Best Allied heavy bomber of WW2

In your opinion , what is the best heavy allied bomber of WW2 ?

I was going to put this into the "air warfare off ww2" topic , but theres no poll option.

 

My personal (biased?) order:

Best: B-29.
Second: B-24 and Lancaster.
Last: B-17.

 

no B 25's??

 

B-25 was 2-engined medium bomber.

 

I moved the thread back, can you guys still vote now? I can still see the results, which is a good sign.

Judging statistics, I don't think there's really any contestant to the superiority of the B29. That plane makes the entire discussion pointless, and it all comes down to preferences.

 

There are a couple of difficulties discussing this.

The first problem is that there are at least three contenders absent. The Halifax, Stirling and Petlyakov Pe8 should all be on that list. Possibly so should the B-32.

Arguably so should the Vickers Wellington, since that was the RAF's main Heavy bomber for the first half of the war. This brings up the second problem as I have yet to find an adequate definition of what constitutes a "Heavy" bomber (Although the B-25 should never be considered a "heavy").

Technically the B-29 is far and away the best of all the options, however it is also a late war aircraft.

If the field is narrowed down to theatre (i.e. ETO where the B29 did not serve) or a time slot earlier than 1944, then the race becomes a lot closer.

 

B-29 is head & shoulders above the rest.

the remainder?

Lancaster
B-24
B-17

Based on ability, not nationality

 

Agreed, for an expanded list of the major types I would place them:

B-29
Halifax
Lancaster
B-24
B-17
Stirling

 

I'd agree with that. When alls said and done the B29 belongs to the next generation of bombers so would have no business not being better than the rest.


As for early war bombers I'd favor the mighty Wimpy that was still being built in 1945.

 

Me too, I've always liked the Wimpy (Was an Airfix kit of one that first got me interested in aviation to begin with). If I had to vote for my favourite bomber, the Wimpy would be number 1.

 

http://www.geocities.com/skrzydla/300/pics/Zoska.html
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/images/ch9868.jpg
examples of Wimpys ability to take damage

 

As far as I can remember this huge bomber never flew against Germany or in the European theatre; the first flight did not occur until June 5 1944 against Bankok. However, with this said when it comes to technology enhancements and the like yes the B29 was the the most advanced heavy bomber of WWII.




http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... 9/AP28.htm
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/bomb ... b29_en.htm

 

It is interesting that the Halifax is considered better than the Lancaster, but is far less well-known, and likewise with the B-24 & B-17.

Just shows what good PR does for you...

 

As far as I know the B17G did have the most effective self-defence of all these bombers, but I could be wrong.

 

Possibly but bear in mind day bombers and day bombers aren't the same thing. The American heavies were better armed and armoured than the British planes but they generally carried a smaller bomb load.

 

And, frankly, huge numbers of machine guns proved less effective than hoped against fighters. The only reliable defense was escort fighters.

It has been argued that if the heavy bombers had had their gun turrets removed and streamlined over then the increase in speed would have meant a drop in casualties due to it being more difficult to intercept something the faster it goes (obviously an escort is still required!)

 

Defence against enemy fighters is probably mostly psychological: since you can't dodge bullets in a big clumsy bomber, you will want to find another way to keep the enemy at bay. Giving the bomber no defences of its own will simply make the crews refuse to take off.

 

What - like the Mosquitos?


I know - a different case. But faster bombers with adequate escorts will theoretically have lower loss rates.

btw - The RAF discovered the speed=lower losses thing with modified Halifaxes, but IIRC did not follow up on the changes because the gun turrets were (as you say) a useful psychological weapon for the crew.

But have you noticed that post-war the trend for bombers was high-flying, fast, and effectively unarmed?

(B-36, B-47, B-52, Canberra, the V-Bombers, Tu-95, etc etc)

 

I've heard that some British pilots forbade their gunners to open up. The gunner was their to act as a look out and scream at the pilot to take evasive action if he saw anything.

 

If a bomber can get high enough , it dosen't have to worry about fighters.