Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Heavy bombardment machine


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

Poll: Heavy bombardment machine choice? (24 member(s) have cast votes)

Heavy bombardment machine choice?

  1. Avro Lancaster (15 votes [62.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 62.50%

  2. Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (8 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  3. Consolodated B-24 Liberator (1 votes [4.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.17%

  4. Handley Page Halifax (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#11 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,968 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 5 Months and 4 Days
  • 138 topics

Posted 11 March 2010 - 08:31 AM

It also suffered the problem of not being able to carry larger bombs internally.
A minor problem, I admit;)

#12 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 6 Months and 7 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 12 March 2010 - 04:54 PM

Hi All,

Because of the combination of its range, speed, altitude ceiling, defensive armament, and ability to absorb tremendous punishment and still carry out its mission and return, I choose the B-17.

The lancaster--my second choice--had the bomb-load advantage, but with the way the B-17s were being cranked out, that could be offset by sheer numbers.

Regards,

Lightning

#13 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 2 Months and 21 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 06 April 2010 - 02:40 AM

Hi All,

Because of the combination of its range, speed, altitude ceiling, defensive armament, and ability to absorb tremendous punishment and still carry out its mission and return, I choose the B-17.

The lancaster--my second choice--had the bomb-load advantage, but with the way the B-17s were being cranked out, that could be offset by sheer numbers.

Regards,

Lightning


Do you think that with the resources spent on the B-17 that the Lanc could have been made in similar numbers?

The British made 7300+ Lancs and some 12700+ B-17s were built.

#14 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 6 Months and 4 Days
  • 25 topics

Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:27 AM

Hey, where's the King of the WWII Heavies, the Boeing B-29?

It is, by FAR, the best, being simultaneously the fastest, longest range, most payload, best defended bomber of the war.

Not available 1943 as required ...
Only reliable from spring 1945

#15 Moonlight

Moonlight

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 5 Months and 30 Days
  • 1 topics

Posted 23 January 2011 - 11:33 PM

And if you were a member of the crew and wanted to survive, which one?



Well if you wnated a higher survival rate it would be the fortress. Lancasters had a low crew survivability rate because they tended to go into a spin very easily when hit. Most survivors from lancs were tail gunners.

#16 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 10 Months and 21 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 24 January 2011 - 06:21 PM

Lancaster Vs, ;) equiped with dorsal Hispanos and .50 AGLT IIIs as soon as they became available.
Posted Image
I'd fit better escape hatches into them, too.
I'd have a long, hard think about my targets. By day or by night, I'd want something a bit more specific than the workers housing adjacent to Germanys major industries. Oboe, GEE and GEE-H allowed considerable accuracy, I'd make better use of it.

#17 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 6 Months and 21 Days
  • 116 topics

Posted 27 January 2011 - 12:56 AM

Well if you wnated a higher survival rate it would be the fortress. Lancasters had a low crew survivability rate because they tended to go into a spin very easily when hit. Most survivors from lancs were tail gunners.


The Lanc tail gunner had to climb out of the turret, climb over the tail spar, put on his chute and then exit out the side hatch. Hard to do in a spinning a/c.

#18 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 667 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 6 Months and 4 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 27 January 2011 - 07:21 AM

The heavier weapons and heavier load able to be carried by the Lancaster make it my choice.

#19 Arossihman

Arossihman

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 7 Months and 24 Days
  • 1 topics

Posted 28 November 2011 - 11:39 AM

The fort is my choice because i think it edged the lanc out in surviveability and defensive armament

#20 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 10 Months and 21 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:32 AM

It's defensive armament was massive, but it's performance was lacklustre. More importantly there were serious gaps in its weapon arcs. More isn't always better, there were more efficient designs in the Allied inventory.

Just a thought. Four T-bolts could bring 10,000lbs of ordinance to a target 400 miles away, and drop it with pin-point accuracy. A Fort could only manage 8,000lbs the same distance. The differance is that strategic bombers often failed to hit a target 1000yds accross, even on 'successful' missions. In Dresden, after three days and nights of intense bombardment, neither the synthetic oil works at Liepzig nor the marshalling yards in the Friedrichstadt district, both large, obvious complexes and stated as primary targets for the raids, suffered a single hit. In fact, the closest any bomb landed to the marshalling yards was almost three miles away! :(




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users