Bombers, guys. They are talking about BOMBERS. Not fighters. Not attack. Not dive or torpedo bombers (which are just specialized attack platforms). Ditch the Stuka, Swordfish and Tornado. Add in the Liberator, Ju-88 and B-58 Hustler and you've got the real top ten list. The B-29 was an underpowered fire-prone death trap that could not sustain any battle damage. It took 3 years of operational lessons learned to figure out a way to use it as an incendiary weapons truck against a defenseless enemy to make its long-legs effective.

"Fighters make headlines but bombers make history"

Originally Posted by Rabs

I dont understand why the tornado is on their over the F-15E its been a much more sucssesful aircraft.


I dont see why the B-52 is on there, its the end of era the last step for the classical bombers before we went to the supersonic/stealth age.

Surely the fact that the B-52 has been causing death since the early 50s and is not scheduled to leave US service until the 30s means it's a pretty damn good design.

Originally Posted by G Connor

The B-29 was an underpowered fire-prone death trap that could not sustain any battle damage. It took 3 years of operational lessons learned to figure out a way to use it as an incendiary weapons truck against a defenseless enemy to make its long-legs effective.

But it was the only plane, along with the Tu-4 I mentioned, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead until the early 50s.

Well I agreed with part of the list of bombers, But I really there is a better grouping of bombers. To include the B-36 the most powerful bomber ever built. The B-58 the Fastest Nuclear bomber ever in service, though If the XB-70 would have not been cut it would have been great. On top of that you have to remember that for Britiish bombers the Mosquito and the Lanc are the all time best but the Vulcan was also a top notch performer. The Russians I have to give them the Bear because like the B-52 it one of the longest serving bombers ever. But as far as the B-24/ B-17 debate. Just remember that thought the B-24 had a longer range and bomb load, it suffer badly in servivng Combat Damage..

Originally Posted by Star Pirate

Just remember that thought the B-24 had a longer range and bomb load, it suffer badly in servivng Combat Damage..

It did. It was, because of the high wing, not a good aircraft to crashland. Even worse when ditching. But the B-24 was a small revolution when it was introduced. It did not only bring almost every target inside Germany whitin reach, it also closed the gap in the Atlantic depriving the German U-boats of any area safe from Allied aircraft.

1.) B-52
2.) B-52
3.) B-52
4.) B-52
5.) B-52
6.) B-52
7.) B-52
8.) B-52
9.) B-52
10.) B-52

...or something like that. You might throw in the B-2 in the top half somewhere. >.>

Though it was designed as a fighter, the North American F-105 Thunderchief performed as a bomber during the VietNam War and did fairly well.

Originally Posted by tomtom22

Though it was designed as a fighter, the North American F-105 Thunderchief performed as a bomber during the VietNam War and did fairly well.

Guess we better add the A-1 Skyraider as well, then.