B-17, B-24, B-29, or Lancaster?

[Pistolenschutze]

We haven't has a lively debate here for a spell, so how about a discussion of World War II heavy bombers? Taken on an overall basis--total contribution to Allied victory--which of the following heavy bombers should get the nod as the "best." You will note that all those listed in the poll are four-engined, long-range heavy bombers, and either British or American built. The reason for that is simple: Only the Americans and the British used such bombers to any substantial degree. Both the Germans and the Japanese relied, almost entirely, on two-engined medium bombers.

Boeing B-17 Flying Forgress
Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Avro Lancaster

My vote has to go to the B-17, not because it was the fastest or could carry the heaviest bomb loads (it wasn't and couldn't), but because of its outstanding performance as a bomb truck that could get the job done and get its crews back home despite massive damage. Nevertheless, there is much to be said for all other listed and I would be the last to disparage any of them.

[Pat Hurley]

The things that hold the B-29 (which was a supremely capable aircraft) back from top billing were lousy engines (Wright, as I recall) and a limited operational time in the war theater.

I vote B-17 too Pistol (my Dad bombed Frankfurt on three occasions in one, escorted by the Tuskeegee Airmen in P-51's. He still has many kind and highly complimentary things to say about the Tuskeegee Airmen).

[Marlin]

I'd vote the B-17, with the B-29 second.

[berto64]

Seeing as my pop was in a B-24 outfit I'll have to pick the B-24.

There were more B-24's built than any other US heavy bomber during the war and were used more widely through out all the theatres of combat during WWII than any of the others.

[Ursus]

B-17 no doubt

[bunnyhunter12]

Lanc'

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

I actually just like the Lancaster because of Squadron No.617 and what they did with Tallboy bombs against Tirpitz, Grand Slam against the German viaduct and in the famous Dam Buster raid.

The Lanc' was also used during Operation Millenium against Cologne (the first 1000 bomber raid), they bombed Hamburg, and firebombed Dresden.

Many say that these attacks on German cities (espescially Dresden) make Arthur "Bomber" Harris a war criminal. He helped end the war=He's a Hero in my books. The loss of civilians and refugees was a shame, but there would have been many more if Germany was not brought to it's knees thanks in large part to the Allied Bombing Campaigns.

[bunnyhunter12]

My favorite bomber of the war was the B-25 though. The Doolittle raid showed how brave its pilots were and the MANY armament plans (including a howitzer mounted in the nose of some) may not have made it the best, but it sure was COOL.

[millwright]

While I'll agree on the Avro, BH, where did you get the idea a howitzer was mounted in the nose of a Mitchell ?

The Avro was the champeen heavy weight lifter of WW2 bombers toting first Barnes-Wallis' "Tallboy" and later his "Grand Slam" to sufficient altitude to perform as advertised. No U.S. bomber in the ETO could do so. Sub pens at Brest and Lorient, rocket and super gun sites in northern France, and the Tirpitz and the Bienville viaduct all fell victim to this superb combination. What the Avro lacked was defensive firepower and armour.

The B-29 was the "next generation" of bomber and performed excellently under severe conditions at extreme ranges enabling us to hold much of Japan's home islands at risk.

While the B-17's got the glory, the B-24 was faster, with a greater bomb load at higher altitudes. Just fewer of them. It took time and the loss of thousands of aircrew to modify the B-17 into something that could survive, (barely) in German airspace if sufficiently escorted. Since these models appeared around the time long range escorts appeared and the decline in pilot skill in the Luftwaffe were also occurring I suspect any "opinion" has to remain more that than established fact. >MW

[bunnyhunter12]

Got it from The Encyclopedia of WWII, it's at my parent's place so I can't tell you the editor's name or the publisher. It says some Mitchells had the crew position in the nose removed and a 75mm(?) howitzer mounted in the nose in an abortive attempt to create a tank-buster. It didn't work, maybe they should have mounted it sideways like in modern gun-ships.

Here's a link, they say it was a 75mm. and was used to sink ships at a rate of fire of three rounds a minute.
http://www.warbirdbrewing.com/fun_st...rbirds/b25.htm

Here's another site and a pic from that site, notice the large aperature on the nose.
http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/b25.htm

Now DO NOT question me again. (KIDDING)

[17thfabn]

Berto, the B-24 had the highest production numbers of ANY U.S. aircraft.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by berto64

Seeing as my pop was in a B-24 outfit I'll have to pick the B-24.

There were more B-24's built than any other US heavy bomber during the war and were used more widely through out all the theatres of combat during WWII than any of the others.

What you say is quite true, Berto. The B-24 was a truly excellent aircraft. Over the years, I've talked to several pilots who flew it during World War II and their only real complaint with it was that it was a beast to fly compared to the B-17.

[Sarge]

Since I crewed the Navy PB4Y-2 in it's last years of service (we later got P2V-5 Neptunes) I gotta go with the B24 & variants (PB4Y-2). It sure was a cold bitch in the aft section, but fortunately we never flew very high.

The B 25 with the 75mm Was a limited success! It was not built as a tank buster and never saw service in Europe & N. Afrika. Strictly anti shipping in the Pacific. They sank everything from Destroyers down with this a/c.

[polishshooter]

The B24 actually did more to win the war in all theaters than the 17, but the 17 got all the "press...."

The 24 had better range and payload, and speed was slightly better too, the only thing the 17 had was operating altitude, and was slightly (arguably) better at taking damage (but then again the 17 was RARELY used at treetop or wavetop height where it COULD face REAL flak like the 24 did pretty routinely though....)...but the 17 was also considered "prettier," so it got all the photo ops....

The 24 not only dropped more tonnage in the ETO than the 17, it also was instrumental in the Battle of the Atlantic both as a patrol bomber and in the Bay of Biscay Anti Uboat offensive...


In the Pacific it replaced the 17 pretty early, and both the USAAC B-24s and the Navy PB4Ys sunk almost as much Japanese shipping as our subs...


And the 24 was considered as the 17s replacement, and probably would have been if the war started a year later....as it was, we had both in production, so we kept them both and they ended up complimenting each other pretty well....

Finally, after the war the 17 was dropped from inventory pretty quickly, but the 24 soldiered on for a while, and the Privateers for QUITE a while longer..


Taking nothing away from the Fortress and what it did....


The B-24 had a better record and was the better plane....

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

The B-24 had a better record and was the better plane....

Polish, I'm shocked. You didn't argue for the Russian Ilyushin, Petlyakov, or Tupolev.

[polishshooter]

No PS, the Russians really didn't succeed at anything airborne in WWII except full throttle balls to the wall 10000 feet or less, shoot everything at anything in the way no matter who's side it was on, in the air or on the ground on the way out and on the way back!

(Which is ONE of the reasons their most loved fighter, the one given only to the Guards (Aces) was the Bell P-39, what they called "The Little Shaver" ....it was perfect for that kind of "combat."

And oh yeah the Sturmovik wasn't so bad at ground attack either....kind of the first "Flying Tank..."




As far as the B-25 "Gunships," yeah they used a forward firing 75mm howitzer in later production "J" models but it was never a success....the recoil battered the airframe badly and the fuselage filled up with smoke and fumes quickly too...many times the 75 was removed in the field and more .50s were added in it's place.

What is cool is that the FIRST "Gunship" models were field expedient "B" and "C" models, along with the A20 "Havocs" which were just as deadly (and maybe as effective and were the unsung heroes of the war, but I digress! ) converted in the FIELD by "Pappy" Gunn (What a PERFECT name! ) in the 5th Air Force in New Guinea/Australia in 1942, where he faired over the glass nose and packed in there first 8 then 10 then later 12 .50s, with the firing solenoid on the pilots yoke...it was DEVASTATING. The hitting power of 10 fifties concentrated in such a small area was so much that just the .50s could punch a hole in the side of a freighter or Destroyer and sink it.

There are many first hand accounts of B-25 and A-20 Gunship pilots from the Kenney's 5th AF, my favorites are the ones that said the armorers were kept busy scrounging .50 barrels every day...like at the battle of Bismark Sea, one gunship coming in at wave top height at one of the troopships, hitting the "tit" they called it at about 2000 yds out, the plane feeling like it almost came to a stop from the recoil, and keeping it down for the whole run, and one by one the .50s cutting out from red hot barrels actually warping, so that when they flashed over the target they might have only one still going sounding like "putt putt putt!"

Coupled with skip bombing against shipping with 500# bombs, or against airfields using the "Kenney Cocktail" 12 pound parachute frags he developed before the war with delayed fuses, it was DEVASTATING. There is a famous picture of several of the B-25 Gunships wing tip to wing tip over the trees at Lae or Salamua airfields on a surprise raid at full throttle, with all the nose guns going, and hundreds of the "parafrags" streaming out behind ....and a BUNCH of Jap planes lined up under them that were ALL destroyed....


It was one of the few times that "Field Expediency" was adopted for production that quickly, so as many solid nose models were later produced as glass nosed ones, and "package" guns were added to the noses of just about all later models, glassed or not, and to just about every other twin engine bomber later produced, including B-26s, Lockheed Neptunes, etc, and led to the later A-26 Invader, which had the FIRST models designed as solid nose gunships....


But back to the topic, I think I just MIGHT have preferred actually FLYING in a 17 if I had to go to Berlin in either of them in 43 or 44...

While almost as many 17s were lost as 24s percentage wise compared to the number used, which is why I don't buy necessarily the claim that the 17 could "take" more damage, the fact is you don't see very many still or motion pictures of their wings folding up in a fireball from a single flak hit as you do 24s....not only were the 17s easier to fly with one or two engines out, it was easier to bail out of a plane going down if it still had BOTH wings....

[millwright]

BH,

Both the B-25 G & H models incorporated a 75mm cannon, but I believe two different types - one might have been made by Oldsmobile. Neither was very successful and neither was a 'howitzer'. They were often removed in the field. Slow rate of fire, frequent jams, and severly limited magazine (20 rounds) made it a doubtful weapon.

The H model sported 8 .50 cal MGs in the nose plus an additional 4 .50 cal guns in 'nose blisters' affixed to the sides below the pilot compartment. Two more were available in the dorsal turret for a total of 14 forward firing 50 MGs ! Such a bullet storm could sink thin skinned ships by itself and wreaked havoc with shipboard AAA as well as anyone in/on the upper decks. Also made them formidable straffing weapons against ground targets, too. >MW

[StarKing]

Originally Posted by millwright

BH,

Both the B-25 G & H models incorporated a 75mm cannon, but I believe two different types - one might have been made by Oldsmobile. Neither was very successful and neither was a 'howitzer'. They were often removed in the field. Slow rate of fire, frequent jams, and severly limited magazine (20 rounds) made it a doubtful weapon.

The H model sported 8 .50 cal MGs in the nose plus an additional 4 .50 cal guns in 'nose blisters' affixed to the sides below the pilot compartment. Two more were available in the dorsal turret for a total of 14 forward firing 50 MGs ! Such a bullet storm could sink thin skinned ships by itself and wreaked havoc with shipboard AAA as well as anyone in/on the upper decks. Also made them formidable straffing weapons against ground targets, too. >MW

I was beginning to wonder if anyone in this thread knew the difference between a howitzer and a cannon - thanks for restoring my faith in humanity!

[Brass Tacks]

1) B17
2) B29
3,4)B24, Lancaster (tie)

3&4 tie cuz they're damn ugly

flew in Aluminum Overcast B17 a couple years ago, quite a ride. It will give you a real appreciation of the job the flyers did in WWII. Also did a walk thru of FiFi B29

[Iron Eagle]

I'd have to go with the B-29. My dad built them. All of them served their purposes, and did it well.

[Deacon_Man]

I'll have to go with the Enola Gay (B-29).

[mjp28]

I'm a BIG WWII buff and probably have seen every History, Military Channel and every other show out there on WWII.

The European Theater was the real media show in WWII so a lot was shown, at least for the US audience of the Eigth Air Force and all the B-17 raids into Germany. Plus the B-17 was mass produced in American factories! A sturdy work horse with many, many sorties -but- I think the Lancaster was a better overall bomber.

On the B-24 and B-25 it depends on usage but overall the B-25 was faster and basically turned into an 8 (or more) .50 cal gunship that could drop bombs...nasty combimation! Tore the Japanese up in the Pacific.

B-29 was an engineering marvel, perfect for carrying massive bombloads to burn Toyko and Japan down and killed more people than Fat Man and Little Boy together....which the B-29 was well suited to drop.

Best overall plane that won the war? The P-51 Mustang! Ford even named it's new 1964 car after it...not a pony which is what caught on.

(also the Chevy Corvette was named after the WWII Corvette class ships, hmmm)

[Fast Forward]

If your talking 2 engine bombers how about the Wooden Wonder,,The British Mosquito

[DixieLandMan]

Although I love the design and look of the B-17 (had great uncle serve on one), I'm smitten with the B-24. It may be ugly but that is my vote.

1, B-24
2, B-17
3, B-29
4, Lancaster

[flyingtiger85]

I think the B-17 was best because it could take so much damage and still keep flying.Here is a picture I snapped at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas at an airshow.I paid a $20 donation to go up inside of it.It's really small in there and you had to stoop down to walk around in it.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Little Rooster]

Originally Posted by bunnyhunter12

My favorite bomber of the war was the B-25 though. The Doolittle raid showed how brave its pilots were and the MANY armament plans (including a howitzer mounted in the nose of some) may not have made it the best, but it sure was COOL.

add one more to the like list