Top 10 Bomber Aircraft of All Time [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Thorgalaeg

Jun 30, 2006, 04:19 PM

I miss the Arado-234, the first jet bomber, or the He-111 the most important german bomber, B-24 as the most produced bomber in ww2 and maybe in history and of course i would add the Avro Lancaster instead of the Halifax. As secondary candidates to the list i would have in mind the Tu-16 (a very important post ww2 model massively produced and used by many countries along many years in lots of different tasks), the Canberra (the same as Tu-16) and maybe the Convair B-58 Hustler (first supersonic bomber).

I would remove the Halifax, the B-2 becuse it lacks historical importance and perspective, Mosquito since it does not fit well among so many mid/heavy bombers, and B-47 since it was not important per se beyond being he first US jet bomber but only because it was the predecessor of important planes as the B-52 and above all the Boeing 707.

nc-1701

Jun 30, 2006, 06:41 PM

You're missing the F-15E, and maybe the B1B.

Ukas

Jun 30, 2006, 07:10 PM

Bombers just make me sad

Dann

Jun 30, 2006, 10:44 PM

Not me. I love bombers. :clap:

"Death from Above!!!"

That was the bloodthirsty gamer side of me speaking of course. ;)

Adler17

Jul 01, 2006, 01:35 AM

Perfection

Jul 01, 2006, 02:16 AM

Can you explain why you picked them?

privatehudson

Jul 01, 2006, 03:27 AM

In most cases because they're German :lol:

Simon Darkshade

Jul 01, 2006, 04:33 AM

Definitely the Lancaster should make an appearence, and perhaps also the Vulcan.

Thorgalaeg

Jul 01, 2006, 05:12 AM

Are fighters bombers, dive bombers and such included? Excepting the Mosquito, the list seems centered in mid/heavy "strategic" bombers, adding the others would make the selection of only ten planes a bit difficult. Otherwise the Ju-87 among many others would be in obviously.

Adler17

Jul 01, 2006, 05:30 AM

Yes, I can say htere are missing many planes.

1. Ju 87 the famous Stuka.

2. FW 190 G, the CAS plane of ww2

3. He 111

4. FW 200 Condor

5. Zeppelin Staaken R VI

6. Panavia Tornado

7. B 24

8. Gotha G IV

9. Ar 234

10. Lancaster

11. Canberra/ Tu 16

These bombers should be considered, too. Also I do not think that the Handley Page nor the B 47 should be included.
Also as I already said in the other threads, we have to reconsider the reasons. Service length is not that crucial IMO.

Adler

An explication was deserved, well here it is, though only a bit short:

1. Ju 87: the famous Stuka was until about 1943 successful. Only the noise of the Sirenes of Jericho let whole units retreat.

2. FW 190 G: The successor of the Ju 87. Fighter bomber with great successes in the East.

3. He 111: The most important German bomber of ww2. Working horse, from reconnaissance to torpedo bombing.

4. FW 200 Condor: The terror of the Atlantic ocean.

5. Zeppelin Staaken R VI.: The first real strategic bomber. Of 18 built only 2 were shot down by enemy fire. The plane was feared so that the British demanded in 1918 to deliver every single plane of them. They couldn't believe at first the few number of planes as it caused them so much trouble.

6. Panavia Tornado: An outstanding heavy fighter bomber.

7. B 24: the most produced strategic bomber of ww2. The backbone of the USAAF.

8. Gotha G IV: German heavy bomber of ww1. The first real heavy bomber. Produced to replace the Zeppelins.

9. Ar 234 Blitz: The first jet bomber of history.

10. Lancaster: The most important British strategic bomber of ww2.

11. Canberra/ Tu 16 (one plane as the Tu was an immitate): A widely used bomber of the early Cold War era.

Adler

Zardnaar

Jul 01, 2006, 09:20 PM

I don't think any WW2 German bomber should be on the list except for the Ju88 and varients and maybe the Ju87. Fighter/Bombers don't count. Unlike tanks and fighters the Germans were behind the allies in bomber technology. The HE111 was the workhorse primarily due to the fact they didn't really develop anything to replace it as opposed to it being a decent plane as it was basically obsolete in 1940. That list is a bit retarded as well- no Lancaster or B-52.

Zardnaar

Jul 01, 2006, 09:27 PM

An explication was deserved, well here it is, though only a bit short:

1. Ju 87: the famous Stuka was until about 1943 successful. Only the noise of the Sirenes of Jericho let whole units retreat.

2. FW 190 G: The successor of the Ju 87. Fighter bomber with great successes in the East.

3. He 111: The most important German bomber of ww2. Working horse, from reconnaissance to torpedo bombing.

4. FW 200 Condor: The terror of the Atlantic ocean.

5. Zeppelin Staaken R VI.: The first real strategic bomber. Of 18 built only 2 were shot down by enemy fire. The plane was feared so that the British demanded in 1918 to deliver every single plane of them. They couldn't believe at first the few number of planes as it caused them so much trouble.

6. Panavia Tornado: An outstanding heavy fighter bomber.

7. B 24: the most produced strategic bomber of ww2. The backbone of the USAAF.

8. Gotha G IV: German heavy bomber of ww1. The first real heavy bomber. Produced to replace the Zeppelins.

9. Ar 234 Blitz: The first jet bomber of history.

10. Lancaster: The most important British strategic bomber of ww2.

11. Canberra/ Tu 16 (one plane as the Tu was an immitate): A widely used bomber of the early Cold War era.

Adler

1. Divebomber that was screwed with even minmal fighter cover.

2. Fighter Bomber. Great ground attack plane, poor bomber.

3. Average bomber at best. See my previous post.

4. Long range recon craft. Limited payload. Great plane though.

5. WW1 bombers were mainly a psychological threat. They caused minimal disruption.

6. This one should be on the list.

7. Good due to numbers. Good plane, top 15 methinks but not top 10.

8. See post 5.

9. 1st jet bomber but hardly effective. Good recon plane but limited payload.

10. Should be in the top 5 of the list.

11. Not sure on this one.

Zardnaar

Jul 01, 2006, 09:31 PM

My list would look something like this.

10. B2
9. Mosquito
8. Ju88
7. Backfire
6. Stealth Fighter (actually a bomber)
5. Tornado
4. B-29
3. B-17
2. Lancaster
1. B-52

Gallienus

Jul 02, 2006, 04:52 AM

I think that Britain's Vulcan Bombers deserve a top ten rating as they carried our nuclerar deterrant until our submarine launched Polaris sytem was operational. Vulcan bombers operating from Britain were capable of hitting any population or industrial centre in the western half of the Soviet Union and returning home. Trouble is that it would have been a radiocative wasteland because of the Soviet retaliation, so the standard officially unofficial advice to a crewman after delivering the nukes was to go on to Outer Mongolia and settle down with a good woman.

I might add that it was estimated that the flash of a nuclear explosion would permanantly blind both the pilot and co-pilot, so the government solution was to equip them with eyepatches. One eye lost per nuclear bomb meant that a Vulcan bomber could drop three bombs and still be piloted back to a NATO airbase.

El Justo

Jul 02, 2006, 10:30 AM

nice comments gents.

i should say this agains though - this is not my list. it is part of a tv series on the Military Channel. several historians, aviation designers, and defense analysts are seen giving commentary on each selection. i saw the '10 Best Tanks' one last night (as a rerun i think). they also have one for APCs, too.

i think that this list is probably the most accurate out of the fighters and naval ships thread.

the b47 was a surprise to me. hell, i don't even have it in my TCW mod.

i thought about the Vulcan also being on the list. that was a nice aircraft and kewl to look at. a case could be made for the Canberra, to i think.

the Tu16 might also deserve some mentioning.

i also think that the b2 desrves to be on the list but its high ranking can be debated. i mean, after all, these are the stealthiest and most successful modern generation US bomber. it's miniscule radar signature was revolutionary, too.

fighter-bombers are kinda weird i think. it's hard to say really if they belong on the list...

however, i think there's little doubt that the b.u.f.f.'er should be no1. i've talked to Vietnam vets who said the noise of a b52 overhaed was like a guardian angel - and then absolute carnage. it's service record alone makes it no 1 imho.

Adler17

Jul 02, 2006, 10:49 AM

I think the B 52 is deserved place 1, but we should at first redefinate the reasons, why. I mean service length is not that crucial, IMO.

Adler

Doc Tsiolkovski

Jul 02, 2006, 01:08 PM

I like Zardnaar's list a lot better than the original one. Still, I'd include the Ilya Morumez for historical importance - it simply is the Mother of all heavy bombers.

Gangor

Jul 02, 2006, 02:18 PM

IL-2 Sturmovik, anyone? "possibly the single most produced military aircraft design in all of aviation history" (wikipedia)
http://www.aviationtrivia.homestead.com/files/Sturmovik.jpg

Zardnaar

Jul 03, 2006, 12:04 AM

I like Zardnaar's list a lot better than the original one. Still, I'd include the Ilya Morumez for historical importance - it simply is the Mother of all heavy bombers.

Its hard to be me. B2 is one of the best bombers ever but has only had limited use. Its not just length of service that makes the B-52 good. The amount of combat its seen, the payload it can carry and the fact its been relatively easy to upgrade. The basic design is what 50 years old.

Adler17

Jul 03, 2006, 02:34 AM

Yep, the Il 2 should also be on the list.

Adler

Thorgalaeg

Jul 03, 2006, 08:39 AM

If fighter-bombers and such are included obviously Il-2 should be in the list.

BTW @Adler what do you mean here?
anberra/ Tu 16 (one plane as the Tu was an immitate)

El Justo

Jul 03, 2006, 09:30 AM

i think he means that the Canberra and Tu16 were very similar designs. iirc, i even used the Canberra unit gfx for the Tu16 in my TCW scenario :)

Thorgalaeg

Jul 03, 2006, 09:43 AM

In find that afirmation notable, leaving aside that the Tupolev is a much larger haevier faster...

Tu-16
http://www.suchoj.com/andere/Tu-16/riss/Tu-16_09.jpg

Canberra
http://www.militaryfactory.com/blueprints/imgs_ac/b57.gif

...it is a totally different plane.

Gangor

Jul 03, 2006, 06:31 PM

If fighter-bombers and such are included obviously Il-2 should be in the list.
With all due respect to the IL-2, I think it's a bit generous to call it a "fighter-bomber"... a "light bomber", a "ground-attack bomber" or even a "light ground-attack bomber" would perhaps be more accurate ;)

Thorgalaeg

Jul 03, 2006, 06:35 PM

a "light bomber", a "ground-attack bomber" or even a "light ground-attack bomber"
I know. They were all included in the "such".

Adler17

Jul 04, 2006, 01:38 AM

Perhaps we should here also devide in certain roles:
1. strategic bombers
2. medium bombers
3. light bombers
4. dive bomber/ ground attack bomber/ close air support planes

Then we can perhaps come to list, which fit much better.

Adler

Zardnaar

Jul 04, 2006, 03:53 AM

Adler that means we would have to find around 40 Aircraft for all the categories and where to the torpedo bombers fit in? My top 10 list had examples of most of those categories. Must be that Germanic pride huh:) Germany in the top 10 tanks/fighter sure. Bombers maybe one argueably none.

Adler17

Jul 04, 2006, 06:55 AM

No. I suggested that also by the 10 best ships of the world. I think it is weired to compare things with different tasks.
Torpedo bomber, although I though about that myself, are a dead end evolution form about 1916- 1950. If you wants it in, we can introduce them here, too, nevertheless.

Adler

El Justo

Jul 04, 2006, 09:45 AM

Adler17

Jul 04, 2006, 11:58 AM

Made the same error here...

Adler

Adler17

Jul 12, 2006, 01:50 AM

Here is the same, what I said already in the fighter thread. Except fear factor and innovation the other criterias are not very suited. Production numbers are different from time to time and do not say something about the quality. The Zeppelin Staaken R VI was produced only about 30 times and did have such an impact. The B 24 was produced much more, more, than it would be the case today. Also earlier bomber were not able to carry so many bombs like today.
Are there any suggestions for better criterias to fill in?

Adler

deo

Jul 14, 2006, 07:29 AM

So, any chance of the top 10 tanks thread? :D

Zardnaar

Jul 14, 2006, 07:39 AM

So, any chance of the top 10 tanks thread? :D

Been there done that. Abrams, King Tiger 2, Panther, M36, T34, JS2, etc.

deo

Jul 14, 2006, 08:17 AM

Where is that thread than? and i doubt the Tiger 2 would reach that list, too few, mechanical problems etc.

Zardnaar

Jul 14, 2006, 08:27 AM

Where is that thread than? and i doubt the Tiger 2 would reach that list, too few, mechanical problems etc.
If you look into it most tanks have had mechanical problems. Entire British and Russian and US production runs had major defects. King Tiger was still a brutal heavy tank that was just about immune to any allied tank for example.

deo

Jul 14, 2006, 08:58 AM

Yeah of course, but that tank wasnt succesfull, it didnt change anything but I remeber a quote saying you need 20 M4 shermans just to take out one Tiger, a Tiger through.

El Justo

Jul 14, 2006, 09:15 AM

i actually have the hand-written list for the tanks...and apc's, too. just haven't had a chance to post them yet. i will though - soon enough :)

Doc Tsiolkovski

Jul 14, 2006, 01:03 PM

i actually have the hand-written list for the tanks...and apc's, too. just haven't had a chance to post them yet. i will though - soon enough :)
Let me guess - the Abrams wins, with Shermans as runner-ups.
APC...that one is tougher. But I'm positive about Bradleys ending out on top as well. :lol:

El Justo

Jul 14, 2006, 01:09 PM

Let me guess - the Abrams wins, with Shermans as runner-ups.
APC...that one is tougher. But I'm positive about Bradleys ending out on top as well. :lol:
heh - nope to 1st part. i was a little surprised actually about the no. 1 tank. and the sherman wasn't no. 2 either (nor should it be - it was rather rinky-dink comapred to other tanks of the era).

and nope to the 2nd one! it was on the list though...

while there was some American armor on the lists, it was not nearly as packed as the others were (air and sea).

i'll try and get the armor lists up this weekend as the list itself is at my home PC.

deo

Jul 14, 2006, 05:52 PM

Cmon, America never had good Armor, only produced A LOT of those, i suppose the Leopard 2 is ranked quite high, T-34 can be nr.1, Pz III?

El Justo

Jul 14, 2006, 06:26 PM

the Abrams is a beast i think. i mean, it might be the best tank (M1A2, etc) today.

the patton series weren't so shabby either although compared to some Soviet stuff and some other Euro stuff, it leaves a little left to be desired. this weekend i'll get to post the entire list for debate, etc :)

cidknee

Jul 17, 2006, 07:11 AM

ive seen this show.. they have a whole series. And no the Abrams comes in 2nd. Good series though

Adler17

Jul 17, 2006, 01:47 PM

Interesting to see that ranking.

Adler

Cheezy the Wiz

Jul 17, 2006, 09:17 PM

Been there done that. Abrams, King Tiger 2, Panther, M36, T34, JS2, etc.
Right, so where do the Merkava sit on that list? That tank is probably one of a few that could duke it out with an Abrams.

I friend of mine was a tanker in the US Army, he served in the Liberation of Iraq, but is now retired. I remeber him telling me, when he was a tank school, they were learning to identify sillouettes of various vehicles. They were taught that if you see one of the following three, to just get out of your tank and run, because you WILL NOT WIN.
1) Mi-24 Hind
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~junap95/helicopters/images/mi24/hind_d.jpg
2) SU-25 Frogfoot
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-25-08p07.jpg
3)MK-4 Merkava MBT
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/merkava001.jpg

Also, where does the KV-1 stand? As I recall, she was a pre-T34 force to be reckoned with.
http://tanxheaven.com/dmk/KV1/KV1-060.JPG

CFleet1

Dec 01, 2007, 03:06 PM

My Grandpa was the founder of Consolidated aircraft. He built the B-24 Bomber. SO I have met 1000s of service men who would probably agree that the B-24 belongs on this list.

Oda Nobunaga

Dec 01, 2007, 06:11 PM

The Liberator might have deserved listing, but it had sever deficiencies - it is said flyers much prefered to fly the more rugged -17.

I'm surprised the B-47 made it, however.

CFleet1

Dec 01, 2007, 06:38 PM

The B24s shortcomings were what allowed it to fly so deep in to German territory. Destroying alot of Germany's ability to produce war. Air and defense factories. Theres some that say the War probably couldnt have been won without it. The B17 couldnt get deep enough. Great plane still.

Titan2018

Dec 07, 2007, 12:49 AM

I'd have to agree with the B-52 getting top billing. After all, it's been in service for 50 years and the air force plans on keeping it in service for 40-50 more. The B-1,developed as its replacement has been relegated to specialized roles. The B-52 is hands down the best long range heavy bomber.

Speedo

Dec 07, 2007, 01:32 AM

How the heck do you rate the B-17 lower than the Tu95 or B-47? How the heck would those two really rate being on the list at all?

Where's the Lancaster? The B-24?

The B-52 has an impressive, but I think the B-17's combat history gives it a near uncontested claim on the #1 spot.

El Justo

Dec 07, 2007, 07:43 AM

the list is certainly subjective. no doubt. i can understand your sentiment regarding the b-47. but the tu-95 deserves to be on the list imo. and don't forget that this isn't my list. it's from a Military Channel program that is still being shown...

BadKharma

Dec 08, 2007, 11:35 AM

I would have to agree on the B-52 looking at the initial reasons given for why the military channel chose that line-up of bombers. And the B-17 was really the first innovator for strategic bombing being developed prior to the start of WWII.

JohnRM

Dec 08, 2007, 07:25 PM

It would take some thought to come up with 2 - 10, but there can be ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the greatest bomber of all time is the B-52.

Almost 56 years of service and still going. What other aircraft even comes close to that mark?

Cheezy the Wiz

Dec 09, 2007, 01:50 AM

Almost 56 years of service and still going. What other aircraft even comes close to that mark?

The MiG 15 and F-86 are both in service still, as is the E-2 Hawkeye. The A-4 Skyhawk also finds use around the world, as does the C-47. In fact, I believe the Skytrain has a longer service operation than the B-52 does.

Thorgalaeg

Dec 09, 2007, 06:06 AM

Almost 56 years of service and still going. What other aircraft even comes close to that mark?
Loads indeed.
B-52 (first prototype flew in 1952):

C-47 (1934) :rolleyes:
F-86 Sabre (1947)
Mig-15 (1948)
English Electric Canberra (1949)
Mig-17 (1950)
Tu-16 (1952)
Tu-95 (1952)
Mig-19 (1954)
C-130 Hercues (1954)
A-4 Skyhawk (1954)
Mirage III (1955)
C-135 (1955)
Mig-21 (1956)
F-4 Phantom (1958)...

cidknee

Dec 09, 2007, 10:11 AM

Interesting to see that ranking.

Adler

sorry for taking so long...
http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/tanks/sildeshow/slideshow.html

and the T34 came in first

BadKharma

Dec 09, 2007, 03:09 PM

The MiG 15 and F-86 are both in service still, as is the E-2 Hawkeye. The A-4 Skyhawk also finds use around the world, as does the C-47. In fact, I believe the Skytrain has a longer service operation than the B-52 does.
1. Yes however the Mig-15, F-86, and A-4 are all fighters not bombers, although the A-4 is an "attack" aircraft it is not a dedicated bomber.
2. The C-47 is a transport aircraft not a bomber.

D'Artagnan59

Dec 09, 2007, 03:21 PM

Ah...

The ol' B29. My grandpa flew one of those.

JohnRM

Dec 09, 2007, 06:54 PM

The MiG 15 and F-86 are both in service still, as is the E-2 Hawkeye. The A-4 Skyhawk also finds use around the world, as does the C-47. In fact, I believe the Skytrain has a longer service operation than the B-52 does.

These aircraft only see service in backwater air forces of the world. The B-52 is has been in service with what is arguably the most powerful air force in the world, with the most powerful country in the world for 56 years.

For that matter, the U.S.S. Constitution is still in service with the United State Navy and has been for hundreds of years, but that doesn't make it the best warship ever.

Of course, age has nothing as much to do with it as much as the aircraft's influence. The B-52s ability to fly around in circles near the artic and give the Soviet Union a moment of pause makes it that aircraft for me.

Call it as you see it. I'll do things my way.

FriendlyFire

Dec 09, 2007, 07:18 PM

An explication was deserved, well here it is, though only a bit short:

4. FW 200 Condor: The terror of the Atlantic ocean.

Adler

Give me a Marauder with a 75mm gun in the noise. :p

"bring to bear ten machine guns coming and four going, in addition to the 75mm cannon, a brace of eight rockets and 3000 pounds of bombs.

Adler17

Dec 10, 2007, 01:31 AM

Thanks, cidknee.

Adler

BadKharma

Dec 10, 2007, 03:24 PM

Thanks, cidknee.

Adler

I notice 2 german tanks made the top 10, I am surprised the Leopard was not listed though.

These aircraft only see service in backwater air forces of the world. The B-52 is has been in service with what is arguably the most powerful air force in the world, with the most powerful country in the world for 56 years.
You are absolutely correct I'm sure you can find 3rd world countries still using all kinds of outdated aircraft.

Adler17

Dec 11, 2007, 01:47 AM

Didn't we discuss the tanks list elsewhere? Anyway I miss the Panther and the Leopard. And the reasons of choosing these tanks, as well as the other things, are questionable. The Sherman was produced in large numbers but was in no way able to cope with a Panther or Tiger in direct duel. Even a Pz IV would be problematically.

Adler

Wolfhart

Dec 11, 2007, 03:17 AM

Here in Sweden several TV channels are airing this kind of programs with top 10 lists too. One interesting if rather annoying tendency I've noticed is that they're all nationally biased: American programs tends to promote American vehicles (appr. half of the list entries regardless of category and usually American as No 1), British programs prefers British vehicles (but have an interesting tendency to also hold German vehicles in high esteem! e.g. Leopard 2 as the No 1 tank) and so on. A fine example would be Supermarine Spitfire vs. North American P-51 Mustang; British programs invariably ranks the Spitfire higher than the Mustang, and Americans does it the other way round. Thank God I'm a Swede... :lol:

aronnax

Dec 11, 2007, 08:07 AM

Ill say the Spitfire as it was an outstanding British Fighter plane of WWII. Very notable for their speeds, ability to make sharp turns and climb altitudes at a rapid rate. Also most famous for their sucessful defense in the Battle of Britian

dosed150

Dec 15, 2007, 10:14 AM

BadKharma

Dec 15, 2007, 03:24 PM

the p51 mustang actually entered service in the RAF first and was originally designed for british requirements and it used the same rolls royce merlin engine as the spitfire
It didnt use the same rolls royce engine it used the Allison V-1710 engine originally and then in 1942 they started using the Packard license-built version of the Merlin.

dosed150

Dec 16, 2007, 05:02 AM

It didnt use the same rolls royce engine it used the Allison V-1710 engine originally and then in 1942 they started using the Packard license-built version of the Merlin.

oh so i was only sort of right but they must have changed because the merlin was better why else would they bother

Adler17

Dec 16, 2007, 06:54 AM

And the constructors of that plane worked before by Messerschmidt and Focke-Wulf...

Adler

BadKharma

Dec 16, 2007, 04:46 PM

oh so i was only sort of right but they must have changed because the merlin was better why else would they bother
The merlin design was much better at high altitudes. when they were still using the allison it limited the planes performance above 20,000 feet.

BadKharma

Dec 16, 2007, 04:52 PM

And the constructors of that plane worked before by Messerschmidt and Focke-Wulf...

Adler
Ronald Harker, a Rolls Royce test pilot, first recommended mating the Mustang airframe to the Merlin engine, an idea which would transform the P-51 into a decisive weapon, capable of escorting American bombers all the way to Berlin. Harker test-flew an RAF Mustang on April 30, 1942, and noted that it was 30 MPH faster than the Spitfire Mk V and had almost double the range.
Harker's memo recommending the Merlin-Mustang combination (in which he erroneously identified Edgar Schmued as a former Masserschmitt employee) got the attention of Rolls Royce management,

Clausewitzian

Dec 25, 2007, 05:20 PM

It's one of those strange things of WW2 that the germans never got their bomber act together after the war had started and the starting designs were proven flawed. Their only halfway decent medium bomber in mass production was the Ju-88 and they had no heavies. The allies left them far behind in both the medium and heavy bomber aspect (Mosquito, B-17 etc) as the war progressed. The fact that the He-111 remained a work horse for so long really says it all.

But then the allies kinda lagged in the tank department. The Sherman, by the way, is tougher to judge than you might think. It had one advantage over the Tiger types, in that it was mechanically more reliable. It was also far and away the most common type used by the allies, bringing all sorts of logistics advantages with it. There is something to be said for 20 Shermans that are operational, can easily be kept operational and can be used to blast infantry all over the place to 1 cranky Tiger that doesn't work most of the time and can't cross most bridges due to weight when it does (kinda nullifying a tanks mobility advantage). The germans had the Sherman option with the Panzer IV coupled to an improved gun (that could, sorta, deal with t-34's), but they chose a different course. I'll grant the tiger owned the fear factor, lol. And the german Panther is considered one of the finest all-round tanks of the war.

Dunno much about the soviet bomber story. They surely must have made some good ones?

After WW2 is kinda tough. The B-52 is obvious as a heavy, but for the rest...surely there has to be some pretty tough competition for the medium slot to the Tornado. I'm sure the yanks would want to posit the f-15E or F-111 or somesuch as a contender, and the russians probably have some too...

ravensfire

Dec 26, 2007, 04:03 PM

It looks like the list is really only looking at "pure" bombers - planes that fly pretty straight and level to drop their payloads.

So, what would the tactical bomber list look like? (Dive bombers, tactical bombers, fighter bombers - anything but the big lumbering bombers!)

-- Ravensfire

sabo

Dec 27, 2007, 09:53 AM

as far as payload, speed, adaptability (nuclear, non-nuclear), and out right terror bombers it would have to be the B-52. They predict that bomber will be in service for 100 years before it's retired. it was the one thing the Veitnamese dreaded the worst, not to mention Iraq.

General_CFR

Jan 23, 2008, 02:43 AM

Interesting thread :-)
I'd like to add, that speaking about WW1 I should mention Ilya Muromets, the world's first four-engine strategic bomber. It was created by Igor Sikorsky.

Totally there were built more than 80 of them. During World War I, the Germans often refused to attack Ilya Muromets in the air due to their defensive firepower. On September 12, 1916, the Russians lost their first Ilya Muromets in a fight with four German Albatroses, three of which it managed to shoot down. This was also the only loss to enemy action during the war, while three others were damaged in combat, but managed to return to base to be repaired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets

Performance
Maximum speed: 110 km/h (68 mph)
Wing loading: 36.8 kg/m² (7.5 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 7.7 kg/hp (16.9 lb/hp)
Endurance: 5 hours with 300 kg (660 lb) of bombs & armament, 10 hours with extra fuel.
Armament
Various numbers and combinations of guns at different points during the war, including 12.7 mm, 15.3 mm, 25 mm, 37 mm, and 76.2 mm guns, Maxim guns, Lewis guns, Madsen guns, Colt machine guns and Leonid Kurchevsky's experimental recoilless guns among them.
Various loads of 50 kg, 100 kg and 656 kg bombs or 6 x 127 mm rockets (under the wings) depending on fuel, armament and crew carried. With three crew and two defensive machine-guns, a V type Ilya Muromets could carry 500 kg (1,100 lb) of bombs.

El Justo

Jan 24, 2008, 02:48 PM

yes, General CFR, that bomber was one of the first (if not the very first) bombers that struck fear into the enemy. i would think though that the reasonit's not on the list is b/c of payload capacity, ie the lack of it.

re the buffer and vietnam:
yes, it was perhaps the single most devestating aircraft that charlie feared. however, few realize that the AC-130 and the AC-47 were also feared by the insurgents. now, these aircraft aren't necessarily bombers in the pure sense (they're converted transport planes of ww2 vintage). instead, they performed in a fixed-wing gunship role and let me tell ya, they really knew how to put lead on target. their saturation rate of 105mm shells and 20mm gatling gun rounds scared the poop out of charlie. cuople this w/ advanced optics (ie see-in-the-dark) and these bad boys wreaked havoc on the HCM. i recall reading some NVA diaries and they mentioned how devestating the gun ships were against the convoys.