I don't think theres a better looking and more effective WW2 bomber than the Avro Lancaster, just look at this beauty.
>>30359786
>>30359794
>>30359813
i like this
>>30359786
>Forgetting about the B29
>>30359786
>better looking
B-25
No big flat goofy front bulbs, top turret placed far enough forward that it was effective in attack runs as well. Dem hip guns.
>Most effective
The Lancaster was a good one (the heaviest bomber the allies would have until the B29 rolled around) But the B-17 was a more effective aircraft for the bombing campaigns in Europe. It was slower, and carried less bombs, but it was also widely considered to be a more durable and reliable design. Also it was much more suited to mass production, especially its engines. I think B17 losses were around ~35%, whereas the Lancanster's were at ~45%, despite the british only flying nighttime bombing missions for most of the war.
All this from a design that originated in the 30's? Thats a damn fine aircraft.
Of course the B-29 was the true heavyweight bomber champ of WWII. But it only showed up at the tail end so Im hesitant to rate is as the most effective.
>>30360065
sleep tight bomber
>>30360065
>cozy intact cities
No thanks
WAKE UP BOMBER, DRESDEN CALLS.
>>30359786
>effective
>RAF night bombing
>>30360966
It did the job. When target markers were right on they could really unload massive amounts of destruction.
>>30360966
see, you dont really need efficiency if you have a thousand of them
>>30359786
That is one butt fuck ugly plane.
But it has 4 merlin engines. Which makes it goddamn sexy.
It's like banging a bigger chick with nice tits and face
>effective
>not actually bombing any industry or doing anything useful, just bombing emaciated school kids in civilian ruins
>>30361038
Only if German night-fighters weren't out and about fucking their shit up.
Its pretty tough to do interlocking formation defense if you cant see shit.
>>30361119
>US day bombing
>miss Germany entierly and bomb Switzerland
>>30361119
>Butthurt wehraboos
Sure, there was no industry in Dresden or the Rhineland fritz, and those damns were just for orphanages right?
>>30359813
Halifax Mk III > Lancaster
No doubt
>>30361146
And when they do make it to Germany they lose 300 planes in a week to moderately damage a factory.
Meanwhile Lancaster carpet bombs whole cities, destroying 80% plus buildings in a single night. and when accuracy is required they successfully drop single bombs on targets the size of battleships with a fraction of the numbers that the american raids had.
Despite what someone claimed earlier, Lancaster has the highest payload of any WW2 bomber, including B29. And despite what american films would have you believe, B17 was not as indestructible as people would have you believe. The RAF removed it from bombing duty because it had a low payload, high failure rate and was too vulnerable in daylight.
Conversely the Lancaster was an incredibly strong aircraft because of huge cross spar in the wing and fuselage, was reliable because of the Merlin engines used, had an excellent armament for a night bomber with no gimmick gun positions and even the first version had more than 500 miles range on the final B17's.
Oh and it dropped more bombs than any other allied bomber, so yes it was effective.
>>30361317
>destroying 80% plus buildings in a single night
in a neighborhood 6 miles away, sure
>>30361141
>Its pretty tough to do interlocking formation defence if you cant see shit.
You didn't fly formation at night, you made your own way to the target. Bombers would be passing over the target mostly on their own for hours at a time.
Flying in a blob at night is dumb for a whole load or reasons.
>>30361038
>When target markers were right on they could really unload massive amounts of destruction.
From the middle of the war onwards the bombers could find the target area relatively easy due to a number of technical advancements such as radio direction finding using beacons in the UK.
The aimpoint was the hard part if you were going for something specific, but pathfinder mosquito's and resistance forces did a good job. And even when they didn't, if you were back in the queue there would be plenty of incendiaries in the area to pick out landmarks.
>>30361376
Hamburg, cologne, Essen and Bremen were more or less completely destroyed in a single night.
RAF area bombing in these areas alone, caused a 6 month halt to tiger being built, a huge loss of steel production (hundreds of thousands of tons iirc), a big dent in 88mm DP production and hundreds of thousands of civilians being displaced, requiring stupid amounts of war resources to be taken from the front lines. This list is not exhaustive.
But this is more to do with the tactics than the airframe.
>>30359786
Two atomic bombs later and a war ended, the B-29 does not agree with you. The lancaster is sexy. And that single pilot thing is insane.
>>30361607
The bombs are not a trait of the aircraft, there were several that could have performed the exact same mission.
B29 did very little during the war with the obvious exceptions.
I'm off to bed but i'll leave you with the best looking bomber of the war.
>>30361674
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/militaryaircraft/p/b29.htm
>>30361725
Here a photo, I shot a few weeks ago, of one of the last flying mosquitos.
>>30361607
>>30361674
The Lancaster was actually better suited to carrying the atomic bombs, but the B-29 was chosen instead to keep everything in American hands, even though it had to be modified to carry such a large bomb. The B-29's main accomplishment apart from that was low-altitude firebombing.
>>30361783
Try to learn something about aviation history.
>>30360065
Hey I've been there! That's the RAF museum in London, super dank, here's a different perspective with a 4000lb bam to boot
>>30360065
sleep tight bomber
>>30361783
What the fuck is this post.
>>30360205
this famalamadingdong
look at that gorgeous lady
>>30360286
A-26 was prettier, and on the whole, superior, except that its longer nose reduced the pilot's downward visibility in a strafe, which made it hated in the Pacific.
>>30361783
>What was Operation Starvation
Obligatory postage.
B-29 was the best bomber.
but my favorite where the SBCs
>tfw still no Peter Jackson damn busters movie
It could have been so beautiful.
>>30363165
literally a flying dildo
ugly as fuck
>bong planes
Freedom called, it says to fuck off
>implying The Lincoln isn't Lancaster's hot younger sister
we could have bombed Japan with her, but fucking america and their wonderweapons
Very cheep to make and quick to build
I agree
>>30361783
>Didn't have the range to do it.
>better suited
kys
Fucking Bongs and not falling to fascism.
We could've been using B-36s in 1943 if it wasn't for them. This motherfucker could actually out turn a Sabre and MiG-15 at it's operational altitude.
>>30364297
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1gDQ71ZTGM
>>30366313
>This motherfucker could actually out turn a Sabre and MiG-15 at it's operational altitude
nigga what? are we speaking about the same 230ft wingspan, 100+ ton, ten engined plane right now?
useless airplane
bongs didn't do shit in ww2
>>30366524
Not him, but yes actually.
>>30361376
Burger, please drop your pride. The Brits did a really fucking good job during the air campaign over Germany, you can't take that away from them
>>30361607
The Japanese didn't surrender because of the nuclear bombing, they surrendered because Russia finally declared war on them.
At least that's what historians believe, and i think it's true if you look into statements from the emperor and government.
>>30361783
>Lancaster was better suited to carrying something in excess of its payload over range it didn't have compared to a plane that did both
>Plane that is too slow to escape in time once it drops it's bomb is better suited
>Plane with a 10000 ft lower service ceiling is better suited to escape the blast
You retarded mate?
>>30361233
My nigger.
I remember building the model as a kid
>>30366313
>>30366588
>>30366524
>Surprised a prop aircraft can out-turn first generation jets
Basically everything could.
>>30359786
Fw 200
/thread
>>30360065
>live in liberal shithole northeast
COME AND GET US PLEASE
>>30366730
Japs surrendering because of the soviet declaration of war is quite reasonable
a soviet occupation would lead to a total turnover of society, including disposing of the Emperor.
the Americans kept most of the japanse society intact
>>30366835
You missed the effective part of OP's post.
>>30366761
Not the guy you are replying to because he is dumb. But Lancaster had the highest payload of any WW2 aircraft. 22,000lb as opposed to B29's 20,000lb
B29 came too late in the war to really matter. It only played a part in the side show of the Pacific.
And Albert Speer is on record at numerous times saying that the RAF bombing of germany was crippling to German industry and the Lancaster was the bomber the Germans were most keen to counter.
Hence far more investment into radar equipped heavy fighters and anti aircraft than jet and rocket powered day interceptors. Admittedly the radar guided AAA isn't exactly limited to night use.
>pic unrelated
>>30366696
I'm actually surprised that the thread only has a small amount of shitposting.
Mentioning Britain here is like a red flag to a spacky, meme spouting bull.
>>30361674
On the Bombs what are GP, MC and HC?
GP is general purpose I think?
>>30360065
Do it again Arthur Harris!
>>30361607
The nuclear bombs were dropped by "silverplate" B-29s, not the standard model in your pic.
>>30366761
>>30361783
>>30363138
>>30366311
>Prior to the decision to use the B-29, serious consideration had been given to using the British Avro Lancaster with its cavernous 33-foot (10 m) bomb bay to deliver the weapon. This would have required much less modification, but would have required additional crew training for the USAAF crews. Major General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., the director of the Manhattan Project, and General Henry H. Arnold, the Chief of United States Army Air Forces (USAAF), wished to use an American plane, if this was at all possible.[2]
Groves 1962, pp. 254–255.
>>30366943
General purpose, medium capacity and high capacity.
>>30366997
But there are MC bombs that weigh both less and more than GP?
or is it more about the type of explosive?
>>30367008
It's about the thickness of the case walls. The tallboy and grand slam were besically massive AP bombs- thick case designed to penetrate deep, so the vast majority of their weight is steel, not HE.
The cookies on the other hand had thin sheet steel walls and were designed to maximize the blast on the surface, most of their weight being HE. So they are HC.
>>30367046
>>30367046
>>30367062
Thanks
sleep tight bomber
>>30361783
Made up bullshit, the post
>>30366893
>Tfw ywn remove kraut in your superior British made aircraft
>>30361317
> Lancaster has the highest payload of any WW2 bomber, including B29
>Lancaster maximum bomb load 14,000 lb (22,000 lb only in the stripped down grand slam delivery variant)
>standard B-29 maximum bomb load 20,000 lbs
/k/ needs flags more and more every day. Please save us from the foreign hordes, chinese moot
>>30361317
>and when accuracy is required they successfully drop single bombs on targets the size of battleships with a fraction of the numbers that the american raids had.
Maybe by 1945 after years in improvements with beam guidance. For the first two years of bombing it was strictly area bombing at night.
>Despite what someone claimed earlier, Lancaster has the highest payload of any WW2 bomber, including B29.
It did indeed carry a heavy payload.
>B17 was not as indestructible as people would have you believe. The RAF removed it from bombing duty because it had a low payload, high failure rate and was too vulnerable in daylight.
Now you're legitimately full of fucking shit - the Brits gave up on daylight bombing entirely, including with the Lancaster. And for good reason; the Lancaster had a piddling number of weak .303 caliber machine guns, whereas the B-17 was a much more strongly built aircraft (one reason it had a smaller payload; the extra weight in redundant structure) and 12-14 .50 caliber heavy machine guns to defend itself, including many in dual mounts (another reason it had less payload; the weight of the guns.)
American daylight bombers didn't bother with "accuracy" in bombing, because when you're launching 1,000 bomber raids, organized into three "boxes" of hundreds of bombers each, where only the lead bomber in the lead box uses his bombsight and everyone else flying formation on him releases their bombs at the same time, "accuracy" is no longer a problem. Industrial districts cover many square acres; the factory my own father worked at is at least four miles square. Not a terribly difficult target.
>was reliable because of the Merlin engines used,
God you're fucking stupid. Liquid-cooled engines are inherently more finicky and less reliable than radial engines like the B-17 used - and they are much, much more vulnerable to battle damage, to boot.
The role of British night-time bombing is often criminally overlooked but m8 you're nuts
>>30360065
Come get some wilde sau bitch
>>30366988
It's sad that /k/ has gotten so nationalistic that anything saying America isn't the best at literally everything is met with memetastic shitposting.
Good work anon
>>30368763
You realise they only had to remove the bomb bay doors so it could fit the bomb?
There armour and guns remained.
Lancaster carried heavier payloads than any ww2 bomber - deal with it.
>>30368867
Maybe by 1945 after years in improvements with beam guidance. For the first two years of bombing it was strictly area bombing at night.
Beam guidance had nothing to do with Grand slam and tallboy. They were precision bombing with SABS.
> Brits gave up on daylight bombing entirely, including with the Lancaster
Not true. Only area bombing was left for night. precision bombing was done in the day, and by aircraft that included Lancaster, see above.
> B-17 was a much more strongly built aircraft
No, just look at the designs for Lancaster, the main crossbar is stupidly strong, this is why it has such a high payload and why you wont see the frame snapping like you did with other bombers.
>American daylight bombers didn't bother with "accuracy"
That was the whole point of bombing in daylight
>when you're launching 1,000 bomber raids
there were no daylight millennium raids, and none of them were operated with entirely US aircraft. The Millennium raids were performed entirety the British with token american presence.
>Liquid-cooled engines are inherently more finicky and less reliable than radial engines like the B-17 used
While broadly speaking you are correct. You are wrong. Merlin is close to the pinnacle of liquid cooled inline engines, it was incredibly reliable, especially compared to the B17 which the RAF decided was too unreliable for use over occupied territory, so they converted their B17's to do maritime patrol.
buttblasted bongs: the thread
get your garbage planes off /k/
go do something besides getting cucked by mudslimes fags
>>30369397
>Americans keep getting BTFO
(most evidently here >>30366988)
>hurr must be bongs getting assblased
Also I'd take a 4% Muslim population over being 60% white with white kids a minority.
>>30369204
>Beam guidance had nothing to do with Grand slam and tallboy. They were precision bombing with SABS.
Against targets like the Tirpitz, and the Normandy coast submarine pens - i.e. things within escort range of British fighters, and not very vulnerable to massed interception by Luftwaffe home defenders.
>Not true. Only area bombing was left for night. precision bombing was done in the day, and by aircraft that included Lancaster, see above.
Most "precision bombing" was done from medium altitude by medium bombers against point targets like bridges and such.
>No, just look at the designs for Lancaster, the main crossbar is stupidly strong
It only takes one 20mm cannon shell in the right place to erase most of that strength. The B-17 (like many older aircraft such as the P-40 and the Hurricane) had lower performance precisely because it had redundant structural load pathways (i.e. multiple heavy wing spars) which made the plane heavier than it had to be - but also a hell of a lot stronger. Couple this with the much heavier defensive armament, and the B-17 was hands-down more survivable.
>That was the whole point of bombing in daylight
Bombing at night, you could easily miss the entire fucking city, much less the industrial district, and it took a lot of refinement in electronic guidance techniques to remedy that.
>The Millennium raids were performed entirety the British with token american presence.
Allow me to quote from my signed copy of Gunther Rall's biography, page 218:
"One month after he'd taken up his new command, Rall got the usual order to scramble. The signal was relayed from German naval ships in the North Sea, which were tuned in to the frequency of the US Eight Air Force. Word was that an attack of eight hundred bombers, escorted by twelve hundred fighters, was imminent." (This was the engagement in which Gunther Rall took a shot at Hub Zemeke.)
>>30369771
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Cologne_in_World_War_II#First_1.2C000_bomber_raid
>In the raid, 868 aircraft bombed the main target with 15 aircraft bombing other targets.
So these "thousand bomber raids" put up close to the same number of aircraft. You have to be one daffy cunt if you really think the RAF put more strategic bombers in the air than the Americans.
>While broadly speaking you are correct. You are wrong. Merlin is close to the pinnacle of liquid cooled inline engines, it was incredibly reliable,
For a liquid-cooled inline engine, perhaps.
>especially compared to the B17 which the RAF decided was too unreliable for use over occupied territory, so they converted their B17's to do maritime patrol.
Tippity toppest fucking KEK. You do not use unreliable aircraft for marintime fucking patrol. If your engines fail over Germany, the crew bails out and they sit out the war as POWs. If your engine fails over water, the crew radios for help, bails out, and chances are very excellent that they will never be seen again. It happened all the fucking time in WWII; men lost at sea were usually lost for good. They used B-17s for maritime patrol because they had committed to night bombing entirely, where the weak defenses of the Lancaster didn't matter much, which meant the B-17s much smaller payload made it an inferior choice to the Lanc for bombing.
The Allies committed to "around-the-clock bombing" where the Americans handled daylight raids, and the Brits handled nighttime bombing. Everyone pulled their weight. When you try to downplay the impact of American strategic bombing forces you just sound like a daffy fucker.
>>30366103
Ur mum is a flying dildo
>>30360065
DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS!
>>30369771
>It only takes one 20mm cannon shell in the right place to erase most of that strength.
Stop.
>>30366988
It's range isn't long enough carrying that payload, unless you want to stage out of Iwo Jima. It didn't matter cause they ditched the Thin man gun type anyway and could use more conventional designs such as the little boy and fatman.
>>30360065
Sleep tight bomber
>>30360065
bitte nicht
>>30359786
>This Beast of a Night Fighter smacks your Lancaster on the tail with its 30mm cannons
What do you do?
>>30372914
Send in the mosquitoes, of course.
>>30360065
Sleep tight bomber-fu
That feeling when America and Russia ended the war with the Japan too early for Lancasters, Halifaxes and Lincolns to also lay waste to Japan with the B-29s.
;_;
>>30359786
IKR? England always does good work, I'm lucky enough to have one still intact in my local aviation museum.
>>30366202
Oh fuck yes thank you fellow marauderfag
>>30373959
>IKR
Must be 18 to visit this website blah blah blah
>>30359786
>lancaster
>good looking
nigga what
it's like a boxcar with wings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6mU7wCWGQ0
>>30374676
>sabashit
They do realize you can make songs about history that are actually good, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCIqe0K80Z4
>>30366524
Nothing else at the time could maneuver worth a flip at its operational altitude.
>>30363165
God damn I love the B-29
>>30366103
You shut your whore mouth
>>30360065
Sleep tight my little bomber
I know it had tons of problems (Mainly catching fire during flight), and the divebombing requirement was retarded, but I do like the He-177.
The Luftwaffe's four-engine heavy bomber.
>>30361607
That right there is the sexiest plane to ever grace our skies.
>>30359786
The Lancaster and B-25 look rubbish, all stats aside the B17 looks like it means business.
>>30372914
Stop playing video games
