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

Reply #15 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 5:33pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

I'm afraid it has to go to the Lancaster. No other aicraft could carry such a bomb, let alone drop it accurately enough to fall within 30 yards of its intended target from 18,000 feet.

As for the B17/B24 thing, a B24 could out run a B17 on three engines. However, the B17 could fly with ten foot of wing missing. As to why the B17 is more remembered, just look at it, then look at a B24. The Liberator is a rectangle with wings, or, as the CFS1 manual put it, a flying truck. The B17 looks good (the F model was by far the best looking) and so people remember it because, as an aircraft, it was so much more memorable.

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 5:54pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Quote:

The B17 looks good (the F model was by far the best looking) and so people remember it because, as an aircraft, it was so much more memorable.

So you're saying that Boeing had a better PR department?

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Jun 9^th, 2004 at 9:10pm

SilverFox441 Offline
Colonel
Now What?
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Gender:
Posts: 1467

Boeing's PR dept was all those B-17's coming home with major damage.

Besides..."Flying Fortress" is just sexier than "Liberator".

Steve (Silver Fox) Daly

&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Jun 10^th, 2004 at 12:43am

Meyekul Offline
Colonel
Kentucky

Gender:
Posts: 210

Yes its amazing to see pictures of half-destroyed B-17s that flew home; for example:

(click for more)

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Jun 10^th, 2004 at 1:32pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Quote:

So you're saying that Boeing had a better PR department?

What i'm saying is that the B17 wasn't designed by a man who wanted to try out his new set square. Grin

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Jun 10^th, 2004 at 3:36pm

Akula. Offline
Colonel
o.O
UK

Gender:
Posts: 943

I've heard a story about a B-17 that took a German timed rocket to the nose. apparently the rocket slammed into the plane, killed the pilot, co-pilot, and bombardier. the radio operator took over the flying and managed to take the crippled bomber back to england
Akula

- Akula

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Jun 10^th, 2004 at 6:57pm

bricks4wings Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 57

I admit that to the average person the Liberator may not have been as pleasing to the eye as the Fortress. It was not as sleek looking. And the fort was a dang sight easier to fly. But the question was not which was the prettiest bomber. And as I said Quote:

But the B-24 was a much better Bomber (notice I said bomber and not plane)

But I hope you dont think the Libs couldnt absorb a tremendous amount of battle damage and still come home. They may not have been "the comingest back airplane" of the war. But they got many a man home when it shouldnt have. Maybe they should have sent B-17s over Ploesti to see how many came home.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Jun 10^th, 2004 at 9:37pm

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

If you're saying that because the B24 was faster, then it was a better aircraft(at least at Ploesti). I think that Quote:

a B24 could out run a B17 on three engines

....might possibly already be saying that. BUT, to make the aircraft go faster meant higher wing loading and a less resilient wing surface. Ergo, the B24 couldn't come home "with ten feet of wing missing" in most cases. In fact, there were reports of 24's lost in stall/spin accidents with what the crew reported as "light rime ice".

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Jun 11^th, 2004 at 6:00pm

bricks4wings Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 57

I never said the B-24 was a better aircraft. I said the B-24 was a better bomber. I'm sure we can agree that the whole reason for a bombers existance is to drop bombs and blow stuff up, right. So if you can carry more bombs more efficently (higher, faster,and farther). Then it stands to reason that you can blow up more stuff. So you have designed a "better" bomber. Now just because you cannot remove large chunks of the structure of that bomber and expect it to fly, like they did in the "good 'ol days". Does not detract from the fact that you have a superior bomber than what you had before.
More B-24s were lost than were B-17s. But there were also more than 7000 more in use.
I also am sure that the loss of the 10' of wing of the B-17 that keeps coming up. Was the exception, and not the rule. I can say with complete confidence that not every B-17 that lost 10' of wing came home.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Jun 11^th, 2004 at 8:30pm

zeberdee Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Sunny Bradford Yorks uk

Gender:
Posts: 469

Quote:

I can say with complete confidence that not every B-17 that lost 10' of wing came home.

That will depend upon which 10 foot it was!!!!

If your not part of the answer your part of the problem! &&I've often wanted to drown my troubles, but I can't get my wife to go swimming. &&&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Jun 11^th, 2004 at 9:46pm

bricks4wings Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 57

I change my vote. Lancaster

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Jun 11^th, 2004 at 11:36pm

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

Uuuhhhhhhhhh.......dude.......bombers that make one way trips are called Kamikazee's. Notice... I said Kamikazee's not airplanes. Lips Sealed

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Jun 12^th, 2004 at 6:13pm

bricks4wings Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 57

OTTOL.
Why dont you learn something new. Start here http://www.b24.mach3ww.com/ They can tell you more and explain it better than I can.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Jun 12^th, 2004 at 6:49pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Depends on who you believe.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24.html
Quote:

A comparison between the B-24 Liberator and the B-17 Fortress is perhaps inevitable. The Liberator was slightly faster than the Fort, carried a heavier bombload and could carry it farther and higher than the Fort. It was slightly more maneuverable than the Fort, and was much more adaptable to other missions. On the debit side, the Liberator was harder to fly, less stable, and much more difficult to hold in the tight bomber formations that were mandatory in the European theatre of operations. The Liberator was not capable of absorbing nearly the same amount of battle damage that the Fortress could handle. Any sort of solid hit on the wing of a Liberator was generally fatal, the high-aspect ratio Davis wing often collapsing and folding up when hit. In comparison to the B-17, there are relatively few photographs of Liberators returning home with half their wings shot away or with major sections of their tails missing. The Liberator was not very crashworthy, a "wheels up" landing generally causing the fuselage to split into two or three pieces, resulting in a complete writeoff. In contrast, a Fortress which had undergone a "wheels-up" landing could often be quickly repaired and returned to service. When ditching at sea, the Liberator's lightly-built bomb bay doors would often immediately collapse upon impact, the interior of the aircraft quickly filling up with water, causing the aircraft to sink rapidly. In spite of the Liberator's defects, Eighth Air Force records show that B-17 operational losses were 15.2 percent as compared with 13.3 percent for the B-24,which meant that a crew had statistically a better chance of surviving the war in a Liberator than in a Fortress.

I'm sure someone once told me that the B-24 had problems operating at altitude due to the wing section. This meant it was more suitable for low-altitude missions.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Jun 13^th, 2004 at 12:44pm

Flying Trucker Ex Member

For us Canucks it is the Halifax. To us it was a much better bomber than anything that has been mentioned thus far.

HMMM...wonder why it is not included in the poll?

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #30 - Jun 13^th, 2004 at 4:34pm

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

Quote:

OTTOL.
Why dont you learn something new. Start here http://www.b24.mach3ww.com/ They can tell you more and explain it better than I can.

To tell you the truth.........I don't really care! My original post proposing the "The Jug" was nothing more than facetious baiting.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #31 - Jun 13^th, 2004 at 6:36pm

bricks4wings Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 57

I guess we can agree on something then. Because in the grand scheme of things . It doesnt matter one whit. I shouldnt have let myself get suckered in to a pointless debate, where the only answers are based on hearsay and personal preference. And not on personal experiance.
But I'm still changing my vote to the Lanc. Even though it could possibly be the ugliest bomber ever made.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #32 - Jun 14^th, 2004 at 1:49am

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

I agree to agree.

Drinks are on the house!

Cheers!

8)

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #33 - Jun 14^th, 2004 at 9:06am

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

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Quote:

But I'm still changing my vote to the Lanc. Even though it could possibly be the ugliest bomber ever made.

Errr. you're not up to date on some of the French pre-WW2 bombers, are you? They make the Lancaster positively beautiful!

Now if a thread were to be the "prettiest" bomber, I'd go for a tie in second place between the Halfax/B-29. First place, of course, would be the "Jug"

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #34 - Jun 14^th, 2004 at 10:13am

OTTOL Offline
Colonel
Fintas, Kuwait (OKBK)

Gender:
Posts: 918

LOL.....A man after my own heart!

The Gotha gets my vote! Even the name has a certain ugliness about it!

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #35 - Jun 14^th, 2004 at 5:13pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

If this is now a contest for the prettiest bomber, may I remind you that the early B17a-e models were hidious. And the B24's, as stated were rectangles with wings.

So, my vote goes to the Hampden, even though it isn't a heavy bomber, it still looks pretty damn good. Grin

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #36 - Jun 14^th, 2004 at 5:51pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Quote:

So, my vote goes to the Hampden, even though it isn't a heavy bomber, it still looks pretty damn good. Grin

I always thought the Hampden was more like a flying frying pan...

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #37 - Jun 16^th, 2004 at 2:12pm

GWSimulations Offline
Colonel
I am a developer, if you
want an addon, just ask*
UK

Posts: 746

Quote:

Unless memory serves me wrong, I believe that the B-17 was originally designed to a medium bomber specification

I thought the B-17 was originally for maratime patrol. Seriously.

GW_Simulations&&http://www.freewebtown.com/gwsimulations&&Founder & President, Advanced UK Scenery Project (AUKSP)&&http://www.ukscenerydesign.co.uk/auksp&&Classic Aviation&&http://classicaviation.12.forumer.com/index.php&&&&*See the GW_Simulations Website for more details.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #38 - Jun 16^th, 2004 at 6:35pm

bricks4wings Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 57

Quote:

The (B-17) bomber went through a number of significant changes & alterations in its long career, from the initial prototype (designed as a Coast Patrol aircraft) to the Sentimental Journey's "G" type bomber, to post-war USCG Search & Rescue, to engine testing and much more.

I found this when I was searching for the designation number of the S&R variant. (RB-17 I think)

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #39 - Jun 22^nd, 2004 at 8:29pm

Air-Geko Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Akron, Ohio

Gender:
Posts: 13

I would have to go with the B29 Superfortress. We had "Fifi," the only flying B29 here at our airshow this past weekend along with "Diamond Lil" (B24 Liberator), "Panchito" (B25 Mitchell), and "Yankee Lady" (B17G). If we're talking about a beautiful plane, the sleak Superfortress would have to get my vote... let alone the advanced fire control system for the defense of the aircraft, pressurized crew areas, etc...

Keith

Also, though just a picky note -- during WWII the USAF didn't yet exist -- it was the Army Air Corps...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #40 - Jun 22^nd, 2004 at 10:46pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Quote:

Keith

Also, though just a picky note -- during WWII the USAF didn't yet exist -- it was the Army Air Corps...

Picky note 2 -

1907 - Aeronautical Section of the Signal Corps.
1914 - Aviation Section (Signal Corps).
1918 - United States Army Air Service
1926 - United States Army Air Corps
1941 - United States Army Air Forces
1947 - United States Air Force

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged