Just throwing this out there. In your opinion, what was the most effective Bomber used in the European Theatre? Allies or Axis?
Since watching The Dambusters as a kid, I've always had a soft spot for the Lancaster. They were so versatile and could carry such a wide range of ordinance that I think they should get the nod. (After all, everything from bouncing bombs, through incendiaries to grand slams could be dropped by these, and to great effect, too. It also helps thet they are (like the Spitfire and Hurricane) instantly recognisable. That said, Mosquitos have to also get a nod. (If only for their crazy Path-Finding antics). I don't think the German bombers (apart from, maybe the Stuka in the very early part of the war) have much of a shout, but I remain to be convinced. ;D
I agree on your last note, the JU-88 was not very well armored but still effective with speed. I'm also a fan of the Lancaster and the B-17, both planes were very rugged and favored by bombing crews.
Depend the mission that the bomber . Long range bomber definitely allies , medium range mid - mid ( if you included japanesses ) , ground attak germans ( or soviets depends the date )
Lancaster though I don't like the single pilot solution, may make sense considering the cost of training pilots but vulnerable. Still the Lanc's operational history showed it was a machine capable of hitting all sort of targets effectively which is my definition of a good bomber. Without 617 squadron my choice would probably be different and a lot harder.
The Lancaster was possibly best overall in terms of range and payload however was poorly employed by "Bomber" Harris in bombing "area targets" at night (German cities, full of people). The British did not particularly like this strategy but given the primitive navigation available at the time, it was the best anybody could come up with. The B-17 probably best over-all, used almost exclusively during daylight bombing attacks on strategic targets: aircraft factories, tank plants, fuel refineries etc. The norden bombsight was perhaps a bit over-estimated but was still better than anything anyboy else had. The B-24 would also be number 2 at least, not quite as sexy or rugged as the B-17 but it had superior range (3,700 mile ferry range) and bombload. Honorable mention goes to the B-29, only due to its relatively short service life starting in 1944. The capabilities of this aircraft were light years ahead of any other bomber anybody had, huge bombload of 20,000 pounds, range of over 3,000 miles (In 1946 one set the still standing piston engine aircraft altitude record of 47,910 feet). Even the Russians thought the B-29 was a fantastic aircraft: when one damaged B-29 landed in the Soviet union during the war, the Russkis gave the crew back but kept the plane (in order to copy it, on Stalin's orders). This aircraft appeared later as the TU-4. http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm
Around 40% of Bomber Command's effort went on area attacks, the majority of their tonnage was dropped in attacks on precision targets. And the the 8th AF carried out a lot of area attacks, too. Sometimes they were pre-planned operations, with the specified target being the centre of a German town. Often they were secondary targets, when cloud cover prevented a visual attack on the primary target, the 8th AF would attack any nearby German town using radar bombing aids. Overall I'd say the Lancaster was the best bomber in Europe. It dropped almost exactly twice the weight of bombs per sortie as the US heavy bombers. It had a lower cost per ton dropped than any bomber in BC.
I think MVP is or should be; :: Mil-speak for Most Vulnerable Pilot :: Those poor guys had to just sit there and take it!
For ground attack in the later parts of the war would be the British Typhoon's or Mossies, these things could destroy whole columns of tanks. But the Lancaster is by far the best bomb load to destruction ratio.
Lancaster definitely for the normal bomb load for the Lanc, and then again think of such huge bombs like tall boy and grand slam....
With a top speed of 287 mph and a range of 1,660 miles, the Lancaster in the ETO had a typical load of 18,000 pounds of high explosive it could deliver over the target. The huge Grand Slams are the exception, not the rule. On the other side of the globe in the PTO the B-29 had a pressurized crew area, a centralized and computerized fire control, the capacity to carry up to a 20,000 pound bomb load, and the ability to fly 5,830 miles, with a top airspeed of 365 miles per hour. The "biggest/best" (Most Valuable Plane/bomber) of the two theaters have to be the RAF’s Lanc in the ETO, and since the Bee-Sans range wasn’t needed in the ETO, the AAF’s "Superfort" B-29 in the PTO. In the ETO the Lanc wins it would seem.
Alright brndirt1, Most Valuable Plane! Didn't mean to upset jagdtiger1 with a nonsense title.lmao. Go Lanc's!
How about Tu-2? A late war USSR medium bomber, fast, good protection and guns (20mm root cannons, 2 12.7mm machine guns in bombadier and rear gunner, 2 7.62mm machine guns waist positions) and a good bomb load (more than Mosquito).
For the european theatre, i have to go with the b-17. Unlike the lancaster, it had armament on it bottom, and carried large numbers of machineguns and had a respectable bomb payload. B-24 is another consideration, but I believe the b-17 to be superior.
