but almost nothing in.
: just how does the Lancaster compare with the b17 or
: liberator etc. or for that matter the Mosquito against its
: contemporaries.
Well, for a start one could make a comparison based on the technical data:
B-17G B-24J Lancaster Mk.I Mosquito B Mk.IV
----- ----- -------------- ----------------
Crew: 12 12 7 2
Engines: 880 kW 895 kW 940 kW 918 kW
R-1820-97 R-1830-65 Merlin XX Merlin 21
Empty Weight 16390 kg 16556 kg 16750 kg 5942 kg
Max Weight 29710 kg 32300 kg 10152 kg
Max Speed 462 km/h 467 km/h 460 km/h 612 km/h
Ceiling 10850 m 8535 m 7470 m 9500 m
Range, max 5085 km 3380 km 4800 km 1960 km
Armament: 13 * .50 10 * .50 10 * .303 none
Bombload, max 9453 kg 5806 kg 9980 kg 907 kg
Range 2980 km 2735 km 1610 km
with bombs 1812 kg 2260 kg 6340 kg
As you can see, the Lancaster required a smaller crew, carried less
defensive armament, operated at lower altitudes, and carried more bombs to
the target. Most of this is a consequence of the way it was used: It
operated at night. British bombers flew at medium altitude, in "streams"
rather than formations. The B-17 and B-24 flew in daylight, at high
altitude, in strict formations. The B-17 and B-24 could have operated at
night, but would have been considerably less efficient than the Lancaster;
the Lancaster could have operated at day, but would have suffered
considerably higher losses than the B-17 or B-24. In theory the US bombers
made up for their smaller bombload by higher accuracy, but to hit
something by high-altitude bombing was more difficult in reality than in
theory.
Therefore, a comparison between the Lancaster and B-17 or B-24 immediately
becomes a discussion on the merits of day vs. night bombing. For a start,
one could point out that both tactics were, in their initial forms,
fundamentally flawed: The RAF night bomber crews could not find their
targets, and the USAAF bombers suffered unbearable losses to German
fighters. The RAF was saved by developments of radar and navigation
systems, and the USAAF by the introduction of long-range escort fighters.
The Mosquito of course represented a fundamentally different appraoch to
long-range bombing. You could look at it this way: Each of the .50
Browning guns of a B-17G weighed about 30kg. If you add ammunition and gun
mounts, the weight penalty per gun easily reaches 100kg. Then you need
gunners to operate them: On a B-17G four full-time gunners, and three
part-time gunners, say five gunners in total. Taking into account their
needs for clothing, oxygen, armour, and space, they also easily account
for a load of 100kg each. Powered gun turrets bring of course a even
heavier penalty, not only weight, but also drag. So on a mission to
Berlin, the weight of the defensive armament exceeds that of the bomb load
by a comfortable margin --- and still it is insufficient to protect the
bomber! So it is logical to dispose of all the weight and drag of
armament, and design a smaller high-performance aircraft.
However, the experience of the early war years was that unarmed, "fast"
bombers would be slower than fighters, and therefore highly vulnerable.
The miracle of the "wooden wonder" was that it was indeed fast enough the
elude interception, certainly at night. But this too had a price. The data
presented for the B Mk.IV may not indicate the full potential of the
design: The Mosquito could fly to Berlin, and bomb load was later
increased to 1814 kg. But the basic observation is still true: The
Mosquito was not really a strategic bomber, and altough it could be
adapted to that role (like it was adapted to many others, being an
extremely versatile aircraft) it was really more suitable for medium-range
missions and precision attacks.
Emmanuel Gustin
Michael devonald
hello emmanuel
thank you for your efforts they are appreciated. i will also pass this
information on to a friend who started me on this discussion.
regards michael
Michael devonald
hello jesse
>>>OTOH, the B-17 vs B-24 comparison is valid and interesting. But I won't
>>>get into that; since I work in the factory that built 3000 B-24's I'm
>>>slightly biased.
i am interested even in a biased opinion.
regards michael
Dan Ford
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Michael Williamson wrote:
> Actually, they did operate B-17s over Berlin in daylight, although
> the AAC ceased to be before the United States entered the war. The
> early bombers used by the British (Fortress I) were underarmed,
> and armored by late war standards. In addition, the late war missions
They also had a lot of trouble with their GE turbochargers, to connect
this with the Airacobra thread. Indeed, the fact that Britain was full of
US Army & GE technicians working on this problem in early 1941 helped
contribute to the events that led to the U.S. (and GE) getting the
"Whittle engine" from the British, which in turn led to American (and GE)
dominance in the jet engine market after the war.
- Dan
Dan Ford
The B-29 was a WWII bomber also. - Dan
On 31 Jan 1997, Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:
> Well, for a start one could make a comparison based on the technical data:
>
> B-17G B-24J Lancaster Mk.I Mosquito B Mk.IV
> ----- ----- -------------- ----------------
(etc)
spcan...@aol.com
The no noubt best bomber is not american or british it is german. The
JU-87. it may not have be fast, sexiey, and it could not hold a lot of
tonige but it was a hell of a lot more persice than anything with a Nordin
in it.
Thomas Myers
Leonard Cheshire, a Lancaster pilot decorated with the Victoria Cross, was
an observer on the second nuclear mission of the war. His opinion of the
superfort was extremly high because of the fact that it was WARM. Being the
only pressurised bomber of the late misunderstanding, they were allowed the
comfort of a heater which other bombers did not have. Whether this fact,
alone,makes the superfort a better overall bomber is still a matter of
opinion.
Bob Morgan, pilot of the Memphis Belle, & later Dauntless Dottie compared
the superfort to the flying fort as being the diffrence between a Cadillac
& a Volkswagen. I rekon he would know best.
Al Sumrall <a...@livingston.net> wrote in article
<32EFFC...@livingston.net>...
> Al Alpert wrote:
> >
> > In article <01bc0de5$8194dd60$670127c0@devonalm>, "Michael devonald"
IamVger
It really is too open of a question, I think. The best bomber for what
purpose? Only the Lancaster could have completed the DamBuster raids, so
for Dam busting, that's the one. For daylight not-so-precise bombing, the
24 and the 17 both proved themselves worthy of the title of best.
Your mention of the Mosquito was right on -- for pin-point harrassment
bombing, the Mosq had no equal in Europe. The Ju-88 was probably as fine
an aircraft, but it lacked the precision of the wooden wonder.
As for me, I choose the Mitchell as best all around bomber. It served in
every theater, had the lowest loss rate of any 2-4 engine allied bomber
until 1945, when the clean skies over Japan allowed the B-29 to steal that
statistic away. The B-25 absorbed amazing amounts of damage and took the
battle to the enemy when no other allied bomber could. The most important
thing for a bomber to do is to drop on target, and return with its crew.
To do that, consistantly, it would take a Mitchell...
Gordon
Paul J. Adam
In article <19970131122...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
spcan...@aol.com writes
In that case, I vote for the Il-2 Sturmovik :)
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
horne_bill
IamVger wrote:
>
> Only the Lancaster could have completed the DamBuster raids, so
> for Dam busting, that's the one.
My curiosity is aroused. What makes this statement true? Is it because
the Lanc was the only plane modified to carry the special bomb? I can't
imagine any technical reason that other bombers could not have flown the
mission. The methods used for height and bomb release range control
could have been used in most any plane, could they not?
It's my impression that it was a British operation and the Lancaster was
chosen because it was the British bomber capable of carrying the
physical size and weight of the weapon. Was there some other technical
reason for the selection?
Bill Horne
'reply to' address changed to foil auto-replies.
correct email address is bho...@loc3.tandem.com
Doug O'Neil
spcan...@aol.com wrote:
>
> The no noubt best bomber is not american or british it is german. The
> JU-87. it may not have be fast, sexiey, and it could not hold a lot of
> tonige but it was a hell of a lot more persice than anything with a Nordin
> in it.
convinced that the JU-87 could put an egg on a tank ( from 2,000 ft)
better than a B-17 could put one on a building (at 30,000 ft).
But if you don't completly own the skies you also need adequate
defensive abilities be it guns and armour and/or speed. Accuracy
doesn't amount to much if you can't get over the target. It is my
understanding that JU-87s did great until the BoB where they were
decimated by modern fighters.
Doug (no quotes from books just an opinion) O'Neil
Emmanuel.Gustin
Dan Ford (d...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
: The B-29 was a WWII bomber also. - Dan
Of course, but he specifically mentioned the B-17, B-24, Lancaster
and Mosquito :-)
Emmanuel
Ken Devlin
I thought the B-26 had to lowest loss rate?
kbd
IamVger
yer damned tootin'. if anyone thinks that a 200 mile-per-hour TARGET made
by Junkers in any way outperformed the IL-2, they are dealing with an
alternative reality. Ju-87s were effective as bombers until France
fell...its service life as a bomber was given a short reprieve when
Barbarosa erupted. Beyond that (Mid-late 1941) if a Ju-87 was in the sky,
it was in most likely on a tank-busting mission or the equivalent of a
suicide run. The 1930's design was slaughtered in any type of aerial
combat past 1942. Sorry to deflate the Stuka bubble, but it was best in
combat with unarmed civilians on packed roads. In combat, I would pick a
Sturmovik as my ride, if the choice were between the two. Rudel was lucky
-- thousands of Stuka crews lost in action were not.
<===(A+C===>
spcan...@aol.com
On jan. 31 Doug O'Neil wrote-
>As proven in desert storm, accuracy counts for a lot and I can be
>convinced that the JU-87 could put an egg on a tank ( from 2,000 ft)
>better than a B-17 could put one on a building (at 30,000 ft).
>But if you don't completly own the skies you also need adequate
>defensive abilities be it guns and armour and/or speed. Accuracy
>doesn't amount to much if you can't get over the target. It is my
>understanding that JU-87s did great until the BoB where they were
>decimated by modern fighters.
It is true that the 87's were no match for almost any fighter aircraft,
but i think that i have read some were where it said that a one time
flight of three Ju-87's and 3 additonal BF-109's flew in at extreem low
alt. (mabye 50'-100') the flight made it into Londen and hit three
hi-value targets in some sort of pop up manuver and got back out with only
one aircraft loss (me thinks it was a 109 and a barige ballon having a
difference of opinions). as i said i am not possitve that i read this or
if i just thaught it up while tripping on a O^2 high.
Roger Wallsgrove
There are also instances of Il-2s meeting Ju87s - and the former shooting
down the latter!
"Best" is totally subjective (judging by other responses in this thread).
If you'd rather go for "most significant", then the Il-2 takes it as a
tactical "bomber". The war in Europe was won in the East; the Il-2 was
a major factor (THE major factor?) in that theatre, aerially speaking.
Stategically, we are all forgetting the Halifax, judged by its crews as
the equal of the Lancaster, and equally important in the RAF's bombing
campaign.
Roger Wallsgrove
Kauz
Ken Devlin wrote
> >Your mention of the Mosquito was right on -- for pin-point harrassment
> >bombing, the Mosq had no equal in Europe. The Ju-88 was probably as
fine
> >an aircraft, but it lacked the precision of the wooden wonder.
A Ju 88 flying with Oboe or GH would have had the same accuracy.
> >As for me, I choose the Mitchell as best all around bomber. It served
in
> >every theater, had the lowest loss rate
>
> I thought the B-26 had to lowest loss rate?
And I thought it was the Mossie FB?
Kauz
_____________________________________________________________________
My email address has been altered to stop it being grabbed by junk
mailers, please remove the 2U from it. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Andy Dingley
The moving finger of horne_bill <bogus....@loc3.tandem.com> having
written:
>My curiosity is aroused. What makes this statement true? Is it because
>the Lanc was the only plane modified to carry the special bomb?
AFAIK a single Wellington was modified to carry the dambuster bomb and
was used for initial testing. It could carry it for testing, but only
by carrying minimal fuel at the same time.
The usual reason for saying that the Lancaster was the only aircraft
capable of carrying either the bouncing bomb, or the Tallboy & Grand
Slam bombs, is that the wing spar was high up in the fuselage and
allowed a large unobstructed bomb bay. American practice was to mount
the wing lower, allowing better crew access fore and aft, but reducing
the size of the largest single bomb.
--
Smert' Spamionem
Michael Williamson
A.J. Cho wrote:
>
> Anyway, when the Army wanted to have dive bomber in their inventory,
> they converted SBD Dauntless and name they as Banshee (I think)
> This aircraft is often refered to as "Slow But Deadly" SBD and is loved
> by its crew.
The Douglas RA-24Bs were rejected by General Kenney in the Pacific due to
extreme combat losses. They were slower than almost any Army fighter, with
less range and payload than (for instance) the P-38. They were withdrawn
from combat, and the Army Air Force used all purpose fighter aircraft in
the guise of the P-51, P-47, and P-38.
They worked well for the Navy, but were not designed for use in the
different environment in which the Army aircraft operated, and were
unsuitable for the task.
Mike Williamson
A.J. Cho
I would put my vote with the SBD-5 Dauntless Dive Bomber.
This is one of the aircraft that is instrumential in turing the war
around in the Pacific (Midway, Coral Sea). It sank more ships than any
other bombers in the pacific.
I also read that this aircraft suffers the lowest lost rate in the
pacific and was sometime flown as inner fighter combat air patrols.
They could pretty much hold their own even against the Japanese Zero
Fighter.
John Maxwell
The Stuka is not even an also-ran, even if you stay with single engine
2-3 place ships.
Dead meat over England, Russia, the desert, wherever the enemy had a
chance to fight back.
Wilhelm Wirén
Most daytime bombers were and are dead meat fighting numerically superior
enemies without adequate fighter cover. But the best Stuka pilots seemed
to like their mounts e.g. Hans-Ulrich Rudel continued flying Ju-87s when
the rest of his unit had converted to FW-190s. And his score was
impressive: 519 tanks, 19 aircraft, a battleship... What did he down the
planes with, the pipsqueak 7.9 mm mgs or Ju-87Gs big 37 mm Flak18s?
IamVger
Rudel was a one-in-a-million pilot and you know that, sir. He chose
to stay on Stukas because he, personally was effective in them. He was
shot down numerous times in the clanky gull-wing, and the Soviet aircraft
you suggest he "shot down" were destroyed by his pip-squeak rear-gunner
and by strafing -- in "Stuka Pilot", I don't recall him claiming any
air-to-air kills. (If I'm wrong, strafe me.)
One accolade you did not mention of his -- in the opening weeks of
Barbarossa, it was his bombs that finished the Russian Battleship MARAT.
In his words, after he dove PAST his already diving Kommandeur (close
enough to see into the face of the terrified rear gunner!), Rudel dropped
his special purpose 2,000 pound bomb directly amidships, then, "Slowly,
ponderously, we climbed obliquely away." Doesn't sound like he was much
impressed with the Stuka's battlefield performance either...
In the Luftwaffe War Diaries, Bekker recounted that "Of course, no-one
could come *close* to achieving Rudel's success". His success was
primarily as a tank buster, not a level bomber pilot. Since this thread
was not labelled "Best Dive Bomber of 1936-1940", I stand by my opinion
that the Stuka still does not rate.
First Place Single Engine/CAS - Sturmovik
First Place Dive Bomber - SBD
First Place Rhino Division - P-47
First Place Strategic Bomber - B-29(1944-45), B-24 (43-44)
First Place Firestormer - B-29/Lanc (tie)
First Place Medium Attack - B-25
First Place Raise-Hell-Then-Die - Ju-87
First Place Schnell-bomber - DHvd Mosquito
Gordon
<===(A+C)===>
Seasnake
"It's always better to lose AN engine,
than THE engine."
James Wilkins
One of Lindbergh's B-24 development projects was to upgrade the armor
because B-24 crews were taking high losses relative to B-17 crews.
Know any good tales of that era?
--
James Wilkins
The Mitre Corp.
Bedford, MA
Michael Williamson
A.J. Cho wrote:
>
> Oh, when I wrote the crew love it, I meant the Navy not the Army. Yes,
> the A-24s didn't work well for the Army, but this is because the Army
> pilots were unable to master the art of dive bombing. In some books
> that I read, I recalled the Navy being called in to provide close air
> support, because Navy pilots could do the job better and deliver the
> bombs more accurately. And before the use of rockets, the dive bombers
> were often call in to provide close air support for both the Army and
> the Marines.
>
With respect, it wasn't bombing that got the A-24s killed, it was enemy
action. Army Air Forces carried out dive bombing regularly in Europe,
North Africa and the Pacific in support of ground troops in both close
support and interdiction missions. The A-24 was too slow and low flying
to survive over territory filled with enemy observers and flak batteries.
The Dauntless in naval service didn't have to put up with these
considerations, spending most of its time over the water, not undergoing
ground fire or having their position reported. They were unable to defend
themselves adequately. The Army had its own dive bomber, the A-36, which
was an adaptation of the P-51. This was about 100 mph faster than the
SBD, giving it a decided advantage at surviving. Remember that the Navy
considered the aircraft obsolescent at the start of the war, and only
the fact that the SB2C took so long to become (marginally) acceptable
kept the aircraft in frontline service.
In the Pacific you will often read of Navy supplying air support to
army troops simply because they are more available, since the distances
between islands in the Pacific made close air support by Army aircraft
less than practical. I don't recall reading too much about Navy close
air support in France, OTOH.
Mike Williamson
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <32f66040...@news.demon.co.uk>,
I think you will need to review this theory. True of the B-17, but have a
look at the wing placement of the B-24, B-25, B-26, A-26 and B-29 for
example. All mid or shoulder mounted.
Dennis
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
A.J. Cho
Oh, when I wrote the crew love it, I meant the Navy not the Army. Yes,
the A-24s didn't work well for the Army, but this is because the Army
pilots were unable to master the art of dive bombing. In some books
that I read, I recalled the Navy being called in to provide close air
support, because Navy pilots could do the job better and deliver the
bombs more accurately. And before the use of rockets, the dive bombers
were often call in to provide close air support for both the Army and
the Marines.
Regards
Michael Williamson wrote
Wilhelm Wirén
IamVger wrote:
>
> ...the Soviet aircraft
> you suggest he "shot down" were destroyed by his pip-squeak rear-gunner
> and by strafing -- in "Stuka Pilot", I don't recall him claiming any
> air-to-air kills. (If I'm wrong, strafe me.)
>
The source I quoted was probably as misinformed as me. I stand
corrected.
>
> One accolade you did not mention of his -- in the opening weeks of
> Barbarossa, it was his bombs that finished the Russian Battleship MARAT.
>
snip...
I did mention it, briefly.
> In the Luftwaffe War Diaries, Bekker recounted that "Of course, no-one
> could come *close* to achieving Rudel's success".
>
snip...
I agree. In my opinion for WWII bombers (and fighters) perhaps with the
exception of the four engined ones it was the pilot's quality that
counted rather than the plane's. Compared with it's single engined
contemporaries e.g Fairey Battle, Douglas Devastator Stuka gave a good
account of itself. It's longevity was of course mainly because a
purpose-built successor failed to materialize. This kept Ju-87
production being stopped (the first time was in 1940) and restarted in
Yo-Yo fashion.
Experienced Stuka pilots with competent escorts were still effective
late into the war. In my own country, Finland, Geschwader Kuhlemey with
it's FW-190s and Ju-87s (in dive bomber guise) were instrumental in
repulsing Soviet armoured assaults late in summer 1944. Rather
perversely that was just another instance of Germans defending democracy
against "the motorized hoards of the modern Gengis Khan" and his western
lackeys.
Wilhelm Wirén
Matthias Laznik
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Wilhelm Wir=E9n wrote:
> John Maxwell wrote:
=20
> Snip
=20
> Most daytime bombers were and are dead meat fighting numerically superior=
=20
> enemies without adequate fighter cover. But the best Stuka pilots seemed=
=20
> to like their mounts e.g. Hans-Ulrich Rudel continued flying Ju-87s when=
=20
> the rest of his unit had converted to FW-190s. And his score was=20
> impressive: 519 tanks, 19 aircraft, a battleship... What did he down the=
=20
> planes with, the pipsqueak 7.9 mm mgs or Ju-87Gs big 37 mm Flak18s?
>=20
>=20
The 19 kills he is credited with are in fact AA kills. Most of them were=20
scored on FW 190, since his Schlachtgeschwader often had to=20
escort itself for lack of fighter protection towards the end of the war.
He did however score on the Ju 87 as well, and his description of him and=
=20
other experienced Stuka pilots breaking formation to tangle with enemy=20
fighters is incredible. Imagine being part of a LaGG=20
formation, getting bounced (and maybe even shot down) by a single Ju 87.
How embarassing!). Sounds pretty crazy to me.
There is also one case in which a careless Il-2 placed itself in front of=
=20
Rudel's Ju 87G. Not even the Iron Gustav could handle two 37 mm smack in=20
the fuselage... =20
BTW, were the 37 mm guns of the Ju 87 and the American gun installed in=20
the Airacobra and P 38 comparable in performance? The German gun looks so=
=20
much bigger.
Gruesse,
Matthias
Rod Clark
>AFAIK a single Wellington was modified to carry the dambuster bomb and
>was used for initial testing. It could carry it for testing, but only
>by carrying minimal fuel at the same time.
>
>The usual reason for saying that the Lancaster was the only aircraft
>capable of carrying either the bouncing bomb, or the Tallboy & Grand
>Slam bombs, is that the wing spar was high up in the fuselage and
>allowed a large unobstructed bomb bay. American practice was to mount
>the wing lower, allowing better crew access fore and aft, but reducing
>the size of the largest single bomb.
>
Did the Wellington actually carry a full size dambuster bomb or only
smaller mockups at the testing stage.
I've never heard of the spar position being a factor, from photo's the wings
on a B-24 are just as high in the fuselage as those of a Lancaster.
Rod Clark
Warranwood, VIC, Australia
rcl...@aardvark.apana.org.au
Yama
IamVger wrote:
snip
Other competitors:
> First Place Dive Bomber - SBD
Ju-88 (bigger,the better...)
> First Place Rhino Division - P-47
Typhoon, Tempest, FW-190F/G
> First Place Medium Attack - B-25
This class has lot of competitors.. B-26, Do-217, Ju-88
Pe-2,Tu-2, Boston/Havoc...
James Wilkins
> ...Hans-Ulrich Rudel continued flying Ju-87s when
The rear gunner?
One was a maneuver kill while weaving down a gulley.
Mike Corby
The ones that I have flown in had a spar straight across the fuselage
just behind he Radio Op's position, you had to climb over it while
going along the aircraft. As I rmember, it was about three feet high.
Regards, Mike
--
Charles K. Scott
In article <TfBNsHBM...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>
"Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Lancasters, at least, had heaters. They were not fully effective
> (typically the cockpit was tropical while the tailgunner froze) but they
> were there. I would imagine most similar aircraft had similar equipment.
> However, the B-29's pressurisation made its internal environment more
> controllable and more pleasant for the crew.
This is true but I understand the airplane was depressurized prior to
entering enemy airspace in order to prevent explosive decompression in
case of a hit on the fuselage. The return with battle damage to the
pressurized compartments of course meant it could not be used but
shortly after leaving enemy airspace they could let down to 10,000 feet
if they needed to.
By the way, the B-29's suffered from what could be termed catastrophic
engine overheating. So bad was this problem that it's my understanding
the more B-29's were lost to engine fires than enemy action.
Corky Scott
David Guest
For information the Wellington could not carry the Dams bomb. It was
used for testing half scale models to prove the concept.
Wilhelm Wirén
Matthias Laznik wrote:
>
Snip
> There is also one case in which a careless Il-2 placed itself in front of
> Rudel's Ju 87G. Not even the Iron Gustav could handle two 37 mm smack in
> the fuselage...
>
An even more spectacular thing happened to a Soviet ground attack pilot
in the Battle of Ihantala, summer 1944 in what was then Finnish Karelia.
His flight path coincided with the one of a Finnish heavy howitzer
shell. If I remember correctly it was from an ex-US 203 mm.
>
> BTW, were the 37 mm guns of the Ju 87 and the American gun installed in
> the Airacobra and P 38 comparable in performance? The German gun looks so
> much bigger.
>
Each Bordkanone (BK) pod in a Ju-87G contained one Flak18 or Flak36 gun.
These were pretty serious ordnance firing 0.556 kg projectiles at 820
m/sec. P-39 had one American Armament Corporation T-9. I don't know it's
specs but I'm willing to bet it had a lower muzzle velocity. On the
other hand Airacobra had 30 rounds of 37 mm ammo (15 in versions before
P-39L) while Stuka had less, 6 per pod if I remember correctly.
Wilhelm Wirén
CDB100620
The 37mm cannon on the P-39, the M4, fired a shell weighing 1.34 lbs.
Rate of fire was 135 rounds per minute. Weight of fire was 181 lbs./min.
Muzzle velocity was 2,000 feet/sec.
The P63A carried 58 37mm rounds (plus 4 .50 cal. mgs.)
David Brown
The Mosquito could fly to Berlin and drop a 4,000 lb Cookie, return to
England, switch crews and fly to Berlin and drop another Cookie in the
same length of time it took the Lanc to fly one trip to Berlin to drop 1
cookie and maybe 3 or 4,000 lbs of other sized bombs.
Dave Brown
Eric Gross
"Best" is a broad and inspecific term -- it depends on what type of bomber and
what mission. By what criteria do you define "best?" Most rugged? Most
reliable? Heaviest bomb load? Best performance? A mixture of all these?
Well, anyway, for my money:
Best torpedo bomber? Probably the Avenger
Best dive bomber? Probably the Helldiver
Best light tactical bomber? Probably the Mosquito
Best fighter-bomber? Probably the Thunderbolt
Best medium bomber? Probably the B-26
Best heavy/strategic bomber? Definitely the B-29
Al Sumrall
Of course, the engine problems were squared away in due course. The
B-29 was rushed a bit into combat, of course before the engine
overheating was solved so it admittedly was a problem early in the
B-29's deployment against the Japanese. B-29 losses to Japanese fighters
and flak were not very impressive so comparing them to the losses due to
engine overheating is not very fair is it? Your comment makes it seem
that B-29's were falling out of the skies at a high rate due to engine
failures when that was never the case.
AL
Emmanuel.Gustin
Andy Dingley (din...@codesmth.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: The usual reason for saying that the Lancaster was the only aircraft
: capable of carrying either the bouncing bomb, or the Tallboy & Grand
: Slam bombs, is that the wing spar was high up in the fuselage and
: allowed a large unobstructed bomb bay. American practice was to mount
AFAIK the real reason for the gigantic bomb-bay of the Lancaster what that
for some obscure reason, the original RAF requirement specified that the
aircraft had to be able to carry *torpedoes*. Hence the need for an
unobstructed bomb-bay: Torpedoes are a lot longer than bombs.
Emmanuel Gustin
Don Whitehead
WHAT ABOUT THE DH MOSQUITO
This could count as best all round combat aircraft of WW2. Serving as a
light/medium bomber, Recce aircraft, intruder [day and night] ew
platform, nightfighter, fighter/bomber[strike] aicraft, and even as a
civil airliner running the UK/Sweden service.
The bomber version carried the same bombload as a B17f to Berlin, but
suffered much lower losses of aircraft, and critically aicrew, as it
only had 2. It was produced in the UK, Canada, and Australia, saw action
on every front, and saw service with every airforce.
At Amiens Prison, and Gestapo HQ Copenhagen it showed that it could hit
precision targets
Maury Markowitz
In article <5dn1t4$m...@clyde.open.ac.uk>, Don Whitehead
<D.Whi...@open.ac.uk> wrote:
> civil airliner running the UK/Sweden service.
That's pushing the definition a little. The plane in question (I don't
think there were more than a few at a time) could hold a single passenger
prone in the bomb bay and was used strictly for flying diplomats to Sweden
in an effort to buy up all their ball bearings after the Bloody Sunday
raid(s). Although they may have been used after this as well, the
UK/Sweden service was hardly "civil passenger" in my books.
Maury
Jeffery S. Harrison
Don Whitehead wrote:
>
> WHAT ABOUT THE DH MOSQUITO
> This could count as best all round combat aircraft of WW2. Serving as a
> light/medium bomber, Recce aircraft, intruder [day and night] ew
> platform, nightfighter, fighter/bomber[strike] aicraft, and even as a
> suffered much lower losses of aircraft, and critically aicrew, as it
> only had 2. It was produced in the UK, Canada, and Australia, saw action
> on every front, and saw service with every airforce.
> At Amiens Prison, and Gestapo HQ Copenhagen it showed that it could hit
> precision targets
Saying it carried the same bomb load as a B-17 to Berlin is not eexactly
saying much. The biggest problem of the B-17 was it's lack of payload
over any great distance (like to Berlin).
Jeff
Glenn E. Craven
In article <32FFA1...@ptialaska.net>, "Jeffery S. Harrison"
<jsh...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
Don and Jeff,
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the info I have on the Mosquito
shows a maximum bomb load on the Mk IX (with modified, bulged bomb bay) of
4,000 pounds. A B-17 carried a typical bomb load of 6,000 pounds on a trip
to Berlin. For comparison's sake, a B-24 could tote about 8,000 pounds.
This isn't to say the Mosquito doesn't deserve consideration as WWII's
greatest bomber. It was a fantastic platform, exceedingly fast for a
bomber and adaptable for uses as diverse as a torpedo plane and a night
fighter. But 4,000 lbs. (with special modifications) and 6,000 lbs. (as a
matter of routine) are not "the same bombload."
Also of note is the B-17's capability of carrying an "overload" of
bombs. For short trips, a Fortress could lug up to 12,800 lbs. of
ordnance. Granted, forays deep into the Reich (made in ever-increasing
numbers as the war dragged on) necessitated more fuel and less payload.
I guess you'll have to cast my vote for the Flying Fortress as World
War II's top bomber. It seems a lot of people want to drag the old queen
down now, after 50 years of hindsight.
Yes, the Fort had less typical payload than the Liberator. Yes, the
B-24 had a much greater range (2,500 miles to 1,100 if the Lib carried
only about 5,000 pounds of bombs). Yes, other aircraft (medium bombers
like the Mosquito and Mitchell especially) proved more versatile.
But when it came down to it, more than any other aircraft, the B-17
gave its crews the best chance of surviving that 1,000-mile round trip
over enemy territory to leave one heck of a calling card. We've all seen
the photos of Fortresses limping home minus a horizontal stabilizer, or
most of the nose back to the cockpit, or with the fuselage nearly sawed
apart in a collision with an out-of-control 109.
On guts alone, the Fortress is my choice for this honor.
Glenn Craven
Andy Dingley
The moving finger of Wilhelm Wirén <wilhel...@otol.fi> having
written:
>Torpedoes in a heavy
>bomber, sounds akin to Udet's insistance on He 177 having a dive-bombing
>capability.
Dive bombing capability wasn't such a bad idea in the '30s. It had
been demonstrated as effective in Spain, and it was certainly better
than trying to bomb from altitude in an aircraft that didn't even have
the benefit of a Norden bomb sight. It may not have been a
particularly viable option, but it was better than not hitting
anything.
--
Smert' Spamionem
Mike Tighe
Of course Jeff Harrison's view discounts Don Whitehead's point that the
Mosquito was harder to intercept, and any loss involved 'only' two crew
members, against ten or so on the B17. It should also be remembered that
any loss or damage to a Mosquito only cost a fraction of the capital and
labour investment that the wartime economy put into a machine like the B17
and it's support. This argument applies equally against the RAF heavies,
like the Lancaster.
I have an opinion on lots of things, but although I do actually favour the
Mosquito in my heart, for once I might sit on the fence. The pilots
usually do their best with what they are given, and sometimes it is hard to
be objective about the hardware, when either you, your family, friends, or
just people you admire, have staked their lives in its performance. Maybe
these 'which was best?' contests are unresolveable in meaningful terms,
however interesting they may be to argue over.
Mike
Emmanuel.Gustin
Wilhelm Wirén (wilhel...@otol.fi) wrote:
: Was that the requirement that first lead to Avro Manchester, Lancaster's
: ill-fated twin RR Vulture engined predecessor?
Yes.
: Torpedoes in a heavy
: bomber, sounds akin to Udet's insistance on He 177 having a dive-bombing
: capability.
The idea is not that silly, if you assume that a heavy bomber might be
used as a long-range maritime patrol aircraft. Of course the concept of
making torpedo runs in a Lancaster sounds not really practical, but in
WWII two and three-engined bombers were regularly used as torpedo-bombers.
: Did other heavy bombers do much else than area bombing? Lancasters bombed
: Tirpiz and a few dams and B-17s reportedly used to bomb Japanese ships
: from high altitude, rarely hitting anything.
Some did maritime patrol work. Especially B-24 were valuable, because they
closed the "gap" in the mid-Atlantic. With ASV radar, a Leigh light, fixed
cannon and depth-charges they were very effective against U-boats.
Lancasters of 617 Sqdn specialized in precision attacks: They did more
pinpoint attacks than those you list. Notable ones are those on the V-3
site at Mimequoyes (spelling?) and the Bielefeld viaduct.
Bomber Command was also used several times, reluctantly, for tactical
operations. Not always with success, and the large craters left by the
heavy bombs of the Lancasters were a serious problem.
Emmanuel Gustin
Will Lawrence
: Wilhelm Wirén (wilhel...@otol.fi) wrote:
: : Torpedoes in a heavy
: : bomber, sounds akin to Udet's insistance on He 177 having a dive-bombing
: : capability.
Actually, after the war, the RCAF used the Lancaster in the Maritime
Patrol & ASW role. Armament? Torpedoes...
--
===============================================================
|W. Lawrence | How many nights before? |
|aka Darcangel | How many times have we danced? |
|ak...@chebucto.ns.ca | How many times have I courted flames? |
|HALifax, N.S. | How many scars have I borne? |
===============================================================
Maury Markowitz
In article <egross.329...@mailer.fsu.edu>, egr...@mailer.fsu.edu
(Eric Gross) wrote:
> Best torpedo bomber? Probably the Avenger
SM.79 for sure.
> Best dive bomber? Probably the Helldiver
The Helldiver is generally described as being detested by it's pilots,
who always preferred it's predecessor, the Dauntless. I doubt anyone
would rate this very high as a dive bomber.
Instead one has to look at the late war Japanese plane who's name I
forget (Tenzan? Or was that the torp plane?)
> Best light tactical bomber? Probably the Mosquito
Or Ju-88.
> Best fighter-bomber? Probably the Thunderbolt
Mmmm, or Tiffy or FW-190 G's and F's. Sorry, this is a tough catagory.
> Best medium bomber? Probably the B-26
Mossy.
> Best heavy/strategic bomber? Definitely the B-29
Most likely. Depends on the mission though.
Maury
scha...@notis.com
In article <egross.329...@mailer.fsu.edu>, <egr...@mailer.fsu.edu>
writes:
>
> Best torpedo bomber? Probably the Avenger
Better something that can carry more than one torp at a time. How about the
Italian tri-motor job. For carriers early in the war (WWII) the Nakajima
B5N type 97 or Kate and later the B6N Tenzan or Jill. The TBF?TBM was very
good too.
>
> Best dive bomber? Probably the Helldiver
Ah never. Capt J.J. Clark ordered the beast (-1) off his CV and the
airgroup re-equipped with SBD-5s. At Philippine Sea the losses were higher
amongst the SB2C VBs than the SBD VBs due to fuel consumption. Over water
fuel/range is the crucial spec. My vote SBD then Yokosuka D4YY Suisei aka
Judy. Good speed range load and ceiling, no crew protection.
There's a story of a -1 launching off the Yorktown in training with a full
load and having to fly around in ground (sea) effect till enough fuel was
burned to climb to flight deck level.
>
> Best light tactical bomber? Probably the Mosquito
ok
>
> Best fighter-bomber? Probably the Thunderbolt
Corsair
>
> Best medium bomber? Probably the B-26
>
> Best heavy/strategic bomber? Definitely the B-29
>
>
Ben
Dave Kohli
On Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:19:00 GMT, egr...@mailer.fsu.edu (Eric Gross)
wrote:
>
>Best torpedo bomber? Probably the Avenger
>
I'll go along for carrier based torpedo bomber, but the Beaufighter
was ideal for Channel work.
>Best dive bomber? Probably the Helldiver
>
Is there such a thing as a good dive bomber?
>Best light tactical bomber? Probably the Mosquito
>
No question about it.
>Best fighter-bomber? Probably the Thunderbolt
>
nope, how about the Hawker Typhoon?
>Best medium bomber? Probably the B-26
>
I figure the Ju 287 Jet bomber beats this one out. even though not
many made it into service.
>Best heavy/strategic bomber? Definitely the B-29
>
Last and the Best.
>
Paul J. Adam
In article <egross.329...@mailer.fsu.edu>, Eric Gross
<egr...@mailer.fsu.edu> writes
>"Best" is a broad and inspecific term -- it depends on what type of bomber and
>what mission. By what criteria do you define "best?" Most rugged? Most
>reliable? Heaviest bomb load? Best performance? A mixture of all these?
>Well, anyway, for my money:
>
Bristol Beaufighter :)
>Best dive bomber? Probably the Helldiver
Junkers 87 or Dauntless. The Helldiver was roundly detested, from what
I've read.
>Best light tactical bomber? Probably the Mosquito
Or the Il-2, much as I love the Mossie.
>Best fighter-bomber? Probably the Thunderbolt
Other candidates would be the Il-2 if it's not a "light bomber", and the
Hawker Typhoon.
>Best medium bomber? Probably the B-26
Nope. I vote for the B-25 Mitchell.
>Best heavy/strategic bomber? Definitely the B-29
Lancasters, all the way :)
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Steve Hix
In article Jkm7SCAi...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk, "Paul J. Adam" writes:
:In article <egross.329...@mailer.fsu.edu>, Eric Gross
:
:>Best medium bomber? Probably the B-26
:
:Nope. I vote for the B-25 Mitchell.
The B-26 had better performance, and what was probably the lowest
combat loss rate of any allied bomber (once they quit rinsing them in
Tampa Bay).
Charles K. Scott
In article <glenrob-1102...@port116154.terranet.net>
gle...@terraworld.net (Glenn E. Craven) writes:
> Yes, the Fort had less typical payload than the Liberator. Yes, the
> B-24 had a much greater range (2,500 miles to 1,100 if the Lib carried
> only about 5,000 pounds of bombs). Yes, other aircraft (medium bombers
> like the Mosquito and Mitchell especially) proved more versatile.
> But when it came down to it, more than any other aircraft, the B-17
> gave its crews the best chance of surviving that 1,000-mile round trip
> over enemy territory to leave one heck of a calling card. We've all seen
> the photos of Fortresses limping home minus a horizontal stabilizer, or
> most of the nose back to the cockpit, or with the fuselage nearly sawed
> apart in a collision with an out-of-control 109.
> On guts alone, the Fortress is my choice for this honor.
Medium bombers, as a group could be characterised as being more
versatile than the heavies. The B-25 saw use in all kinds of differing
roles including fighter, anti shipping strafer and skip bomber not to
mention one particular stint as an aircraft carrier bomber. :-) The
reason is simple, the heavies were too big and ponderous to be wafting
about as fighter/bombers. That did not stop pilots in the Pacific
theater from using B-17's as skip bombers anyway which shows you how
versatile the B-17 was but in general that type of activity was left to
the lighter more maneuverable mediums.
Comparing British heavy bombers to the US daylight bombers is difficult
as well because of the different roles they played. The British
developed a bomber that flew at night in order to avoid direct
confrontation with the Luftwaffe's interceptors. For the most part,
the bombers protected themselves by stealth and violent maneuvering
(the corkscrew), not return firepower although the gunners were
occasionally credited with destroying a stalking night fighter.
American daylight bombers had to fly in broad daylight and (initially
anyway) defend themselves by return fire and armor plate. This
required more crewmen and their ancilary systems like communications,
oxygen, crew armor and of course the gun stations and ammo. Not only
did all this weigh more than the defensive armaments on the British
bombers, it also added more drag. And all those gun positions and
firepower did not result in the bombers actually being able to defend
themselves. One historian characterised the gun positions as something
that simply made the gunners feel better because the Germans basically
ignored the defensive fire and attacked at will.
If the British bombers had to carry all that defensive weaponry and
armor, their bomb load would have been reduced. But they didn't so
they could make up the difference in bomb weight.
None of this makes one bomber better or worse than the other, just
different.
Corky Scott
Maury Markowitz
In article <01bc19d2$95e57240$14dbc9cf@astroman>, "R.E. Parker"
<astr...@hickory.net> wrote:
> Heavy - B-17 (duh)
> Medium - B-25
> Light - Mosquito
Hmmm. Your Light carried more of a load than your Heavy.
Maury
zeno
Well, though it was an "A" for "attack" & not a "B" for "bomber", I'd
still take the Douglas A-26 Invader any day over the B-25 or B-26 as my
"medium" of choice.
Winsor
Emmanuel.Gustin
I got some criticism, and even one flame, for the B-17 and B-24 data
that I listed earlier in this thread. So I decided to throw this on
the fire...
Max.V. Cruise Max. R. Max. Max. Range
Src (km/h) Speed Range Weight Bombs with Load
at 7620m (km/h) (km) (kg) (kg) (km w kg)
--- -------- ------ ------- ------ ------ ----------
1. B-17C 468 402 5471 22520 4761 :
3. B-17C 520 402 : : : :
6. B-17C 520 : : : : 3860 w 1815
14. B-17C 520 402 5470 : : 3860 w 1815
3. B-17E 520 338 : 24010 : :
14. B-17E 512 336 5310 24010 : 3220 w 1815
1. B-17F 523 257 7112 32660 7983 :
9. B-17F 478 : 4600 22600 : 2800 w 2400
14. B-17F 522 322 4633 25595 : 2090 w 2720
10. B-17F 515 : : : 9453 :
1. B-17G 486 257 5470 32660 7983 :
2. B-17G 472 : : 27240 : :
4. B-17G 462 282 : : 9453 :
5. B-17G 461 : : : : 3218 w 2265
6. B-17G 460 282 : : 9400 :
7. B-17G 486 257 5744 : 7248 :
8. B-17G 460 : 5400 26200 : 3200 w 2400
11. B-17G 462 293 : 29710 : 3219 w 2722
14. B-17G 423 241 : 32616 : 2977 w 1815
14. B-24A : 367 6436 24280 : 3540 w 1815
6. B-24D 487 : 4850 27210 : :
13. B-24D 488 : : 27216 3629 1730 w 2268
14. B-24D 487 322 5630 28990 : 3700 w 2265
2. B-24J 475 : : : : 2465 w 3624
3. B-24J 467 : : : : 3540 w 2268
5. B-24J 466 : : : : 3380 w 2265
12. B-24J 467 346 : : 5806 3380 w 2268
14. B-24J : 317 : 32254 5800 2735 w 2265
Sources:
========
1. Combat Aircraft of World War Two, by Elke C. Weal.
2. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1945
3. Fighting Aircraft of World War II, by Bill Gunston.
4. B-17G Flying Fortess, by Philip J.R. Moyes.
5. B-17G Flying Fortess, by Roger A. Freeman.
6. Famous American Aircraft. Ed. Anthony Robinson.
7. B-17 in action; by Steve Birdsall.
8. Schweinfurt, disaster in the Skies, by John Sweetman.
9. Bomber Offensive, by Noble Frankland.
10. Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, in Airplane Nr.3.
11. Airplane Nr.39
12. Airplane Nr.55
13. Airplane Nr.83
14. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/
Emmanuel Gustin
\ Emmanuel Gustin gus...@uia.ua.ac.be /
\ Physics Department, University of Antwerp, Belgium /
| FROM StdTxts IMPORT Disclaimer; |
/ http://nat-www.uia.ac.be/~gustin/ \
/ http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/ \
Phil Garey
Steve Hix wrote:
>
> In article Jkm7SCAi...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk, "Paul J. Adam" writes:
> :In article <egross.329...@mailer.fsu.edu>, Eric Gross
> :
> :>Best medium bomber? Probably the B-26
> :
> :Nope. I vote for the B-25 Mitchell.
>
> The B-26 had better performance, and what was probably the lowest
> combat loss rate of any allied bomber (once they quit rinsing them in
The Martin B-26 got to be a great plane once theyadded some length to
the wings. Sen Harry Truman came to England and claime dthe a/c should
be withdrawn because of earlier losses. He was about a year behind the
times, as most politicians are. He was later a great president . Anyhow,
many AAF men called the B-26 "Truman's Folly" as a jibe at him after the
newly lengthened wings made it such a great success. PhilGarey
Phil Garey
Jeffery S. Harrison wrote:
>
> Don Whitehead wrote:
> >
> > WHAT ABOUT THE DH MOSQUITO
> > This could count as best all round combat aircraft of WW2. Serving as a
> > light/medium bomber, Recce aircraft, intruder [day and night] ew
> > platform, nightfighter, fighter/bomber[strike] aicraft, and even as a
> > civil airliner running the UK/Sweden service.
> > The bomber version carried the same bombload as a B17f to Berlin, but
> > suffered much lower losses of aircraft, and critically aicrew, as it
> > only had 2. It was produced in the UK, Canada, and Australia, saw action
> > on every front, and saw service with every airforce.
> > At Amiens Prison, and Gestapo HQ Copenhagen it showed that it could hit
> > precision targets
>
> Saying it carried the same bomb load as a B-17 to Berlin is not eexactly
> saying much. The biggest problem of the B-17 was it's lack of payload
> over any great distance (like to Berlin).
>
> Jeff
All of you people writing on limitations of the B-17s seem to miss the
point. It was what we had and what we could produce at the time. At some
point along development of aircraft for a war you have to stop
developing and produce. The B-17 wa flying and selected, then was
continually modified in what may seem like minor ways to you people
today.
But we had thousands, what whas it, 12,000+. I forget. We carried 5 or 6
thousand pounds of bombs and that was that. Sure it woul dhave been
nice to have the B-29, the B-36 or the B-2 or whatever. But that's the
weapon we had and primitive as it was by today's standards, it was
pretty good then. I got back 28 times from combat missions. SOme did
some didn't.
As far as the "best" there was no best. What you had was what you used.
There were certainly some "worst" aircraft, but even then a lot of it
depended on the opposition and the crews themselves, although every
aircraft had it's faults.
But if your experience is with Discovery Channel or building models, or
modern aircraft, it's a lot different from the real thing o fthe times
of WW Two. Think about it. Phil Garey
Al Sumrall
The B-17 was an excellent bomber. A lot of people like to split
hairs. It was durable, reliable, rugged, well armed, and had good
performance at altitude. It was a balanced aircraft. The other aircraft
that had superior bomb loads had to make compromises in other areas. We
needed them all.
Its range and bomb load were adequate for European use, the main
theater of ops. It would not have been produced in great numbers had it
not been for the war over Germany, but thats history. The B-24, also an
excellent bomber, was a more versatile aircraft but the B-17 was very
well suited for the intense war over Europe. The crews that flew it
trusted it and that kind of confidence means the aircraft would be used
aggressively for more successful missions. Thats the best recommendation
any aircraft could have.
As for the Mosquito, had it flown the same missions en mass as the
B-17 in daylight, and attempting precision formation bombing at
altitude, you would have seen the losses soaring. The B-17F was intended
to deliver concentrated quantities of bombs from formations to small
areas protected by dense AAA. The B-17 was designed with as high a
performance as possible balanced with a good bomb load and range. The
Lancs and Halifaxes, fine bombers in their own right, could bomb areas
at night, flew in loose streams, not formations, but they were not
designed for daylight missions. As such they dropped bombs over wide
areas. They are not comparable aircraft. The Mosquito was a great
aircraft, that is no doubt, but making it sound like it was a capable of
doing a heavy bombers job is pretty far fetched.
What Mark of the Mosquito is being compared with the B-17F and could
someone give the performance figures of the 17F's and G's with
comparable Mosquitos at the time? Bombloads, ranges, cruising
altitudes, cruising speeds, etc. Could Mosquitos have crossed the
Atlantic from the U.S. with the overloads imposed on the B-17's and
B-24's (they usually did not ferry the bombers over empty but with large
cargoes for Britain).
AL
Colin Wright
gle...@terraworld.net (Glenn E. Craven) wrote:
> We've all seen the photos of Fortresses limping home minus a horizontal stabilizer, or
>most of the nose back to the cockpit, or with the fuselage nearly sawed
>apart in a collision with an out-of-control 109.
True, but you don't see the ones that didn't make it............
Colin Wright
The390th
Just catching up on the newsgroups, Phil. Glad to see you weighed in with
some real world experience about the B-17. Had a situation at the museum
the other day when a new docent (not a vet) was trying to answer a
visitor's question. He got himself all bound up and a B-17 vet was
finally able to set it all straight. Experience does count.
Best regards,
Scott Gray
390th Memorial Museum
genec...@panworld.net
In article <19970220003...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Scott Gray:
We have not met, I am very new to Dejanews. Mostly interested in the
B-17 stuff since I flew as a tail gunner in 1943 (first tour 25 missions,
388th Bomb Group) and in 1944 as a flight engineer (35 missions, 92nd
Bomb Group) However to this date I have rarely ever conversed with others
of the same eras and would like to do so.
Gene Carson
46-367 Holokaa Place
Kaneohe, HI 96744
genec...@panworld.net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
TJFSJF
Which WW II bomber was the best is too subjective for any intelligent
discussion. However, the only WW II bomber to represent that era as an
exhibit in the Smithsonean Air & Space Museum is the Martin B-26 Marauder
"Flak Bait". A combat record of 202 missions, more than any other in WW
II, should place the B-26 on somebody's list of "Best bomber in WW II"
Even Aaby Larsen
A Mosquito B Mk IX (serial number LR503) flew 213 missions during WW2.
See http://www.lexicom.ab.ca/~aerospace/33freddie3.html for more info.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Even Aaby Larsen Tel: +47 22 85 25 58
Norsk Regnesentral Fax: +47 22 69 76 60
Postboks 114, Blindern Email: Even....@nr.no
N-0314 Oslo WWW: http://www.nr.no/pers?even
Norway
Charles K. Scott
In article <33048B...@chatlink.com>
Phil Garey <pga...@chatlink.com> writes:
> > The B-26 had better performance, and what was probably the lowest
> > combat loss rate of any allied bomber (once they quit rinsing them in
> > Tampa Bay).
>
> The Martin B-26 got to be a great plane once theyadded some length to
> the wings. Sen Harry Truman came to England and claime dthe a/c should
> be withdrawn because of earlier losses. He was about a year behind the
> times, as most politicians are. He was later a great president . Anyhow,
> many AAF men called the B-26 "Truman's Folly" as a jibe at him after the
> newly lengthened wings made it such a great success. PhilGarey
That the B-26 had a very low combat loss rate is a fact of WWII
history. The reason the loss rate was so low is a little more
difficult to uncover but I have a conjecture. After the initial
catastrophic loss in their second sorti, the B-26's were withdrawn from
combat and retrained for medium altitude missions. This reduced their
vulnerablility to small caliber AA fire which was the cause of the
second sorti losses. Then consider the targets they were assigned.
Because they did not have the range to attack Germany itself, the
B-26's were assigned a number of targets in France and the Netherlands.
These targets were not as heavily defended as the German industry.
Finally, consider the timing of the B-26 arrival. At the same time,
the heavies were getting operational and we know that the Luftwaffe's
standing orders were to attack and destroy heavy bomber formations.
Because the German fighters had so limited a fuel supply and because
tracking and attacking the heavy bombers streams was such a difficult
task, they literally had no time to deal with the mediums which were
always flying at the same time. Why were they always flying at the
same time? Because of the weather. Bombers can't hit what they can't
see, at least early in the war they couldn't and mediums always
attacked pinpoint targets. So when there was good flying weather, not
only were the heavies flying, so were the mediums.
I confirmed this during talks I've had with a former B-26 squadron
commander. I asked him how often his group was attacked by Germans
fighters and he replied almost never. The reason for this is obvious,
they were otherwise occupied attacking the heavies. It was the German
intercepters that caused most of the combat losses to bombers.
So, in my opinion, the reason for the low combat loss rate was because
the Germans basically ignored them and also because the targets they
attacked were not very heavily defended compared to targets the heavies
were attacking.
This could mean that any bomber flying in the role of the B-26's would
have had a similar loss rate, or even better had it been a little
easier to handle. Consider that when the A-26 Invader was introduced,
it rapidly almost completely replaced the B-26 by the end of the war.
Why? Because it was a far less treacherous airplane to fly and carried
the same bomb load.
Corky Scott
Matthew Saroff
Hi,
It could be argued that the A-26 was the best bomber of the war.
It saw service longer than the B-29 which is another contendor.
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
msa...@REMOVE.THIS.ANTI-SPAM.SHIELD.TO.REPLY.pobox.com.
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page