Simviation Forum - Ultimate WWII Heavy Bomber

Jun 8^th, 2004 at 6:50pm

Iroquois Offline
Colonel
Happy Halloween
Ontario Canada

Gender:
Posts: 3244

Decided to through bombers into the equation. Same deal as the fighter one.

Feel free to point out other faves.

« Last Edit: Jun 9^th, 2004 at 2:16pm by Iroquois »

I only pretend to know what I'm talking about. Heck, that's what lawyers, car mechanics, and IT professionals do everyday. Wink

&&The Rig: &&AMD Athlon XP2000+ Palomino, ECS K7S5A 3.1, 1GB PC2700 DDR, Geforce FX5200 128mb, SB Live Platinum, 16xDVD, 16x10x40x CDRW, 40/60gb 7200rpm HDD, 325w Power, Windows XP Home SP1, Directx 9.0c with 66.81 Beta gfx drivers

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Jun 8^th, 2004 at 11:09pm

Meyekul Offline
Colonel
Kentucky

Gender:
Posts: 210

B-17 for the Americans. I think it had a bigger impact on the war than the B-29 (aside from Hiroshima/Nagasaki..).

The IL-2 Sturmovik was one of Russia's finest birds. The PE-8 could make a big mess too.

The "Betty" bomber for the Japanese, can't remember the actual name of it.

Can't forget the JU-87 Stuka, or is this just for level bombers? If dive bombers count, the Russian PE-2 played a big roll on that front. The Mosquito was a fine bomber as well. I suppose something should be said about the Kamikaze too...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Jun 8^th, 2004 at 11:31pm

bricks4wings Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 57

I know I'm gonna make someone mad when I say this but Its only my opinion. The B-17 was highly over rated. Sure it looked good, and it got alot of guys Home. But the B-24 was a much better Bomber (notice I said bomber and not plane) It was faster had a bigger bombload, was better armed, and had a higher production rate. If they'd have used B-24s to make war movies with in the 40s, and used them to sell war bonds with. Nobody would consider a B-17 anything more than antiquated. But they Couldnt because they were hard to get. They were flying and fighting. But I guess The Ultimate Bomber for the USAAF would have to be the B-29 Even though it was ugly as sin.
as far as the brits go .The lanc was without a doubt thier workhorse. But I think the Mosquito was a better bomber. Again High speeds and a repectable bombload especially for a medium bomber, (It was about the same as the vaunted B-17 I might add) Made it a war winner.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 6:36am

HawkerTempest5 Offline
Colonel
Hawker Tempest MK V
United Kingdom

Gender:
Posts: 3149

The Avro Lancaster is rightly considered to be the most successful heavy bomber of WW2. It was able to carry a normal bomb load of 14,000lbs and in modified form could carry up to 22,000lbs. It took part in some of the most celebrated precision bombing raids of WW2 including the Dams raid and the sinking of the Terpitz.

Flying Legends

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 11:05am

ozzy72 Offline
Global Moderator
Pretty scary huh?
Madsville

Gender:
Posts: 37122

Let us not forget that in the hands of Alex Henshaw you could barrel-roll a Lanc with two props feathered.
'Nuff said Wink

There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 11:17am

Felix/FFDS Offline
Admin
FINALLY an official Granddad!
Orlando, FL

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Unless memory serves me wrong, I believe that the B-17 was originally designed to a medium bomber specification whilst the Lancaster was a "heavy" from day 1.

Even in online combat simulations, I see players choosing the Lancaster over the B-17 most of the time (caveat: where the only "heavies" are B-17 and Lanc)

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 2:08pm

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

The "JUG"! 8)

.....It could descend like a flying anvil to it's target and fight it's way out against enemy aircraft with equal ability.

.....so I loaded up the plane and moved to Middle-EEEE..........OIL..that is......

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 2:17pm

Iroquois Offline
Colonel
Happy Halloween
Ontario Canada

Gender:
Posts: 3244

The Jug wasn't a bomber. The Stuka was a light bomber. I changed the title so as not to confuse people.

I only pretend to know what I'm talking about. Heck, that's what lawyers, car mechanics, and IT professionals do everyday. Wink

&&The Rig: &&AMD Athlon XP2000+ Palomino, ECS K7S5A 3.1, 1GB PC2700 DDR, Geforce FX5200 128mb, SB Live Platinum, 16xDVD, 16x10x40x CDRW, 40/60gb 7200rpm HDD, 325w Power, Windows XP Home SP1, Directx 9.0c with 66.81 Beta gfx drivers

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 2:36pm

Felix/FFDS Offline
Admin
FINALLY an official Granddad!
Orlando, FL

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Quote:

The Jug wasn't a bomber. The Stuka was a light bomber. I changed the title so as not to confuse people.

Be nice to him. Jugaholics are irreparably fanatical about their overbloated P-35s. Even if you had an "Ultimate Transport of WW2" they'd still find a way to say that the Jug, for it's size, could carry the most beer the fastest.

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 3:18pm

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

What does....confused.......mean? Roll Eyes

.....so I loaded up the plane and moved to Middle-EEEE..........OIL..that is......

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 3:24pm

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

Quote:

The Jug wasn't a bomber. .

Quote:

P-47's flew more than 546,000 combat sorties between March 1943 and August 1945, destroying 11,874 enemy aircraft, some 9,000 locomotives, and about 6,000 armored vehicles and tanks.

I never realized that you could have a dogfight with a locomotive.? Roll Eyes

.....so I loaded up the plane and moved to Middle-EEEE..........OIL..that is......

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 3:25pm

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

Quote:

Feel free to point out other faves.

.....so I loaded up the plane and moved to Middle-EEEE..........OIL..that is......

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 3:35pm

Meyekul Offline
Colonel
Kentucky

Gender:
Posts: 210

Well yeah maybe the B-17 was a bit outclassed, but you can't deny that the Norden bombsight made a hell of a difference in the accuracy of high-level bombing.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 4:16pm

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

If we are talking Heavy bomber: replace the He-111 with the Fw 200

Sturmovik only got good after they put a rear gunner in, the Il-10 is better but didn't see much action.
There is a difference between bombers and ground-support aircraft, but that didn't exist in WW2. Ground support aircraft were light bombers even if they had 40mm cannons on the wings.

Pe-2 is for Russia what the Mosquito is for Britain.

Best heavy bomber: B-29

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 4:54pm

Felix/FFDS Offline
Admin
FINALLY an official Granddad!
Orlando, FL

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Quote:

If we are talking Heavy bomber: replace the He-111 with the Fw 200

For the Germans, I'd suggest the He-177

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: