Ultimate WWII Heavy Bomber

[Iroquois]

Decided to through bombers into the equation. Same deal as the fighter one.

Feel free to point out other faves.

[Meyekul]

B-17 for the Americans.

[bricks4wings]

I know I'm gonna make someone mad when I say this but Its only my opinion. The B-17 was highly over rated. Sure it looked good, and it got alot of guys Home. But the B-24 was a much better Bomber (notice I said bomber and not plane) It was faster had a bigger bombload, was better armed, and had a higher production rate. If they'd have used B-24s to make war movies with in the 40s, and used them to sell war bonds with. Nobody would consider a B-17 anything more than antiquated. But they Couldnt because they were hard to get. They were flying and fighting. But I guess The Ultimate Bomber for the USAAF would have to be the B-29 Even though it was ugly as sin.
   as far as the brits go .The lanc was without a doubt thier workhorse. But I think the Mosquito was a better bomber. Again  High speeds and a repectable bombload especially for a medium bomber, (It was about the same as the vaunted B-17 I might add) Made it a war winner.  

[HawkerTempest5]

The Avro Lancaster is rightly considered to be the most successful heavy bomber of WW2. It was able to carry a normal bomb load of 14,000lbs and in modified form could carry up to 22,000lbs. It took part in some of the most celebrated precision bombing raids of WW2 including the Dams raid and the sinking of the Terpitz.

[ozzy72]

Let us not forget that in the hands of Alex Henshaw you could barrel-roll a Lanc with two props feathered.
'Nuff said

[Felix/FFDS]

Unless memory serves me wrong, I believe that the B-17 was originally designed to a medium bomber specification whilst the Lancaster was a "heavy" from day 1.

Even in online combat simulations, I see players choosing the Lancaster over the B-17 most of the time (caveat:  where the only "heavies" are B-17 and Lanc)

[OTTOL]

The "JUG"!


.....It could descend like a flying anvil to it's target and fight it's way out against enemy aircraft with equal ability.  

[Iroquois]

The Jug wasn't a bomber. The Stuka was a light bomber. I changed the title so as not to confuse people.

[Felix/FFDS]

The Jug wasn't a bomber. The Stuka was a light bomber. I changed the title so as not to confuse people.

Be nice to him.  Jugaholics are irreparably fanatical about their overbloated P-35s.  Even if you had an "Ultimate Transport of WW2" they'd still find a way to say that the Jug, for it's size, could carry the most beer the fastest.

[OTTOL]

What does....confused.......mean?  ::)

[OTTOL]

The Jug wasn't a bomber. .

       

   P-47's flew more than 546,000 combat sorties between March 1943 and August 1945, destroying 11,874 enemy aircraft, some 9,000 locomotives, and about 6,000 armored vehicles and tanks.

I never realized that you could have a dogfight with a locomotive.?  ::)

[OTTOL]

Feel free to point out other faves.

[Meyekul]

Well yeah maybe the B-17 was a bit outclassed, but you can't deny that the Norden bombsight made a hell of a difference in the accuracy of high-level bombing.

[Ivan]

If we are talking Heavy bomber: replace the He-111 with the Fw 200

Sturmovik only got good after they put a rear gunner in, the Il-10 is better but didn't see much action.
There is a difference between bombers and ground-support aircraft, but that didn't exist in WW2. Ground support aircraft were light bombers even if they had 40mm cannons on the wings.

Pe-2 is for Russia what the Mosquito is for Britain.

Best heavy bomber: B-29

[Felix/FFDS]

If we are talking Heavy bomber: replace the He-111 with the Fw 200

For the Germans, I'd suggest the He-177