Most effective bomber of WWII

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!

I watched the History Channel bio on the Mossie the other night and listened to the many pilots who flew them.

It certainly had versatility and style written all over it. There weren't any tasks given to the Mossie that it could not fulfill.



Mosquito. The timber terror. Light, fast, deadly. Photo-recon, bomber, fighter-bomber, night-fighter, intruder, trainer, pathfinder, target marking, torpedo-bomber, U-boat killer, day ranger, mine layer, and target tug.







Original estimates were that, with twice the power of a Spitfire and twice the wetted area and over twice the weight, the Mosquito would still be 20mph (32km/h) faster than the Spitfire. The Air Ministry was very sceptical. When the prototype was officially tested at Boscombe Down in February 1941 they were proved wrong and it exceeded this estimate by achieving a top speed of 392mph (631km/h). It was the fastest aircraft in Bomber Command until May 1951.

They could be fitted with varying bomb loads, including the Wallis spinning bomb, up to the 4,000lb (1814kg) bomb or carry rocket projectiles for anti-tank and anti-transport use. The Mosquito served in all theatres of the war and flew from all types of airfields. Some were Carrier based and a Mosquito (LR359) was the first twin engined aircraft to land on a Carrier.
They also flew countless missions in civilian garb throughout the war to neutral Sweden carrying despatches, returning with ball bearings and, sometimes, passengers.
As an indication of the versatility of the Mosquito it was equipped, or used, with many different loads. Some of these were experimental only and some were post-war.

50, 100, 200 gallon drop tanks.
4 x .303in (7.7mm) Browning machine guns.
4 x 20mm British Hispano cannon.
1 x 57mm Molins (or Vickers G) six pounder cannon.
1 x 3.7 in (9.4cm) 32 lb (14.51kg) anti-tank gun.
2 x .303in (7.7mm) remote rearward machine guns in the nacelles.
1 x .303in (7.7mm) remote rearward machine gun in the tail.
4 gun dorsal turret at rear of cockpit.
Rocket Assisted Take Off Gear (RATOG).
6 x 250lb bombs.
4 x 500lb bombs.
6 x 500lb bombs in Avro bomb-carrier.
1 x 4,000lb bomb.
2 x 100 gallon napalmgel tanks.
Highball spherical anti-ship bouncing bomb.
1 x 18 inch Mk XV or XVII torpedo or 1 Naval mine.
Extra bomb bay fuel tanks.
Underwing 500lb bombs.
8 x 25lb solid armour piercing rocket projectiles.
8 x 60 lb semi-armour-piercing rocket projectiles.
1 x 1,050lb Uncle Tom rocket projectile.
Youngman circular segmented air brake.
Helmore Turbinlite airborne searchlight.
Radar and navigation equipment of various types.
Cameras - various still and cine plus photo-flashes.
Weather recording equipment.
Head-up type reflector gunsight.
Clear Air Turbulence research equipment.
Target towing equipment.

A Mosquito, PF604, was used as the launch and recording platform for the Vickers-built rocket powered Miles M52. This was a pilotless supersonic 3/10th scale model aircraft which eventually achieved Mach 1.38 on 9 October 1948 and became the first British aircraft to exceed the speed of sound in level flight.

 

*...head spins...Kitty falls over AGAIN...decides to sing Coming In On A Wing And A Prayer at the top of her voice...*

Spidge, please stop posting pictures of the mossie, my brain cannot take much more! Oh, hang on, Uni finished for the year, more pictures of the Mossie!

 

The Lancaster is for me the best. I'm not sure why but I've always liked the look of the Heinkel 111.

 

did u get shot down by a german plane
Watcha Carrot. Could you clarify that comment for us? Not quite sure what you mean. Cheers
Kitty

 

Undoubtedly one would have to say that the Lancaster, by virtue of its numbers in Bomber Command and its versatile load capacity, was the best heavy bomber of WW2. And I see no reason why, with the sort of adequate escort which all day bombers required, it should not have done as well during the day. Of course, we mustn't neglect the Mosquito. It was the light bomber par excellence of the second world war.
David

 

Bomber Harris called the lancaster the most efficent bomber in the entire bomber stable. In terms of heavy bombers, it was even better than the B29 until they sorted out the latters problems!

 

Mosquito - Lancaster. Lancaster - Mosquito. DON'T MAKE ME CHOOSE!:mad111:

 

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.

Kitty

Mosquito617 -

I am in full agreement with your choice!!!!!

52nd Airborne.

 

IL-2 Sturmovik
Not a bomber but a sturmovic it is the same
IL-2 Sturmovik is my favorite airplane..and i vote for him

 

Mosquito617 -

I am in full agreement with your choice!!!!!

52nd Airborne.
:icon-mrgreenbandit: Shall we go forth and conquer the world and convert everyone to our way of thinking? Could be fun. Dani, glad to see you don't follow the hounds. Especially after some of the comments you made to me about bombers last week.

 

:icon-mrgreenbandit: Shall we go forth and conquer the world and convert everyone to our way of thinking?

Yeah! I'll drink to that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

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 B24 low level strike at Ploesti was a disaster, they lost 1/3+ bombers. Low level was never again tried by heavy bombers. My group (B17) went to Ploesti 10x. It was the most heaviest defended target in Europe (flak & fighters). The Germans used slave labor to repair the facilities after each raid. The oilfields were Germany's lifeline for their war machine.

Well after the war I visited (drove past) the oilfields, it was a tremendous complex.

 

That was an inacurate statement on my part, the results of the Ploesti raid clearly exemplified why strategic bombers should not be used at a low altitude. This websites gives a good account on the Ploesti raid.
http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/09_ploesti.html

Yet the B-24 was still a versatile airplane, being used for anti-submarine patrols through out the war, especially in the Battle for The Atlantic. The B-24 was also used for transport, being modified as the C-87 transport.

Coming to the role of strategic bombing, I would choose the B-17, being an easier bomber to handle and being more durable. In my opinion the 17 was the top strategic bomber of WWII.

 

That was an inacurate statement on my part, the results of the Ploesti raid clearly exemplified why strategic bombers should not be used at a low altitude. This websites gives a good account on the Ploesti raid.
http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/09_ploesti.html

Yet the B-24 was still a versatile airplane, being used for anti-submarine patrols through out the war, especially in the Battle for The Atlantic. The B-24 was also used for transport, being modified as the C-87 transport.

Coming to the role of strategic bombing, I would choose the B-17, being an easier bomber to handle and being more durable. In my opinion the 17 was the top strategic bomber of WWII.

the Lancaster carried more, flew higher and was more cost effective

 

And only the Lanc could carry Wallis's BIG bombs, therefore only the Lanc was capable of truly strategic bombing.

 

I have plenty of respect for the Lancaster. It is hard to compare the B-17 and the Lancaster, had they flown similar operations it would be different. With a larger percentage of the Lancasters operations being at night, combat was different in many aspects. The Lancaster was superior by technical statistics (much like the B-24), the B-24 was faster, had a greater range and could carry a larger payload. Despite this, many airmen strongly prefered the B-17 because it was simply more durable, handled better than its counterpart and brought its crews home alive after sustaining large amounts of damage.(unlike the not as rugged B-24)

It is almost impossible to fing the "best bomber" of WWII. Daylight strategic bombing and night bombing were far too different. One could perhaps find the most effective for each campaign but I dont believe one can put one infront of another on technical statictics alone let alone the conditions each plane flew in.

 

I'd say that on the grounds of both speed & bomb load that the best light bomber was the Mosquito & the best heavy bomber the B-29. Before the introduction of the B-29 I'd have to divide the title of best heavy between the Lancaster at night & the B-17 in daylight. The former didn't have a good enough defensive armament for daylight bombing but it carried a far heavier bomb load.

 

The best Strategic bomber has to be the B29. The Lanacaster, Halifax, B24 and B17 were clearly of the same Generation. Technically the B29 was the first of the next Generation.

If I had to choose one of the others I would go for the Lancaster. The job of a bomber is to put bombs on the target and the much superiour Range Payload of the Lanc would carry the day.

The standard Lanc clearly had a weaker defensive capability and would have sufferred heavier daylight losses than the B17, but the biggest difference to daylight losses had nothing to do with the guns on the bomber, it was to do with the availability of fighter escort.
The payload range of the Lanc was roughly double the B17 but it wouldn't have sufferred double the losses. The Lancaster did fly daylight missions and on those missions, the loss rate of the Lancaster was almost identical to the B24. So on that cold blooded approach, I would go for the Lancaster.

 

Light bomber - Mosquito
Medium bomber - B25 Mitchell
Heavy Bomber - Lancaster