Best Allied heavy bomber of WW2

Not true, certainly not by the days of Radar. The problem is that pitting any two contemporary air forces against one another with whatever counts as modern aircraft for that time if a bomber can get to a certain height with its bombload so can a contemporary fighter.

Speed is a better defence.

 

In my opinion it would have to be the mk I lancaster. Sure it didn't drop the atomic bombs on japan, but it did kick alot of German butt. Plus it was Canadian made, that speaks quality.

 

The Halifax in general could do everything the Lancaster could but better though, and in any case the MkI was British and at the time I'm pretty sure Mr Roe hadn't moved his company to Canada yet. I'll see if I can dig out the Mk numbers that referred to Canadian built aircraft.

 

Good for you buddy. but there no way that the halifax was that much better. Ever here of the Damn Buster. lol what r u a n00b.

 

i'll let simon finish this because I dont know as much but the main success of the Dam Busters(yes we have all heard of it and the film) was in the skill of the crews. no doubt the Lancaster was a good plane (i had a relative who served as a tail gunner in one and a friend of mine is related to one of the dambusters) but the Halifax is often overlooked for its part played in the war because it was a fantastic bomber and what the hell is a n00b?????

 

From http://www.n00bstories.com/:

 

-DMPN- Founderer Making degrading personal comments about other members is not tolerated on this board. As I'm sure you are aware we have recently updated our Forum Guidelines (take a look here, so I'm equally sure that you are aware that after one warning (and this is it) any further transgressions lead to banning.

 

I fhe were my pilot it would have been a terrible thing to see him laying there at the bottom of the canteen stairs, having slipped on a banana peel.

 

:???: You've lost me what are you talking about :???:

 

i retrack my statement about simonr1978. he not a n00b.

 

:kill:

 

There is another factor: Having several hundred .50 machine guns firing at them was something the German fighter pilots had to take into account when making their attacks on the American daylight formations. The combat box formation added to the equation, since it increased the amount of defensive firepower the Germans would face at any given point. Not enough to fend off the fighter attacks, I agree, but enough to make the job of the Luftwaffe fighters that much more difficult. And I have read that the German pilots did have a healthy respect for the Allied bomber gunners.

I also think it's a good idea at this point to remind everyone that we are NOT, in having this discussion, trying to put down the bomber gunners, who did their best, and showed amazing courage, in an incredibly difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, situation. I would defy anyone who attempted to put down those brave men.

And I will now step down off my soapbox...

 

Stay up there if you want - I heartily agree.

But it is possible to wonder if ladening bombers wih gunners was necessary...

 

Always a worthwhile question. Every gun and gunner means a cut in either bombload or range. Plus until single seat fighter capable of escorting bombers all the way appeared the Americans were taking punishing losses.

 

This was true of any WW2 air force that attempted a strategic bombing campaign, be it the RAF, the Luftwaffe, the Regia Aeronautica, or the USAAF. Even night bombing could still entail heavy losses, as the British found out the hard way as the German night defences stiffened.

 

too true

IIRC the brits took worse losses at night than the yanks did in the day and they were nowhere near as accruate with their drops. i seem to remember somnthing about any bomb within 5 miles of the aiming point was considered a hit at night.

 

Initially our niight bombing campaign was a disaster, as most bombers did not even get to withing 5 miles of the target - but as the war progressed and navigation aids came on-line (H2S, Oboe, etc) they got better...

Losses were high - you cannot really formate at night, so they flew in a 'stream', where each aircraft made its own way to the target, and tried not to collide with anybody else. In this environment, providing escort fighters is largely impossible, especially as anything with 2 engines* will be looked on as a potential enemy nightfighter and either shot at or corkscrewed away from.

*Obviously not including the Wimpy, which was rather more dumpy than your average nightfighter, and noting that this will be after the Hampden, Whitley, etc were dumped.

 

Actually to a certain extent you could escort British night bombers. British night fighters like the Mosquto would try to screen the flanks and front of the bomber stream. Obviously once a German fighter was into the stream there wasn't much the British fighters could do since as Ricky has said a bomber that spotted anything of a two engined nature it would shoot first and not bother asking any questions.

 

This was also a problem in daylight, since the gunners on the B-17s and B-24s tended to view any single engine fighter as a threat, for obvious reasons. Mustang and Thunderbolt pilots approached bomber formations with caution.

 

Bomber versus fighters at height

If a bomber can get to extreme heights, than so can a fighter. It is a lot easier to pressurise and heat a fighter and many designs were suitable for modifying if necessary. As it happens, few bombers ever were tasked or designed for ultra high altitude missions ; a fact which lead to the "Westland Welkin" (for example) not being put into production