Greatest Ever Bombers

[Lost Soal]

Don't know if anyone has been watching "The Greatest Ever" on Five, (possibly discovery channel) it culmunated this week with the greatest bombers. The list was pridictable contriversial at looked as follows,

10. Fairy Swordfish Torpedo Bomber (Brit)
9. JU87 Stuka Dive Bomber (Ger)
8. Caproni CA36 (Italy)
7. Panavia Tornado GR4 (Brit)
6. Avro Vulcan (Brit)
5. TU35 Bear (Rus)
4. B2 Spirit Bomber (US)
3. Lancaster (Brit)
2. B17 Flying Fortress (US)
1. B52 Stratofortress (US)

First, the Lancaster was a better bomber than B17.
Second, it completely ignores one of the greatest, and underused, bombers of WW2. The De Havilland Mosquito. Carried a bigger payload than the B17 at 4,000lb, was faster, more manuverable, could bomb acurately at both day and night and the only bomber that didn't need a fighter escort, as it could also outrun every fighter. The fighter bomber version could ONLY carry 2,000lbs, but once dropped could turn around and start start shooting down the fighters trying to take it dow.
The fact its not even included is criminal.
Any Thoughts on this list and what should actually be in?

[Sea Skimmer]

First, the Lancaster was a better bomber than B17.

The only thing it was better at was payload. The B-17 was built stronger, had far better armor and armor (note the lack of belly guns on the Lancaster, making upward firing guns on Luftwaffer night fighters highly effective) and it flew at 35,000 rather then about 22,000 feet on its missions. Altitude is why it typically carried fewer bombs, if it traded away some fuel to free up weight, it could carry nearly the same maximum payload.

Second, it completely ignores one of the greatest, and underused, bombers of WW2. The De Havilland Mosquito. Carried a bigger payload than the B17 at 4,000lb, was faster, more manuverable, could bomb acurately at both day and night and the only bomber that didn't need a fighter escort, as it could also outrun every fighter.

Actually the very unit equipped with the He219 shot down six of them in a matter of days. Lucky for the RAF, the Luftwaffe only had a few hundred produced before canceling the whole program for no good reason. One of countless stupid Nazi mistakes linked to politics.

The fighter bomber version could ONLY carry 2,000lbs, but once dropped could turn around and start start shooting down the fighters trying to take it dow.

The Mosquito mainly flew by night, as a good many day fighters could indeed catch it. I'm not sure any variant had bombs, guns and radar all at once. Though some pure night fighter versions where sent as intruders over germany alongside the bombers to try to shoot down Luftwaffe night fighters. But that didn;t work very well owing to the very short range of all WW2 fighter mounted radars. They needed ground radars to choach them onto the target to be really effective.

It was a real nice aircraft though, but I'd say that about many.

The fact its not even included is criminal.
Any Thoughts on this list and what should actually be in?

I can see little or no logic at all behind the choices, the writers just picked a list of aircraft they thought where cool and for which they could find stock footage. That’s how all the ‘top ten’ history channel shows work. Some of them might make it onto my own list, but frankly I think making lists for ‘best bomber’ or ‘best fighter’ are just stupid. Different aircraft fill different roles, and exist at different periods of time.

[YT300000]

B-36 Peacemaker. The biggest ever status earns it a spot.

[Frank Hipper]

The Caproni Ca36 was outclassed by quite a few bombers of WWI; British, German, and even French.

What a ridiculous choice. Did they base this on what survives in museums?

[Darth Wong]

I think Skimmer makes a good point; it is impossible to compile a meaningful "top ten list" of aircraft which are often, by definition, designed to fill different niches.

One can only compile a list of top ten finishers if they're all running the same race.

[weemadando]

Well, Mr Engineeri-pooh-bah, lets make this [flourish]NEEDLESSLY COMPLEX![/flourish]

Top 10:

Dive bombers.

Theater bombers

Strategic bombers.

Light bombers.

Strike bombers.

Torpedo bombers.

Carrier-borne bombers.

Anyone else think of some more?

[The Dark]

I'm surprised the B-24 wasn't on there. Sure, it could be a bitch to fly, but it was more numerous and dropped more tonnage than the Fortress, was equivalent in speed and much longer-ranged, plus carried one ton more bombs than the Fort, with a comparable ceiling. The poll seems to be more based on the fame of the bombers than their acutal utility.

And wasn't the Bear the Russian knockoff of the B-29, or am I thinking of a different Russian bomber?

[Perinquus]

First, the Lancaster was a better bomber than B17.

The only thing it was better at was payload. The B-17 was built stronger, had far better armor and armor (note the lack of belly guns on the Lancaster, making upward firing guns on Luftwaffer night fighters highly effective) and it flew at 35,000 rather then about 22,000 feet on its missions. Altitude is why it typically carried fewer bombs, if it traded away some fuel to free up weight, it could carry nearly the same maximum payload.

Exactly. As a day bomber, the Flying Fortress had to devote more payload to armament, armor, extra fuel, and higher altitude flying. Day flying planes were easier by orders of magnitude for enemy fighters and anti-aircraft artillery to shoot down. Thus, in order to survive in this far harsher environment, the B-17 had to make some tradeoffs between its bomb carrying capacity and its defensive capabilities. The Avro Lancaster was a very effective night bomber, but as a night bomber, it could get by with a less robust structure, much lower ceiling, smaller crew, and puny defensive armament of not only fewer guns, but smaller guns as well (eight .30 calibers as opposed to the B-17G's twelve .50 calibers). Lancasters, flying much lower (and easier for the flak guns to hit), less able to withstand hits from enemy cannon fire, and far less able with their smaller number of smaller guns to fend off enemy fighters, would have been slaughtered in droves if they had tried to fly the missions the B-17s flew.

The Lancaster was not a "better bomber". Things are not that simple. It was a better night bomber, because it was tailored to that role. The B-17 was a better day bomber, because it was tailored to that role. Neither plane could have filled the other's role as effectively. However, if you want to get down to absolutes, the B-17 could have performed the Lancaster's role, it just wouldn't have been nearly as efficient about it. The Lancaster, on the other hand, could not have filled Flying Fortress' role, because it could not have survived the missions the Forts had to fly. The Lanc wasn't tough enough, or well enough defended.

[Perinquus]

I'm surprised the B-24 wasn't on there. Sure, it could be a bitch to fly, but it was more numerous and dropped more tonnage than the Fortress, was equivalent in speed and much longer-ranged, plus carried one ton more bombs than the Fort, with a comparable ceiling. The poll seems to be more based on the fame of the bombers than their acutal utility.

And wasn't the Bear the Russian knockoff of the B-29, or am I thinking of a different Russian bomber?

It's probably because the European theater is seen as having been the more important, and the B-17 was the primary bomber in the European theater, where the distances were not as long, and so the Liberator's greater range was less important. And added to that consideration, the German air defenses were far more formidable than those of the Japanese, so the Fortress' greater ruggedness and ability to survive heavier damage were assets that more than compensated for what it lacked in range.

[Lost Soal]

First, the Lancaster was a better bomber than B17.

The only thing it was better at was payload. The B-17 was built stronger, had far better armor and armor (note the lack of belly guns on the Lancaster, making upward firing guns on Luftwaffer night fighters highly effective) and it flew at 35,000 rather then about 22,000 feet on its missions. Altitude is why it typically carried fewer bombs, if it traded away some fuel to free up weight, it could carry nearly the same maximum payload.

Exactly. As a day bomber, the Flying Fortress had to devote more payload to armament, armor, extra fuel, and higher altitude flying. Day flying planes were easier by orders of magnitude for enemy fighters and anti-aircraft artillery to shoot down. Thus, in order to survive in this far harsher environment, the B-17 had to make some tradeoffs between its bomb carrying capacity and its defensive capabilities. The Avro Lancaster was a very effective night bomber, but as a night bomber, it could get by with a less robust structure, much lower ceiling, smaller crew, and puny defensive armament of not only fewer guns, but smaller guns as well (eight .30 calibers as opposed to the B-17G's twelve .50 calibers). Lancasters, flying much lower (and easier for the flak guns to hit), less able to withstand hits from enemy cannon fire, and far less able with their smaller number of smaller guns to fend off enemy fighters, would have been slaughtered in droves if they had tried to fly the missions the B-17s flew.

The Lancaster was not a "better bomber". Things are not that simple. It was a better night bomber, because it was tailored to that role. The B-17 was a better day bomber, because it was tailored to that role. Neither plane could have filled the other's role as effectively. However, if you want to get down to absolutes, the B-17 could have performed the Lancaster's role, it just wouldn't have been nearly as efficient about it. The Lancaster, on the other hand, could not have filled Flying Fortress' role, because it could not have survived the missions the Forts had to fly. The Lanc wasn't tough enough, or well enough defended.

And if it wasn't for the Mustang defending them, the B17's would have been slaughtered.

[Danny Bhoy]

For torpedo planes, I take the Stringbag. If nothing else, for Judgement, BISMARCK, and the Charge of the Light Brigade attack on S&G during their Cerberus dash through the Channel.

For dive bombers, the SBD Dauntless. Scratching four Jap flattops in one afternoon on June 1942 to change the course of the war.

For strategic bombers, a toss-up between Lancs (I like them for their bomb loads, the name of the game is bombing after all) and Forts (sexier and more survivable) for the propeller jobs, and only the BUFFs (G and H models) will do for jets. Bones are sexy but I always liked my bombers to have weapons, even if it's only quad fifties or a gatling cannon.

I love the bomb-truck fighters best: Mossies, Beaufighters, and Ju-88s for the props, and Thuds for jets (Varks and Tornado IDS would be mentioned in dispatches; Strike Eagles are in the running too).

Actually I'm rather inclined to include Thuds as a honourable mention to the BUFF for best strategic bomber, since that was what they did going Downtown, more than the BUFF actually. For that matter, the BUFF will have an honourable mention as a best ever tactical close-support bomber for all those forest-killing Arc Light jobs.

Greatest bomber quote:
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips everyone on Bear Creek".

[Mr Bean]

No mention of the Stuka? One of the first close attack aircraft that could drop bomb loads with excellent accurasy for the day. An automatic pullout system incase of pilot blackout. Perfect in a dive and shitty in everything else. If you go by what a plane does well instead of its all around the Suka belongs on that list.

[WyrdNyrd]

Lancasters . . . would have been slaughtered in droves if they had tried to fly the missions the B-17s flew.

Actually, IIRC, they did try to fly the same missions as the B-17, and they were slaughtered.

The Lanc wasn't designed specifically as a night bomber, it's just that after the first few missions over Germany (way before the USA got into the war) the Powers That Be noticed that the Lancs were getting chewed and spat out, and switched to night bombing out of necessity.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

7. Panavia Tornado GR4 (Brit)

Except for Italy's "CA36" (which I know nothing about, most of the others are at least defensible choices. I just wonder why the GR4 is picked over say the F-15E or even the F-111. The F-111 and F-15E both had more payload the latter is certainly more agile.

Just curious.

[Danny Bhoy]

No mention of the Stuka? One of the first close attack aircraft that could drop bomb loads with excellent accurasy for the day. An automatic pullout system incase of pilot blackout. Perfect in a dive and shitty in everything else. If you go by what a plane does well instead of its all around the Suka belongs on that list.

You're probably right. I've to admit I was a bit dubious about the effectiveness of the Stuka as I tended to chalk its notoriety to the effect its Trumpets of Jericho sirens had on less than well-trained troops and near non-existent AAA defenses during the Blitzkrieg. Although the AT-version used in the Eastern Front was pretty decent judging by Rudel's successes with the platform. Speaking of which, I'll probably have to add the Il-2 Sturmovik to the list, although like the Stuka AT version it's probably less of a bomber than a tank-buster.

[Ubiquitous]

7. Panavia Tornado GR4 (Brit)

Except for Italy's "CA36" (which I know nothing about, most of the others are at least defensible choices. I just wonder why the GR4 is picked over say the F-15E or even the F-111. The F-111 and F-15E both had more payload the latter is certainly more agile.

Just curious.

Because it was a British show - which is a reason why the Lancaster, Vulcan and Tornado are all so high.

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually, IIRC, they did try to fly the same missions as the B-17, and they were slaughtered.

The Lanc wasn't designed specifically as a night bomber, it's just that after the first few missions over Germany (way before the USA got into the war) the Powers That Be noticed that the Lancs were getting chewed and spat out, and switched to night bombing out of necessity.

The RAF had long given up on daylight bombing when the Lancaster entered service. Bomber Command really never did much daylight bombing of Germany at all, since their very first daylight raids (against the German fleet at Kiel and other ports) in 1939 led to very heavy losses right off the bat.

In 1945 British bombers did begin flying some daylight missions, though they did not fly in formation for them, under massive fighter escort. But by then German air defenses had been shattered, and many sections of them had been physically overrun.

You're probably right. I've to admit I was a bit dubious about the effectiveness of the Stuka as I tended to chalk its notoriety to the effect its Trumpets of Jericho sirens had on less than well-trained troops and near non-existent AAA defenses during the Blitzkrieg. Although the AT-version used in the Eastern Front was pretty decent judging by Rudel's successes with the platform.

He was also shot down about 15 times while flying that aircraft, his survival is an example of real life character shields

And if it wasn't for the Mustang defending them, the B17's would have been slaughtered.

Bomber Command found that its bombers had a bare 50% chance of surviving if they where intercepted by a single German night fighter. All aspects of the bombing offensive suffered heavily. But while the B-17 could benefit from fighter escort (even before the Mustang showed up, missions as far as the Rhur could be escorted by other fighters), the Lancaster flying at night could get no such protection.

[General Soontir Fel]

The IL-2 (USSR) was the best dive bomber of the war.

[The Dark]

I'm surprised the B-24 wasn't on there. Sure, it could be a bitch to fly, but it was more numerous and dropped more tonnage than the Fortress, was equivalent in speed and much longer-ranged, plus carried one ton more bombs than the Fort, with a comparable ceiling. The poll seems to be more based on the fame of the bombers than their acutal utility.

It's probably because the European theater is seen as having been the more important, and the B-17 was the primary bomber in the European theater, where the distances were not as long, and so the Liberator's greater range was less important. And added to that consideration, the German air defenses were far more formidable than those of the Japanese, so the Fortress' greater ruggedness and ability to survive heavier damage were assets that more than compensated for what it lacked in range.

I find it hard to believe that the Lib wasn't significant in Europe, however, since it was the aircraft that attacked the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania and damaged the Messerschmitt works in Austria to the point that production was cut nearly in half. They supported the Italy invasion, and were commonly used as a diversion for B-17 raids, since they were quicker and could draw fighters further off attack vectors. The RAF flew 2100 of them in 46 bomber groups and 41 squadrons, while the RCAF had 1200 Liberators. In fact, the -17 was pretty much used only in Europe (with a handful of squads scattered elsewhere), while the -24 fought in Europe, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean theaters. The Liberator closed the Atlantic Gap as the only aircraft with the range to patrol a sufficient distance while carrying AS weaponry, obtaining 95 U-Boat kills or assists. Eighth Air Force operated 14 Liberator groups, compared to 26 Fortress groups, yet few people know 8AF used the Libs (my suspicion is the Fort is famous due to the Superfort being the first nuclear bomber). Liberators were used to bomb the Normandy beaches because of their heavier bombload than the Fort. 8AF records show the Liberator was also more likely to bring its crew back alive, with a 13.3% loss rate, compared to the Fort's 15.2% rate. The Eighth's B-17 pilots joked they liked to see Libs accompanying them because the German fighters considered the Libs a higher-priority target. Unbeknownst to Fort pilots, this was because the lower-altitude Lib was a more accurate bomber, and thus more dangerous. *shrug* Just beats me that the Fort gets ranked #2 all-time, yet the bomber that flew more missions, bombed equally vital targets, and provided the Fort with diversions it needed to succeed isn't on the list at all.

[Perinquus]

The only thing it was better at was payload. The B-17 was built stronger, had far better armor and armor (note the lack of belly guns on the Lancaster, making upward firing guns on Luftwaffer night fighters highly effective) and it flew at 35,000 rather then about 22,000 feet on its missions. Altitude is why it typically carried fewer bombs, if it traded away some fuel to free up weight, it could carry nearly the same maximum payload.

Exactly. As a day bomber, the Flying Fortress had to devote more payload to armament, armor, extra fuel, and higher altitude flying. Day flying planes were easier by orders of magnitude for enemy fighters and anti-aircraft artillery to shoot down. Thus, in order to survive in this far harsher environment, the B-17 had to make some tradeoffs between its bomb carrying capacity and its defensive capabilities. The Avro Lancaster was a very effective night bomber, but as a night bomber, it could get by with a less robust structure, much lower ceiling, smaller crew, and puny defensive armament of not only fewer guns, but smaller guns as well (eight .30 calibers as opposed to the B-17G's twelve .50 calibers). Lancasters, flying much lower (and easier for the flak guns to hit), less able to withstand hits from enemy cannon fire, and far less able with their smaller number of smaller guns to fend off enemy fighters, would have been slaughtered in droves if they had tried to fly the missions the B-17s flew.

The Lancaster was not a "better bomber". Things are not that simple. It was a better night bomber, because it was tailored to that role. The B-17 was a better day bomber, because it was tailored to that role. Neither plane could have filled the other's role as effectively. However, if you want to get down to absolutes, the B-17 could have performed the Lancaster's role, it just wouldn't have been nearly as efficient about it. The Lancaster, on the other hand, could not have filled Flying Fortress' role, because it could not have survived the missions the Forts had to fly. The Lanc wasn't tough enough, or well enough defended.

And if it wasn't for the Mustang defending them, the B17's would have been slaughtered.

And you know what? That doesn't change the fact that the B-17 was far better armed defensively, because it needed that defensive armament, because the Mustangs couldn't stop every German fighter getting through. The Lancaster still couldn't survive the battle damage the B-17 could, still was far more weakly armed against fighter attack, and still couldn't fly nearly as high. Yes, the B-17s needed fighter escort to bomb the best defended targets deep in German territory. But even with twice the number of escort fighters, the Lancasters still couldn't have flown those missions.

[Perinquus]

I'm surprised the B-24 wasn't on there. Sure, it could be a bitch to fly, but it was more numerous and dropped more tonnage than the Fortress, was equivalent in speed and much longer-ranged, plus carried one ton more bombs than the Fort, with a comparable ceiling. The poll seems to be more based on the fame of the bombers than their acutal utility.

It's probably because the European theater is seen as having been the more important, and the B-17 was the primary bomber in the European theater, where the distances were not as long, and so the Liberator's greater range was less important. And added to that consideration, the German air defenses were far more formidable than those of the Japanese, so the Fortress' greater ruggedness and ability to survive heavier damage were assets that more than compensated for what it lacked in range.

I find it hard to believe that the Lib wasn't significant in Europe, however, since it was the aircraft that attacked the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania and damaged the Messerschmitt works in Austria to the point that production was cut nearly in half.

And I find it hard to believe your reading comprehension skills are so poor. Please point out to me where I ever claimed the B-24 was not significant in Europe. I said the B-17 was the primary bomber in Europe. That is not the same thing as claiming sole bomber, or even sole significant bomber.

They supported the Italy invasion, and were commonly used as a diversion for B-17 raids, since they were quicker and could draw fighters further off attack vectors. The RAF flew 2100 of them in 46 bomber groups and 41 squadrons, while the RCAF had 1200 Liberators. In fact, the -17 was pretty much used only in Europe (with a handful of squads scattered elsewhere), while the -24 fought in Europe, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean theaters. The Liberator closed the Atlantic Gap as the only aircraft with the range to patrol a sufficient distance while carrying AS weaponry, obtaining 95 U-Boat kills or assists. Eighth Air Force operated 14 Liberator groups, compared to 26 Fortress groups, yet few people know 8AF used the Libs

And thank you for finally getting aroung, after all that information, to pointing out what I had already stated to begin with: the B-17 was the primary bomber in the European theater. It was operated in greater numbers in that theater than the B-24 was. And as I said, the ETO has generally been viewed as the center ring of the circus that was WWII. The fact that the Flying Fortress played the more prominent role in what was viewed as being the most significant theater of operations of the war is probably why its fame is greater.

(my suspicion is the Fort is famous due to the Superfort being the first nuclear bomber).

Non sequitur. Why would the B-17 be more famous because of a feat it didn't perform?

Liberators were used to bomb the Normandy beaches because of their heavier bombload than the Fort. 8AF records show the Liberator was also more likely to bring its crew back alive, with a 13.3% loss rate, compared to the Fort's 15.2% rate. The Eighth's B-17 pilots joked they liked to see Libs accompanying them because the German fighters considered the Libs a higher-priority target. Unbeknownst to Fort pilots, this was because the lower-altitude Lib was a more accurate bomber, and thus more dangerous. *shrug* Just beats me that the Fort gets ranked #2 all-time, yet the bomber that flew more missions, bombed equally vital targets, and provided the Fort with diversions it needed to succeed isn't on the list at all.

Probably for the reasons I already described. And the Fortress' reputation for greater durability - despite the statistics - probably results from the B-24 was a very rugged plane, but one which had one glaring weakness: its wing structure. The Davis wing, while aerodynamically more efficient (except at really high altitudes), was structurally weaker, and damage there that the B-17 could survive could cause a B-24 to be lost. Additionally, when the planes had to make a gears up landing, the B-17 tended to suffer less damage on landing than the B-24, which tended to break its back in a gear up landing, or when ditching in the ocean, owing to the high wing configuration and the structure of the bomb bays. These things are probably more noticeable to pilots and crew than statistics, which, after all are full of variable that may skew the results somewhat.

And as for German pilots targetting B-24s over B-17s because they were "higher priority targets"... That may not be the reason. In his book The Man Who Flew the Memphis Belle, pilot Robert Morgan recounts a conversation he had with a former Focke-Wulfe pilot after the war. Morgan asked him about the Luftwaffe's practice of zeroing in on the B-24 in preference to the B-17s. The German pilot's reply was "Oh, ja,...If the B-24s were there, we would attack them, because they were easier to knock down."

[LordChaos]

I'm surprised the B-24 wasn't on there. Sure, it could be a bitch to fly, but it was more numerous and dropped more tonnage than the Fortress, was equivalent in speed and much longer-ranged, plus carried one ton more bombs than the Fort, with a comparable ceiling. The poll seems to be more based on the fame of the bombers than their acutal utility.

And wasn't the Bear the Russian knockoff of the B-29, or am I thinking of a different Russian bomber?

It's probably because the European theater is seen as having been the more important, and the B-17 was the primary bomber in the European theater, where the distances were not as long, and so the Liberator's greater range was less important. And added to that consideration, the German air defenses were far more formidable than those of the Japanese, so the Fortress' greater ruggedness and ability to survive heavier damage were assets that more than compensated for what it lacked in range.

The 24 was, IIRC, primarily used in the European theatre. Just not over germany it's self IIRC. It spent most of it's time around the mediterainian IIRC.

[Sidewinder]

And wasn't the Bear the Russian knockoff of the B-29, or am I thinking of a different Russian bomber?

The knockoff was the Tu-4 Bull. The bear, I believe, is the Tu-95, a different plane altogether.