I don't know if these could be compared that well. The Germans didn't have a 4 engined heavy bomber. The Germans produced bombers that were fitting for the blitzkrieg doctrine. The close support dive bombers like the Stukas, do-17, ju-88 and so on and medium bombers like the heinkel he111. We are comparing apples to oranges here.
Quote from: Griptonix on August 25, 2010, 06:22:23 PMI don't know if these could be compared that well. The Germans didn't have a 4 engined heavy bomber. The Germans produced bombers that were fitting for the blitzkrieg doctrine. The close support dive bombers like the Stukas, do-17, ju-88 and so on and medium bombers like the heinkel he111. We are comparing apples to oranges here.If you like 4 engine bombers than just say "B-29 was the best WWII bomber". Noone will kill you for not choosing a German plane. There were many light or medium allied planes like smaller machines more, both axis allies had plenty of them.If you really, really, really need a German 4 engine bomber how about a FW-200? In its role of a naval bomber it could be compared to a B-24 Liberator.Hitler had a FW-200 converted to a transport plane. It was his "Air force 1" or "Luftwaffe 1".
Theres no De Haviland Mosquito?
Whatever bomber that appeared very late in the war and dropped the atom bombs on Japan.My second choice would be the Landcaster.
Still isn't the same. maybe other people feel the same way or maybe its just me. Americans and British invested in large 4 engine bombers for carpet bombing of Europe. Germany used mainly for blitzkrieg support. IN Battle of Britain, Germany was overestimating the effectiveness of their medium bombers and their capabilities.
Quote from: Paciat on August 25, 2010, 08:33:38 AMTheres no De Haviland Mosquito?There is no Arado 234 Blitzbomber, too Out of my view an important bomber!