Best Bomber Aircraft of WW2:

Only 20 votes on this poll!

Voted lancaster, was much better than the B-17. Germany/Japan didn't really have good heavy bombers.

The superfortress was excellent though, and was a close 2nd.

I person. think the Lanch. is a close second, with the Heinkal-111 at third.

I think the JU-88.

fineally a "best of" with less choices <3

I guess I need to do some research ;)

And the award goes to...the British Lancaster (1st) and the American Superfortress (2nd), for helping the Allies bomb the hell out of Central Europe.  ::) 3rd place goes to the StuKa for being the most fearsome dive-bomber in WW2.

Theres no De Haviland Mosquito?
Add, please add. It was made out of cheap wood but still when it apeared it needed no defensive armament becouse it was faster than any fighter at that time.
Than it was used as a naval bomber using rockets and a 57mm gun.
It could outmaneuver every german night fighter.
It was used to bomb Berlin for the first time in the 10th aniversary of Hitler getting to power.
It flown to mark the targets for the Lancaster night bombings and becouse it flown low and was made of wood is was stealthy.
It was great at low level precise strickes.
Being cheaper, faster and unarmed it could deliver the same amount of bombs to Berlin as the B-17, taking only half the casualties.
Even JU-88 cant beat that.

P.S. change the Polish aircraft to PZL.23 - the most common bomber, or PZL.37 - one of the best bombers at that time, as good as the He-111.

Last edited August 25, 2010 at 6:43 AM by Paciat

I don't know if these could be compared that well. The Germans didn't have a 4 engined heavy bomber. The Germans produced bombers that were fitting for the blitzkrieg doctrine. The close support dive bombers like the Stukas, do-17, ju-88 and so on and medium bombers like the heinkel he111. We are comparing apples to oranges here.

Griptonix wrote:
I don't know if these could be compared that well. The Germans didn't have a 4 engined heavy bomber. The Germans produced bombers that were fitting for the blitzkrieg doctrine. The close support dive bombers like the Stukas, do-17, ju-88 and so on and medium bombers like the heinkel he111. We are comparing apples to oranges here.

If you like 4 engine bombers than just say "B-29 was the best WWII bomber". Noone will kill you for not choosing a German plane. There were many light or medium allied planes like smaller machines more, both axis allies had plenty of them.

If you really, really, really need a German 4 engine bomber how about a FW-200? In its role of a naval bomber it could be compared to a B-24 Liberator.
Hitler had a FW-200 converted to a transport plane. It was his "Air force 1" or "Luftwaffe 1".  ;D

Last edited August 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM by Paciat

Paciat wrote:

Griptonix wrote:
I don't know if these could be compared that well. The Germans didn't have a 4 engined heavy bomber. The Germans produced bombers that were fitting for the blitzkrieg doctrine. The close support dive bombers like the Stukas, do-17, ju-88 and so on and medium bombers like the heinkel he111. We are comparing apples to oranges here.

If you like 4 engine bombers than just say "B-29 was the best WWII bomber". Noone will kill you for not choosing a German plane. There were many light or medium allied planes like smaller machines more, both axis allies had plenty of them.

If you really, really, really need a German 4 engine bomber how about a FW-200? In its role of a naval bomber it could be compared to a B-24 Liberator.
Hitler had a FW-200 converted to a transport plane. It was his "Air force 1" or "Luftwaffe 1".  ;D

Still isn't the same. maybe other people feel the same way or maybe its just me. Americans and British invested in large 4 engine bombers for carpet bombing of Europe. Germany used mainly for blitzkrieg support. IN Battle of Britain, Germany was overestimating the effectiveness of their medium bombers and their capabilities.

Paciat wrote:
Theres no De Haviland Mosquito?

There is no Arado 234 Blitzbomber, too ;)
Out of my view an important bomber!
Jet engines, pressurised cabin, ejection seat,
auto pilot, 1,5t bombing load and top speed of
780km/h!!

Top data for the first jet engine bomber.

Whatever bomber that appeared very late in the war and dropped the atom bombs on Japan.
My second choice would be the Landcaster.

HyperSniper999 wrote:
Whatever bomber that appeared very late in the war and dropped the atom bombs on Japan.
My second choice would be the Landcaster.

B'29?

Griptonix wrote:
Still isn't the same. maybe other people feel the same way or maybe its just me. Americans and British invested in large 4 engine bombers for carpet bombing of Europe. Germany used mainly for blitzkrieg support. IN Battle of Britain, Germany was overestimating the effectiveness of their medium bombers and their capabilities.

I feel the same. Becouse multirole fighters were good at Close Air Support and needed little air cover, planes like Typhoons win over Stukas. Ju-88 wasnt as good as the de Haviland Mosquito and HE-177 was unrealiable.
The conclusion is German bombers suck becouse they were underpowered, undergunned or badly designed.

So what Allied bomber did you pick?

---

Post Merge: [time]1282823751[/time]

---

Lord wrote:

Paciat wrote:
Theres no De Haviland Mosquito?

There is no Arado 234 Blitzbomber, too ;)
Out of my view an important bomber!

What important things did it do?
It was only important after WWII when the allies got their hands on it, while the topic is "Best Bomber Aircraft of WW2".

Last edited August 26, 2010 at 11:55 AM by Paciat

Paciat wrote:

Griptonix wrote:
Still isn't the same. maybe other people feel the same way or maybe its just me. Americans and British invested in large 4 engine bombers for carpet bombing of Europe. Germany used mainly for blitzkrieg support. IN Battle of Britain, Germany was overestimating the effectiveness of their medium bombers and their capabilities.

I feel the same. Becouse multirole fighters were good at Close Air Support and needed little air cover, planes like Typhoons win over Stukas. Ju-88 wasnt as good as the de Haviland Mosquito and HE-177 was unrealiable.
The conclusion is German bombers suck becouse they were underpowered, undergunned or badly designed.

So what Allied bomber did you pick?

---

Post Merge: [time]1282823751[/time]

---

Lord wrote:

Paciat wrote:
Theres no De Haviland Mosquito?

There is no Arado 234 Blitzbomber, too ;)
Out of my view an important bomber!

What important things did it do?
It was only important after WWII when the allies got their hands on it, while the topic is "Best Bomber Aircraft of WW2".

B-17. reliable, powerful in both AA and bomb load, could take one heck of a beating, and easily replaced due to America. (But don't tell anyone I said that about an allied plane) ;)

I think none of these best of treads our ever right, I mean some things could be better at other things but then lack other stuff which other things have. Also there was different times in war were at first things were useful but at other times there were useless.

Just dosent work.

The superfortress, of course! My grandmother's cousin was actually a pilot of one. Fun to know.  ;D

Shadowmetroid wrote:
The superfortress, of course! My grandmother's cousin was actually a pilot of one. Fun to know.  ;D

+1.

My school had a interview with one of the crewmen of Enola Gay, xD.

Cant find HE 111 zwilling or twins

SuperFortress IMO

mosquito +1 !