![]() ![]() The 24 had better range and payload, and speed was slightly better too, the only thing the 17 had was operating altitude, and was slightly (arguably) better at taking damage (but then again the 17 was RARELY used at treetop or wavetop height where it COULD face REAL flak like the 24 did pretty routinely though.).but the 17 was also considered "prettier," so it got all the photo ops. The B24 actually did more to win the war in all theaters than the 17, but the 17 got all the "press." Since these models appeared around the time long range escorts appeared and the decline in pilot skill in the Luftwaffe were also occurring I suspect any "opinion" has to remain more that than established fact. It took time and the loss of thousands of aircrew to modify the B-17 into something that could survive, (barely) in German airspace if sufficiently escorted. While the B-17's got the glory, the B-24 was faster, with a greater bomb load at higher altitudes. The B-29 was the "next generation" of bomber and performed excellently under severe conditions at extreme ranges enabling us to hold much of Japan's home islands at risk. What the Avro lacked was defensive firepower and armour. ![]() Sub pens at Brest and Lorient, rocket and super gun sites in northern France, and the Tirpitz and the Bienville viaduct all fell victim to this superb combination. The Avro was the champeen heavy weight lifter of WW2 bombers toting first Barnes-Wallis' "Tallboy" and later his "Grand Slam" to sufficient altitude to perform as advertised. While I'll agree on the Avro, BH, where did you get the idea a howitzer was mounted in the nose of a Mitchell ? Nevertheless, there is much to be said for all other listed and I would be the last to disparage any of them. My vote has to go to the B-17, not because it was the fastest or could carry the heaviest bomb loads (it wasn't and couldn't), but because of its outstanding performance as a bomb truck that could get the job done and get its crews back home despite massive damage. Both the Germans and the Japanese relied, almost entirely, on two-engined medium bombers. The reason for that is simple: Only the Americans and the British used such bombers to any substantial degree. We haven't has a lively debate here for a spell, so how about a discussion of World War II heavy bombers? Taken on an overall basis-total contribution to Allied victory-which of the following heavy bombers should get the nod as the "best." You will note that all those listed in the poll are four-engined, long-range heavy bombers, and either British or American built. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |