B52, Greatest Ever Bomber?

[robconroy]

The Tv programme "The Greatest Ever Machines" on Ch5 in the UK has voted the B52 as the greatest ever Bomber, above the Lanc & B17. Another episode of the same programme voted the P51 as the best ever Fighter.

Discuss.

[Hurricane]

Lancaster should have been above b-17, the reason they gave for the lanc being 3rd was the lack of a ball turret, yet the lanc could fly further, carry more bombs and it didn't have a ball turret because they decided it wasn't nessecary!

Also the Mossie should have been in there, could carry the bomb load of a fortress but flew like a fighter

also missed out b-29

edit: the reasons for why a certain aircraft was better than others seemed to be more 'whats gonna appeal to the audience' rather than facts

[robconroy]

Agree totally Hurri. Note that it was a co-production with the Discovery Channel, a US organisation (no offence intended, Lads). Hmm

[Silver Fox]

The B-17's kill total against Axis aircraft probably figured heavily into the decision process.

[Hurricane]

Possibly but the lancaster was definately the better bomber which is what the program was about.

should the tornado and B-2 really be in the top 10?
their case for the tornado was mainly built around its performance in the gulf first time round but it had to fly alongside buccaneers because it didn't have a working laser designator at that time

[Captain Tenneal]

I think would have to agree with the BUFF getting the nod on the bomber category it's already 50 years in to it's career and still going strong i expect that my grandchildren's children will be seeing the BUFF flying and my oldest is only 10, I have read that it my be a "century bomber"

[CWD]

Lancaster should have been above b-17, the reason they gave for the lanc being 3rd was the lack of a ball turret, yet the lanc could fly further, carry more bombs and it didn't have a ball turret because they decided it wasn't nessecary!


The Lanc needed less defensive armament because it was (correct me if I'm wrong) primarily a night bomber. The defensive armament it did have was made up of (again, if I recall correctly) rifle-caliber .303in machine guns. If the Lancs had flown the same missions Fortresses did, I dare say their losses would have been higher.

[robconroy]

CWD, correct, the Lanc was used primarily as a night bomber, although not designed as such, that was a Bomber Command decision. Bombs at night= Scarier. The USAAC decided on day missions as they wanted to bomb more accurately, at the cost of being more visible.

However, Fox, during daylight bombing, the attacking fighters are also more visible & therefore more easily fired upon, which may account for the higher kill ratio. Once Lancs got Radar (Gee?), they could configure their formations more effectively to counteract night fighters.

I may be wrong, but I think a higher ratio of B17 pilots died in crashes, compared to lancs, because of their tendancy to spiral down fast when mortally hit. The pilots, last to jump, got pinned by centrifugal force.

The B52 is an awsome machine, looking at 80 years in service. No question that it wins, just amazing.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Why the P51 and not the Spit or Sea Fury or...

Wondering -Ed-

[PilatusTurbo]

The P-51 had revolutionary features, laminar flow wing was the biggest. It really reduced drag, improving it's ability to simply slip through the air. Also, adding the Merlin really made it a fast powerplant mated with an excellent airframe. Why the Spitfire wouldn't win number 1 fighter, I don't know, it was also an excellent plane. The P-51 was manufactured in very large quantities, maybe Spitfires just weren't as common, number-wise.

The B-17 probably was the best bomber. Although a Mosquito could carry as much, and could simply outrun opposition, the B-17 was armed for bear. It flew right into the enemy territory and dropped a sizeable load of bombs, the Lancaster simply couldn't defend itself as effectively. Not just British bombers, even the B-24 Liberator wasn't as effectively defended, but it could carry almost twice the bombload. If you read about the B-17, even earlier models had around 12 .50 calibre guns mounted around the plane. We decided to bomb in daylight, because accuracy was key, and we still missed quite a bit. Night bombing raids are great for demoralizing your enemy, but they're just short of completely ineffective. You had to use two radar beams, and when they intersected at the right point on the radar screen, you were approximately over or near the target area.

Which was the best though, It's really just personal views. I like the B-17G because I grew up hearing and reading about them.

Just me .02 cents. :D

[Hans Jaeger]

The RAF bombed at night not because of greater demoralizing effect, but as a way to reduce losses against Luftwaffe fighters. Remember, they started bombing in 1939, during the "Sitzkrieg", and knew all about horrendous daylight losses, especially on missions outside the cover of escorting fighters.

By the time the Americans came on the scene in 1942, the combination of daylight and night missions meshed very well in keeping the Luftwaffe harrassed 24 hours a day.

--

The Liberator dropped more bombs on the Reich than the Flying Fortress, and was actually better armed --- with a manned twin-.50 nose turret which the B-17 did not have. (The B-17 got a twin-.50 chin turret with the "G" model late in the war.)

Both planes had a top turret, a ball turret and hand-held .50's in the waist.

The Liberator had a twin-.50 tail turret as well, whereas the Fortress had limited-traverse .50's in the tail.

What the Fortress had that the Liberator didn't was panache. Style.

--

Calling the B-52 the best-ever bomber is ridiculous. It never flew against any appreciable opposition.

I would place the B-17, B-29, B-24 and the Lancaster in the top four, with a hard choice existing between them.

B-52, Tornado, B-2? All should be further down the list, IMO.

--

BTW, if the Lancaster had been used as a day bomber, it would have been modified with a belly turret, which could easily have been accommodated in the design. As a matter of fact, some references state that Canadian-built models of the Lancaster had one.

[Silver Fox]

Bomber Command's decision to bomb at night had nothing to do with German morale...it was castrating losses caused by using ill-defended bombers to push through on daylight raids that made that decision.

Either way, the B-17 ranks on top...it took the riskier, more hard fought work.

In other words...It carried out those missions that scared away the Lancaster.

[stiz]

Dambusters...says it all :)

[PRB]

The entire question is ridiculous. I’ve seen those “best this” and “best that” programs on the “Discovery Tank Channel.” The question is meaningless without some qualifications, starting with, better at what? Was the B-17 better than the SBD? The SBD probably had a much greater accuracy rating than the B-17. Does that make the SBD better than the B-17 or the Lanc? The planes were made for different roles, so the comparison is meaningless. Comparing the B-17 and Lanc to the B-52 and trying to figure out which is better makes no sense whatever.

Which was better? A-6E or B-25J? Does that make any sense? Which was the better fighter? P-51D or F-14A? The question is incomplete and cannot be answered.

Now, SBD vs D3A - Valid question. A good case can be made for either. I might choose D3A. B-17 vs Lanc - Valid question, they were made for the same roles. I don’t know the answer to that one. They were both great planes. The Lanc had better numbers than the B-17, but the Fortress is better looking! :D

- Paul

[bearcat241]

Dambusters...says it all :)

Sorry stiz....although I'm sure your dambusting Lanc appreciates the support, one mission role makes not a great aircraft....:D

Furthermore, the B17's rep was made on conducting thousands of daylight bombing missions (often suicidal) in the face of swarming opposition and often making it home against all odds to show for it. Reputation is all about heavy exposure chaps, and the Fortress seemingly got the heaviest exposure of them all (in the wartime press and with the Luftwaffe).

But the Buff gets the prize as the oldest, most battle-seasoned, modern strategic bomber in the world with seemingly inexhaustible technical scalability and weapons versatility. That's what makes it the "Greatest Ever Bomber" IMO...

Hans Jaeger is dizzy to say that the Buff never encountered any worthy opposition. Remember Vietnam, "Linebacker", "Rolling Thunder", SA-2's, SA-7's, Mig 15's, 17's, 23's, 25's....where were you Hans when Buffs were droppin' from the skies of North Vietnam like B17's over WW2 Europe?

[Captain Tenneal]

Hans Jaeger is dizzy to say that the Buff never encountered any worthy opposition. Remember Vietnam, "Linebacker", "Rolling Thunder", SA-2's, SA-7's, Mig 15's, 17's, 23's, 25's....where were you Hans when Buffs were droppin' from the skies of North Vietnam like B17's over WW2 Europe?

now thats what i'm talkin about!

[robconroy]

Yes, everyones right, BC didn't night bomb for the demoralising effect, it was beacuse of the horrendous losses inflicted on them. I knew that, but ignored it for some reason & made myself look stupid!:p87:

Hans I think I saw a picture of a Lanc with a belly turret.
The P51 is a good choice for best fighter I think. My all time favourite is the Spit, for all kinds of reasons, but it was the Mustang that could take the fight all the way to Berlin.

[Panaka]

I think the early lancs had a bottom turret, but it was removed. The Radar was later mounted in that location.
i think removing that turret was a bit of a mistake. I seem to remember that most lancs were shot down from below after the luftwaffe figured out that there was no gun.

[stiz]

well now i've had some sleep :P


The 617 squadron did more than just the raid on the dams. To my knowledge they not only did the raid on the dams, but destroyed that Michelin factory at Clermont-Ferrand and as they were told, left the canteen undamaged, the saumur tunnel direct hit, they did a Munich raid as well, cant rember exactly what they bombed but i could look it up, blew the subs at Le Havre out the water (literaly), They sunk the Triptiz, blew the Bielefeld Viaduct, Mimoyecquesm, where the guns of V3 where gonna be placed), they did a masking screen during the night before the d-day landings and fooled the germans into thinking that they were a convo of ships (remarkable how they did it).

There the raids that pop to my head first off. So as you can see they did alot more than just 1 raid :)

If you want anymore info on some of the above raids then i'll be quite happy to enlighten you on them :)

[Hans Jaeger]

Hans Jaeger is dizzy to say that the Buff never encountered any worthy opposition. Remember Vietnam, "Linebacker", "Rolling Thunder", SA-2's, SA-7's, Mig 15's, 17's, 23's, 25's....where were you Hans when Buffs were droppin' from the skies of North Vietnam like B17's over WW2 Europe?

A piece of hyperbole if I ever saw one.



A total of 10 B-52s went down inside the borders of North Vietnam. 61 total crewmembers. 33 survivors became POWs and were released at the end of the war. 28 of the downed 61 warriors perished.

Fourteen other B52s went down outside of North Vietnam. Seven were due to combat. Seven were “operational losses,” which occurred while B52s were enroute to combat areas in Vietnam.

During the period April 9, 1972 thru January 14, 1973, 16 other B-52s (one G model and 15 D models) received major battle damage (caused by SAMs), over North Vietnam. Following is a list of these sixteen B52s (aircraft recovered, no deaths or injuries reported)

Total Vietnam B52 loses: 24.



So 17 B-52's and 28 crew members were lost in actual combat. Versus how many B-17's, B-24's, Lancs? (8th & 9th AF lost 5000 bombers over Europe, Bomber Command lost over 8000.)

Don't come back at me saying I'm minimizing the sacrifice. I'm only dealing with comparative numbers, not bravery.

http://www.nampows.org/B-52.html
--

PRB has a point about how ridiculous it is to make comparisons over great lengths of time, different wars and different roles.

People seem to like to do it just the same. We all have "favourites". :)

[bearcat241]

There the raids that pop to my head first off. So as you can see they did alot more than just 1 raid
Now that's much better, son....that's the common knowledge I was hoping you'd come back with....we all know the Lanc did much more than a couple of DB sorties...



If you want anymore info on some of the above raids then i'll be quite happy to enlighten you on them
After 42 years of studying military aviation, including Lancs and their missions, I think I've pretty much gotten the "enlightenment thing" covered for now, but I'll keep your offer on the table in case I hit a snag :costumes:



So 17 B-52's and 28 crew members were lost in actual combat. Versus how many B-17's, B-24's, Lancs? (8th & 9th AF lost 5000 bombers over Europe, Bomber Command lost over 8000.)

Don't come back at me saying I'm minimizing the sacrifice. I'm only dealing with comparative numbers, not bravery.
Mr. Numbers, you still don't get the math do you....this comparison isn't decided by statistics only, or comparative numbers as you put it, and I'm just not big enough (my head that is) to say it should be....do you recall what I said above about heavy exposure to the wartime press and enemy feedback?....and did you also get a show of hands from ex-Buff drivers who were actually fired upon by ground and aerial threats, but weren't hit due to faulty enemy targeting or "other" defensive measures?



PRB has a point about how ridiculous it is to make comparisons over great lengths of time, different wars and different roles.
Its human to compare for any number of reasons and on many levels....



People seem to like to do it just the same. We all have "favourites".
Amen......:)

[Captain Tenneal]

I agree we all have our "favourites" and i dont want to dismiss the fortress or the lanc for there roles in no way i agree with every ones point and them discovery wings shows i tend to have issues with also hell my favourit fortress was the "F"


Now when fighters come to mind I'm going with the F4u Corsair after that it's the F-8 Crusader.

Attack/lt bomber top of my list is the Warthog followed by the spad

[Hans Jaeger]

Mr. Numbers, you still don't get the math do you....this comparison isn't decided by statistics only, or comparative numbers as you put it...

It has a lot to do with numbers, when you are looking at signigficance.

It also has to do with a comment like this...

where were you Hans when Buffs were droppin' from the skies of North Vietnam like B17's over WW2 Europe?

... when it is offered as a comparison all out of proportion to the limited role of the B-52 in Vietnam as opposed to the extensive use of the B-17 in Europe.

You may have realized you vastly overstated your case, but one certainly can't fault you for not sticking to your (erroneous) guns. :)

...and did you also get a show of hands from ex-Buff drivers who were actually fired upon by ground and aerial threats, but weren't hit due to faulty enemy targeting or "other" defensive measures?


Gee, you think that ever happened? :D

I know that missions were marked with bombs or other little icons painted on the side of a plane. Kills were marked with swastikas or red stars, etc. There were even ship kills and locomotive kills marked on the sides of some planes. But I can't recall ever seeing "shot at" markings on the side of a plane. I guess it's just taken for granted in a war. ;)

[Willy]

We've all got our favorites and our reasons why. And like opinions & other things I won't mention, everyone has one. I've got mine too, but don't see any sense in arguing about it. I've better things to do.

But, if this continues to turn into a contest of urination, then I'll have to do some thing that I hate to do, namely lock the thread down. If you want to argue, then go to Oso's Outhouse. The Cantina is for having a good time. So, let's all just play nice before the barkeep has to use that double barrel.

:ernae:

[Hans Jaeger]

Low tolerance for discussion equals my exit from this thread.

So long. :)

[Willy]

Low tolerance for discussion equals my exit from this thread.

So long. :)


There's a difference between discussion and arguement. A civil discussion is great and is always welcome. But when it gets heated, it won't be tolerated. There's a fine line between the two and I just don't want to see it go over that line. All I was doing was firing a warning shot across the bow on a discussion that IMO was warming up. If that's too much, then maybe Oso's Outhouse would be a more tolerable climate.

:ernae:

[Captain Tenneal]

Hee hee took this test and what do you know......:costumes:

What military aircraft are you? (http://www.youthink.com/quiz.asp?action=take&quiz_id=983)

My Results:

http://www.youthink.com/quiz_images/quiz983outcome2.jpg (http://www.youthink.com/quiz.asp?action=take&quiz_id=983)

B-52 Stratofortress

You're a B-52. You are old and wise, and you absolutely love destruction. You believe in the principle of "peace through deterrence" and aren't afraid to throw your weight around.

[PilatusTurbo]

I did that little test, pretty fun. Turns out I'm a decent aircraft. :D

F-15 Eagle

You are an F-15. Your record in combat is spotless; you've never been defeated. You possess good looks, but are not flashy about it. You prefer to let your reputation do the talking. You are fast, agile, and loud, but reaching the end of your stardom.

http://www.youthink.com/quiz_images/quiz983outcome6.jpg


Was hoping to be an A-10 WartHog, but I'll take F-15 any day. :D

[Willy]

I took that silly test and it called me a kerosine burner! One of those F-22 Raptors. All the answers I've seen are jets. No older stuff? :violent: :tgun2: :a1451: :mad:

[Jagdflieger]

Yeah, I would have prefered to be a P-40 or perhaps an Fw 190, but I'll take the result: F-15 Eagle

I'd argue the statement that I'm reaching the end of my stardom though! Hell, I'm a young man still in my 50s.

[Toastmaker]

Remember gents, the show in question is ENTERTAINMENT, not hard science!

[Henry]

Remember gents, the show in question is ENTERTAINMENT, not hard science!
does that mean i get to dance on the tables:):)
H

[Willy]

does that mean i get to dance on the tables:):)
H

Won't be the first to do so..... Ya should see Tek doing doing that Cossack kick stuff on one when he's been into the "vodka".

[Henry]

Ya should see Tek doing doing that Cossack kick stuff on one when he's been into the "vodka".
id preffer not too:costumes:
prolly worse than i
LOL
H

[flyboy87]

Lancaster should have been above b-17, the reason they gave for the lanc being 3rd was the lack of a ball turret, yet the lanc could fly further, carry more bombs and it didn't have a ball turret because they decided it wasn't nessecary!

The Luftwaffe started putting top-mounted cannons on their Bf 110s for just that reason. No belly turret meant that they could sneak up and hammer them.

[robconroy]

Errm, didn't think I'd stir up such a hornets nest! Sorry!

My two penn'orth: B52, happy with that winning, length of service, payload, range, upgradeablity.

IMHO Lanc beats B17, Versatility, handling, payload.

P51 best fighter. Love Spits,my personal favourite, but 'stang has all the plus points of the Spit (apart from looks, but it's still no ugly duckling), plus the range to protect its bombers all the way & back.

Next time I'll be more specific, Best WW2 heavy bomber, or best modern era Kero burner fighter (carrier capable)!:icon29:

[Guruswarmyoz]

I did that little test, pretty fun. Turns out I'm a decent aircraft. :D

F-15 Eagle

You are an F-15. Your record in combat is spotless; you've never been defeated. You possess good looks, but are not flashy about it. You prefer to let your reputation do the talking. You are fast, agile, and loud, but reaching the end of your stardom.

http://www.youthink.com/quiz_images/quiz983outcome6.jpg


Was hoping to be an A-10 WartHog, but I'll take F-15 any day. :D


Interesting there Pilatus! But the F-15 has NEVER come up against the Sukhoi Flanker, which going by book figures is the superior aircraft (Flanker that is) - it would be very interesting to see a comparision of these two aircraft together when flown by equally competent pilots.


One thing that is missing in this entire dicussion is what about the B-24? This aircraft was more numerous and did the same as the B-17 yet it does not make a mention, thus the programme in question is in my view very suspect.

The real question as to the best is certainly the people who fought, not the aircraft. It is the men who fought on both sides who must be remebered for their sacfrifice and sheer bravery.
<box id="mozilla-image-toolbar" hidden="false"><toolbar class="toolbar-primary chromeclass-toolbar" mode="icons"><toolbarbutton label="" class="mozilla-image-toolbar" id="imageToolbarSaveImage"></toolbarbutton><toolbarbutton label="" class="mozilla-image-toolbar" id="imageToolbarCopyImage"></toolbarbutton><toolbarbutton label="" class="mozilla-image-toolbar" id="imageToolbarEmailImage" style="display: none;"></toolbarbutton><toolbarbutton label="" class="mozilla-image-toolbar" id="imageToolbarPrintImage" style="display: none;"></toolbarbutton><toolbarbutton label="" class="mozilla-image-toolbar" id="imageToolbarOpenFolder"></toolbarbutton></toolbar></box>
<link href="chrome://imagetoolbar/content/imagetoolbar.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet"><link href="chrome://browser/skin/imagetoolbar.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">

[Hans Jaeger]

One thing that is missing in this entire dicussion is what about the B-24? <LINK href="chrome://imagetoolbar/content/imagetoolbar.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet><LINK href="chrome://browser/skin/imagetoolbar.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet>

See Post #11. :)

[Hurricane]

Interesting there Pilatus! But the F-15 has NEVER come up against the Sukhoi Flanker, which going by book figures is the superior aircraft (Flanker that is) - it would be very interesting to see a comparision of these two aircraft together when flown by equally competent pilots.


One thing that is missing in this entire dicussion is what about the B-24? This aircraft was more numerous and did the same as the B-17 yet it does not make a mention, thus the programme in question is in my view very suspect.

The real question as to the best is certainly the people who fought, not the aircraft. It is the men who fought on both sides who must be remebered for their sacfrifice and sheer bravery.
<BOX id=mozilla-image-toolbar hidden="false"><TOOLBAR class="toolbar-primary chromeclass-toolbar" mode="icons"><TOOLBARBUTTON class=mozilla-image-toolbar id=imageToolbarSaveImage label=""></TOOLBARBUTTON><TOOLBARBUTTON class=mozilla-image-toolbar id=imageToolbarCopyImage label=""></TOOLBARBUTTON><TOOLBARBUTTON class=mozilla-image-toolbar id=imageToolbarEmailImage style="DISPLAY: none" label=""></TOOLBARBUTTON><TOOLBARBUTTON class=mozilla-image-toolbar id=imageToolbarPrintImage style="DISPLAY: none" label=""></TOOLBARBUTTON><TOOLBARBUTTON class=mozilla-image-toolbar id=imageToolbarOpenFolder label=""></TOOLBARBUTTON></TOOLBAR></BOX>
<LINK href="chrome://imagetoolbar/content/imagetoolbar.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet><LINK href="chrome://browser/skin/imagetoolbar.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet>

Apparently two f-15 's decided to 'attack' a two seat eurofighter on a training flight over the lake district, they both got 'shot down' so the usaf tried to cover it up:costumes:

[Ashes2ashes]

What military aircraft are you?



EA-6B Prowler

You are an EA-6B. You are sinister, preferring not to get into confrontations, but extract revenge through mind games and technological interference. You also love to make noise and couldn't care less about pollution.

http://www.youthink.com/quiz_images/quiz983outcome5.jpg

im not sure were they got the noise and pollution bit from, as i said i don make much noise, and certaintly didnt say i dont care about the environment.

is this plane any good???

[Ashes2ashes]

on another note, its not that simple to say which bomber is the best.


in terms of bombload, then id say the B-36 (that big @ss thing with jets and props). but it never saw combat sow how can i be sure?

in terms of actualy use? B-17, lanc, B-24, difficult to choose.

length of service? B-51

versatility? Ju88, Mosquito..

my personaly favourite is the lancaster, but thats a personal view.

[Silver Fox]

For versatility you need to go with the F-4 Phantom or the P-38...and the '38 wins.

[Ashes2ashes]

that may be true, but there planes were designed as fighters. the thread is about bombers more than fighter bombers (or am i missing somethng here?)

mosquite and ju88 were nightfighter, recon, torpedo bomber, tactical bomber, strategic (to some extent, the blitz etc) and im sure quite a few other things which i cant remember at the moment.

as i said though, everyones got a personal favourite.

[Gnoopey]

I took that silly test and it called me a kerosine burner! One of those F-22 Raptors. snipped ...

you mean ... like this ... :D:D

What military aircraft are you?


F/A-22 Raptor

You are an F/A-22. You are technologically inclined, and though you've never been tested in combat, your very name is feared. You like noise, but prefer not to pollute any more than you have to. And you can move with the best. http://www.youthink.com/quiz_images/quiz983outcome8.jpg