Most effective bomber of WWII

Discussion in 'The War In The Air' started by Peter Clare, May 10, 2006.

  1. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

    In the thread B-17 V B-24 it seems that the B-17 Fortress comes out on top but that rises another question.

    In the forums opinion, what is considered to have been the most effective / versatile bomber of the war? Taking into consideration both Allied and Axis aircraft.

    My choice would be the Lancaster, it looked the part and did all that was asked of it, and more. But I expect I'll be shot down in flames.

    Regards
    Peter.
     
  2. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    For all that I remember, there is but one "The Lancaster!" At the start of Goodwood 2000 heavies saturate bombed the German lines. Flying Fortresses and Lancasters and damn near everything that couold fly.

    For precision bombing. The Lancaster. The sound of the engines still wakens memories of times long past.
    Sapper
     
  3. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    In the thread B-17 V B-24 it seems that the B-17 Fortress comes out on top but that rises another question.

    In the forums opinion, what is considered to have been the most effective / versatile bomber of the war? Taking into consideration both Allied and Axis aircraft.

    My choice would be the Lancaster, it looked the part and did all that was asked of it, and more. But I expect I'll be shot down in flames.

    Regards
    Peter.

    Up until the advent of the B-29 Superfortress in 1944, I would have to say the Lancaster also - although if used for daylight bombing it would have been shot out of the sky in droves by the Luftwaffe fighters. So, in the daylight arena the B17 has to be the better bomber.
     
  4. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    I agree Adam, the B-17 by day and the Lancaster by night until the B-29 came into existance and started operations.
     
  5. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Are we allowed to nominate anything other than Heavy Bombers?
    Dive Bombers perhaps?
    If so Junkers Ju 87 Stuka.
    I nominate this for helping pave the way for the ground forces in the Blitzkreig era.
    Also it is an enduring symbol of that time.

    edited. removed HUGE picture.
     
  6. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Owen You read my mind completely on this!!!! The Stuka as much for its propaganda worth as its effectiveness. Anyone who witnessed the scream of the Stuka's sirens seemingly never forgot it.
     
  7. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    Owen, I think we really are talking about heavy bombers here, but if we do give consideration to the JU 87 I suppose we would have to recall that it was next to useless when the Luftwaffe didn't possess air superiority - witness the Battle of Britain! It may well have been deadly accurate in its dive bomb attacks, but if it didn't get the chance to drop its bombs in the first place then that fact is purely academic. To stand any chance of being nominated the most effective bomber of WW2, the bomber must have been able to consistently deliver its bombs, wouldn't you agree?
     
  8. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Owen, I think we really are talking about heavy bombers here, but if we do give consideration to the JU 87 I suppose we would have to recall that it was next to useless when the Luftwaffe didn't possess air superiority - witness the Battle of Britain! It may well have been deadly accurate in its dive bomb attacks, but if it didn't get the chance to drop its bombs in the first place then that fact is purely academic. To stand any chance of being nominated the most effective bomber of WW2, the bomber must have been able to consistently deliver its bombs, wouldn't you agree?

    OK point taken.
    I'm more of a ground-war person so I was veiwing it from that perspective.
    Effective at scaring people then.
     
  9. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    Peter, may i make the suggestion that the categories be defined as Best Light, Best Medium and Best Heavy, as each was used in different ways?
    So I'll go for: -
    Light - Mosquito (obviously) Could get long distances quickly and evade the fighters.
    Medium - Wimpy. Stonking little war horse that brought her crews back with half her wings missing
    Heavy - Lancaster, innit? Beautiful aircraft, manouevrable, reliable, and lets face it, then engine note is a damn sight more effective than that of a Fortress.
    So those are my three. Feel free to disagree with me cos i shan't take a blind bit of notice of you.;)
    Kitty
     
  10. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    Peter, may i make the suggestion that the categories be defined as Best Light, Best Medium and Best Heavy, as each was used in different ways?
    So I'll go for: -
    Light - Mosquito (obviously) Could get long distances quickly and evade the fighters.
    Medium - Wimpy. Stonking little war horse that brought her crews back with half her wings missing
    Heavy - Lancaster, innit? Beautiful aircraft, manouevrable, reliable, and lets face it, then engine note is a damn sight more effective than that of a Fortress.
    So those are my three. Feel free to disagree with me cos i shan't take a blind bit of notice of you.;)
    Kitty

    Good suggestion. But maybe we should further sub-divide into best day and best night bomber. Using that method, best day light bomber - yes, the Mosquito. Best night light bomber, the Douglas Havoc. Best day medium, B-25 Mitchell; best night, I'd concur on the Wimpy. Best day heavy - B.17; best night heavy, the immortal Lancaster.
     
  11. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    Great minds think alike Adam.
     
  12. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

    Good suggestion. But maybe we should further sub-divide into best day and best night bomber. Using that method, best day light bomber - yes, the Mosquito. Best night light bomber, the Douglas Havoc. Best day medium, B-25 Mitchell; best night, I'd concur on the Wimpy. Best day heavy - B.17; best night heavy, the immortal Lancaster.

    I purposley didn't state heavy bomber in the title of the thread, I feel that leaving it open to all bomber aircraft will give a more wider scope to the discussion.

    Categories / Sub-devisions are fine, wish I'd thought of that myself.

    Off to a beer festival now. Cheers.

    Peter.
     
  13. Reverend Bob

    Reverend Bob Senior Member

    I think the B-25 Mitchell was the most adaptable to combat missions other than the Long range high level role of the heavys. It stands out as the only one to have been carrier launched in a strike mission, mounted an effective 75mm Cannon installed by North American, carried torpedoes, developed low level skip bombing of ships at sea, low level ground attack with fixed machine guns, with service in every theater of the war.


    Cheers
    Rev Bob
     
  14. jhor9

    jhor9 WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    I can't comment about night bombers, but for daylight I would say B17s and B24s, each did its job well. Although the B17 was a better survivor.
     
  15. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    I can't comment about night bombers, but for daylight I would say B17s and B24s, each did its job well. Although the B17 was a better survivor.

    I would value your opinion as to how you would rate each purely as flying machines, rather than as weapons of war?
     
  16. Hawkeye90

    Hawkeye90 Senior Member

    As a bomber the B-17 was superior to the B-24, but the B-24 did things the B-17 did not or was uncapable of. The B-24 was used for maritime patrol, transport and low level bombing for ex. Rumanian oil fields at Ploesti. The Lancaster also had these qualities. I may be wrong but i have not heard of 17's being used that often for low-altitude operations. When it comes to high altitude daylight bombing, which had the largest effect on the war itself the Fortress still is the greatest.
     
  17. redcoat

    redcoat Senior Member

    Good suggestion. But maybe we should further sub-divide into best day and best night bomber. Using that method, best day light bomber - yes, the Mosquito. Best night light bomber, the Douglas Havoc. .
    Why would you class the Havoc as a better night light bomber than the Mossie???????
    While the Boston/Havoc was a good aircraft of its type, it cannot compare with the Mossies record on night missions.
    for example, the 'Light Night Striking Force' a unit of Mossies, flew 27,239 night missions for the loss of only 108 aircraft.
    It was not unknown for a Mossie of this unit ( with two different crews) to bomb Berlin twice in one night during the winter months!
     
  18. jhor9

    jhor9 WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    As a bomber the B-17 was superior to the B-24, but the B-24 did things the B-17 did not or was uncapable of. The B-24 was used for maritime patrol, transport and low level bombing for ex. Rumanian oil fields at Ploesti. The Lancaster also had these qualities. I may be wrong but i have not heard of 17's being used that often for low-altitude operations. When it comes to high altitude daylight bombing, which had the largest effect on the war itself the Fortress still is the greatest.

    I agree with your comments, except B24 low level bombing of Ploesti in 1943, it was a disaster, their loss rate was nearly 50%. Probably the reason B24s were used is because they had a longer range, they flew from Libya. Once the bomb groups moved to Italy. both 24s and 17s bombed Ploesti, but from high altitude.My group went to Ploesti 10 times It was one of the most heavily defended targets in Europe.
    Heavy bombers were not made to bomb from low level. It was also tried by B29s over Japan, they took heavier losses from low level.
     
  19. jhor9

    jhor9 WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    I would value your opinion as to how you would rate each purely as flying machines, rather than as weapons of war?

    I've been told by people who flew both, that the 17 was easier to fly.(didn't have to work as hard). The 17 was better at high altitude, the 24 was able to carry a heavier bomb load, it was faster and its long range was better then the 17. However in combat the 17 was a better choice.
     
  20. Peter Clare

    Peter Clare Very Senior Member

    As a bomber the B-17 was superior to the B-24, but the B-24 did things the B-17 did not or was uncapable of. The B-24 was used for maritime patrol, transport and low level bombing for ex. Rumanian oil fields at Ploesti. The Lancaster also had these qualities. I may be wrong but i have not heard of 17's being used that often for low-altitude operations. When it comes to high altitude daylight bombing, which had the largest effect on the war itself the Fortress still is the greatest.

    The optimum height for a B-24 to attack a U-boat with depth-charges was 50ft.
     

Share This Page