Hi folks, I started a discussion on the "Best Fighter of WW2", so I thought - what about the best bomber? I was chatting with a friend over a drink the other night about the Allied bombing offensive over Germany during WW2, the tonnage of bombs dropped, the crews risked, the bombloads carried, the results, etc, when a startling fact seemed to suggest itself: A B.17 carried a crew of ten men, needed to fly in a large defensive box, and be protected by a fighter escort....and all it carried was a bombload roughly equivalent to a De Haviland Mosquito.....which risked only a crew of two, flew high and fast enough to dispense with the need for fighter escort, and was made largely of non-strategic materials... So, why on earth weren't waves of Mosquitos used instead of B.17s that - at least in the early days - were shot down in droves? Anyway, maybe your favourite bomber is the Lanc? Halifax, or Wellington or Liberator. But tell us all why....
I like the B-17 the best because it had charm. Seriously though, you are right. I think what makes me so interested in the B-17's, and especially the 8th Air Force, is the calibre of men it took to crew them. It took a special somebody with guts to fly those. I like reading their stories and history. And, at, at the risk of sounding really juvenile, the B-17 is just the coolest looking bomber of the war.
My heart goes with the Lanc, one of the greatest bombers of the war. Technologically I would say the B-29 for fairly obvisious reasons. Both were great bombers although the Lanc for me was the best.
So, why on earth weren't waves of Mosquitos used instead of B.17s Because the Mosquitoes weren't American; can you see Curtis Le May swapping his 17 for a Mossie? More seriously: the Mosquito's max bomb load was 4000 lb, which was the B17s average bomb load; the latter could carry 8000lb. Did the Mosquito always carry the maximum? Generally; I agree with Gnomey. With my head I say the B29 which could carry almost as much as a Lancaster over a much greater range, nearly 100mph faster, in much greater comfort for the crew and with much better defensive systems. But my heart is with the Lanc as I think any Brits would be; its amazing what that plane and its crews achieved. Any idea why its bomb load was so much greater than a Halifax or B17 or B24? Talking of what could be the best at a point in time much earlier in the war, I think we should have respect for the Stirling. This was the type that first enabled us to really carry the war to Germany, to a degree that the preceding twins couldn't. Ok it was handicapped in its ceiling by the flying boat wings, and in its bombload by the divided bomb bay. But it didn't have the teething troubles that the Halifax had and its crews trusted it more. Adrian
My choice would have to be the Lancaster for its' range, bombload, and maneouverability. Lanc pilots were often able to shake German night fighters off with violent maneouvers that no other bombers its size would dare to attempt. Originally posted by adrian roberts@Aug 24 2005, 05:15 PM Any idea why its bomb load was so much greater than a Halifax or B17 or B24? [post=38096]Quoted post[/post] The B-24 had a divided bomb-bay like the Stirling, and much of the B-17s gross weight was taken up by armor, machine guns and ammunition. In the B-17s favor, it was responsible for downing more German fighters than any other Allied aircraft, over 6,000.
it has to be the Lanc, Harris liked it because it was the most efficent bomber of its time, but as some has said the b29 with its technology was more efficent. The Lanc rose like a Phenoix from the ashes of the Manchester - no pun indended! it was not just the aircraft, but the aircrews, groundcrews, planners and the all rest who were involved in bomber operations that made it so great. In addition, it does count that I had a flight in PA474!
I would agree - as a Brit - that the Lanc was the best of the bunch, while acknowledging that the B17 was the epitome of cool! (particularly the later G variant, in a gleaming natural metal finish!!!). The Stirling was the first of the heavies that carried the war to Germany: it's 99ft wingspan, which serverely restricted its operational ceiling - not much more than 10,000 feet with a full bombload - was the result of an Air Ministry requirement that stipulated a wingspan of less than 100 feet simply so the new bomber would fit within the then (1937-38) standard sized hangar. There is much documentary evidence to suggest the American Norden bombsight was not as accurate as propogated myth suggests; indeed, I have heard the whole American bombing offensive described as the "area bombing of precision targets", and the RAF campaign as "the precision bombing of area targets"! Makes you think!
There is much documentary evidence to suggest the American Norden bombsight was not as accurate as propogated myth suggests it is said that the british MK9 sight was much more accurate than the Norden the RAF operated the B17 as a bomber for a short time but relegated it to maritime reccie. Here are the reason given The reasons for rejecting the B17 as a bobmer were given as: 1 The Fortress cannot rely on evasion of enemy aircraft below 32000 feet. 2 Once intercepted the Fortress has little chance against modern fighters. 3 Despite reputed accuracy of the Sperry sight, precise bombing with the Fortress above 32000 feet is extremely difficult, due to physical and mental strain imposed in using equipment at that great height. 4 Dependence on suitable weather to carry out attack limits the frequency of operations. 5 Condensation trails can cause a raid to be abandoned. Gives away position of the B-17. 6 The average bomb load is uneconomical in relation to the manning and maintenance effort. You can see the official view of the bombsight
Morse, Your summary of the reasons the RAF rejected the B.17 as a bomber is interesting, and I seem to recall reading that the Fortress was initially considered a failure as a bomber because of the RAF's experience. I think the B-17s as supplied to the RAF in 1941 were the very early A and B models, which compared to later versions had virtually no defensive armament at all - and certainly would have had zero ability to ward off enemy fighter attacks if intercepted. If I remember correctly, it was because of this lack of defensive armament that the RAF saw extreme high altitude bombing as the only way the early 17s could be employed, which - as you say - entailed huge physical discomfort for the crew and over burdened the bomb sight, reducing its effectiveness. The Norden bombsight was never as effective as popular myth would have us believe, but I think those early raids weren't representative of its true accuracy potential either.
The reason were the actual reasons given by the Director of Bombing Operations, as to why they were unsuitable for operation over Europe! Harris as a Air commodaore wrote this about the B17 in 1938 - "If we are at a loss for any long range and four-engined reliability it might be worth while to aquire a few of these bombers as a stop-gap. Without our own turrets - and i do not know if they can be fitted - the aircraft could operate only at night if oppossed by modern fighters" The RAF was given twenty C models to start with, which became B1s. According to the Pilots notes for the Fortress (AP 2099) the other models were B17 E, F & G.
The Norden bombsight was never as effective as popular myth would have us believe, but I think those early raids weren't representative of its true accuracy potential either. The first American to drop bombs on Europe was the Sperry tech who was attached to the RAF. When faced with the complaints of the RAF Bomb Aimers, he said that he could do better. 90 Sqn put him to the test and allowed him to use the sight during an actual raid; the post op photos showed that he had missed the target by three miles!
What has to be remembered about the early B29 models was plaqued by engine problems and the accuracy of the bombing was such that Le may ordered the attacks to be made a low level to ensure they hit the target.
If asked to name only one bomber, then I'd go for the Mosquito. However, I think that the types are different enough to have a best medium & a best heavy & I'd go for the Mossie as best medium & the B29 as best heavy. The B29 had the highest speed, longest range, highest ceiling & biggest bomb load. The Lancaster was the best 4 engined bomber of its generation but the B29 was from the next generation. I ruled the Me262 out of the best fighter contest because of its late arrival but the B29 was in service early enough to make a decisive impact.
To enlarge on what I said about the Stirling: would it be fair to describe it as the best bomber of 1941 - early 42, ie prior to the Lanc? It certainly had great propaganda value in being able to carry the war to Germany effectively and was the backbone of the first 1000 bomber raid. It didn't kill its own crews as readily as the early Halifaxes, and didn't have that aircraft's teething problems in performance and reliability. Despite its ceiling limitations, it was capable of bombing Turin by flying over the Alps - eg the raid for which Middleton was awarded the VC. Neither the Germans nor the Japs had a four-engined heavy. The equivalent B17 at the time was the C & D models, which had no tail armament and no power turrets. The B24 was only just entering service. Having said that, the Petlyakov PE8 was not at all bad, drawing on the Soviet pre-eminence in heavy bombers in the 1930s before Stalin had Tuchachevsky shot. Gibbo If asked to name only one bomber, then I'd go for the Mosquito Yes - a very radical aircraft. Why did the RAF bother with the Mitchell, Boston and Marauder, which attempted the same role much less efficiently? Were they concerned about how fast craftsmen working with wood could produce Mosquitoes? Morse The Lanc rose like a Phenoix from the ashes of the Manchester - no pun indended! Took me a while to work that one out! Are we talking cricket here? In addition, it does count that I had a flight in PA474! Jammy s**, as we used to say at school! Adrian
The Lanc rose like a Phenoix from the ashes of the Manchester - no pun indended! Took me a while to work that one out! Are we talking cricket here? Avro produced the Manchester but the vultee engines caused a lot of crashes. However, Chadwick the designer of the manchester redesigned the aircraft and produced the lancaster View attachment 992 Manchester View attachment 993 Lancaster
Originally posted by morse1001@Aug 25 2005, 06:17 PM it has to be the Lanc, Harris liked it because it was the most efficent bomber of its time, but as some has said the b29 with its technology was more efficent. The Lanc rose like a Phenoix from the ashes of the Manchester Taken from:Bomber Command by Brian Grafton Against the Wall: Britain in September, 1940 by Brian Grafton http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/...nstthewall.aspx The development of the Lancaster is a fascinating one. Essentially, one of the three 'heavies' being developed by Britain the two-engined Manchester performed acceptably and had immense carrying capacity, but was plagued with Vulture engines. By modifying the wing and installing four Merlin engines in place of the two Vultures, one of the greatest bombers of the war was born. On a one only choice, I would have to agree with this statement.
Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 24 2005, 09:26 PM So, why on earth weren't waves of Mosquitos used instead of B.17s that - at least in the early days - were shot down in droves? Because if the Mosquito had been used in mass on daylight raids, its casualty rate would have most likely been far higher than the B-17s. Why? One of the myths of the Mosquito is that it is often claimed that it was faster than the luftwaffe fighters... This is not true, it was almost as fast, but if the luftwaffe fighters got in a favourable position to intercept, it couldn't outrun them. The secret of the Mossies success in daylight raids was that it was used in small numbers, with lots re-routing on its way to the target, so it was highly difficult for the luftwaffe ground controllers to position their fighters in a favourable position to intercept. However if they were used en-mass the ground controllers would not have this problem as it would be very difficult to confuse them with a formation of this size, and once the German fighters did intercept the unarmed mosquitos, losses would be high.
Originally posted by adrian roberts@Aug 25 2005, 12:15 AM So, why on earth weren't waves of Mosquitos used instead of B.17s Because the Mosquitoes weren't American; can you see Curtis Le May swapping his 17 for a Mossie? More seriously: the Mosquito's max bomb load was 4000 lb, which was the B17s average bomb load; the latter could carry 8000lb. Did the Mosquito always carry the maximum? The USAAF in Europe liked the Mossie, and got hold of as many as the British would let them have, for use in the Night-Fighter, Photo-Recon and other roles. The early models of Mosquito were only able to carry 2000Ib of bombs in their bomb-bay, it wasn't until late 44 that they were modified with a bulged bomb-bay to carry a 4000Ib 'Cookie'
Originally posted by redcoat+Aug 27 2005, 11:15 AM-->(redcoat @ Aug 27 2005, 11:15 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-adrian roberts@Aug 25 2005, 12:15 AM So, why on earth weren't waves of Mosquitos used instead of B.17s Because the Mosquitoes weren't American; can you see Curtis Le May swapping his 17 for a Mossie? More seriously: the Mosquito's max bomb load was 4000 lb, which was the B17s average bomb load; the latter could carry 8000lb. Did the Mosquito always carry the maximum? The USAAF in Europe liked the Mossie, and got hold of as many as the British would let them have, for use in the Night-Fighter, Photo-Recon and other roles. The early models of Mosquito were only able to carry 2000Ib of bombs in their bomb-bay, it wasn't until late 44 that they were modified with a bulged bomb-bay to carry a 4000Ib 'Cookie' [post=38201]Quoted post[/post] [/b] Reading up again on the achievements of Dr. Barnes Wallace the other day, it is amazing the size of the bombs carried later on in the war. "Upkeep" 9250 lbs, (Dambusters), "Tall Boy" 12,000 lbs & "Grand Slam" 22,000 lbs These must have been unbelievable numbers to pilots of the Lanc's when first told!!!
