# The Best Bomber of WWII: #4



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

Actually, Im going to calculate the number of Lanc sorties up to summer 1943 and compare it to the B24 sorties in the same time period. I will then apply the Lanc loss rate to those numbers and see what comes up.

Of course you never thought of doing it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 11, 2006)

Well, it's official ladies. The old thread finally reached fifty pages, so to check out the earlier excitement of the B-24 vs. Lancaster battle royal, refer to the Archive section.

Here's to another fifty pages. I've a feeling it won't be long.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 11, 2006)

I located this US guvernment website on on ww2 photo archives searched willow run and they had a 100 BW photos of the production line very impressive
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsowhome.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

Very Cool!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

Great link!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Syscom I think it is funny here. You said you would not take Lancs simulation post into account because it was based off of statistics. What the hell have you been doing the whole damn time. That means absolutetly nothing you have said means anything. 

Sorry syscom you have not proven that the B-24 was better than the Lanc. Contrary to me you have proven to me even more why the Lancaster is better.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Syscom I think it is funny here. You said you would not take Lancs simulation post into account because it was based off of statistics. What the hell have you been doing the whole damn time. That means absolutetly nothing you have said means anything.
> 
> Sorry syscom you have not proven that the B-24 was better than the Lanc. Contrary to me you have proven to me even more why the Lancaster is better.


Yep same with me. Good link pbfoot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Thats because its common sense, some people have it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2006)

> Actually, Im going to calculate the number of Lanc sorties up to summer 1943



and how, preytell, are you going to do this? i hope you're not planning on using the link someone posted with monthly figures, that's a very good site, however you would have to be an exceptionally tallented idiot to use those figures as they're for the entire bomber command, not just lancasters  and don't just say the lanc made up most of bomber command, because it wasn't for years that she did.............

no, what you really need to compile daytime loos rate information is and entire list of lancaster operations during the war, and, what's this sitting infront of me! would that be an entire list of al lancaster operations during the war? i think it is, and i didn't realise you had one too............



> I will then apply the Lanc loss rate to those numbers and see what comes up



wait a minute syscom, isn't the loss rate a statistic? i mean i don't have a problem with statistics but i thought you were against them as you felt they didn't prove anything?? 



> Of course you never thought of doing it



gimme a break, you want a friggin medal? or did you just feel that as this is obviously the first time you've ever come up with an idea you'd brag about it  well i wouldn't, because i did think of it, but then i realised i don't need it to prove any points, you however do, so maybe you're stupid for not thinking of it sooner?

you're not the first person i've argued with about the lanc Vs. B-24 or B-17, you're nothing special, try not to flatter yourself  because if you carry on the way you're going soon we're all just going to ignore you, i mean come on how old are you? i'm 15 and even i can see that statistics can prove or dissprove almost anything..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> [
> wait a minute syscom, isn't the loss rate a statistic? i mean i don't have a problem with statistics but i thought you were against them as you felt they didn't prove anything??



That is what you said Syscom. You said that Lancs simulation does not count because it is statistics.

So anything counts for you if it is for your argument but if it is good for someone else you do not allow it?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2006)

and we must listen to him because he has proved himself worthy of being an all powerful and wise aviation god


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

LOL


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and we must listen to him because he has proved himself worthy of being an all powerful and wise aviation god



You know some stuff, I know some stuff. Youre wrong on occasion and so am I.

Difference between you and I is I will admit when I am wrong or someone has proven their point.

I dont feel you have proven some of your points about the Lanc beyond a doubt. Sorry to make you uncomfortable when I bring up points about either bomber and you dont have data available.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> All he is doing is quoting numbers with no additional information about it.



And that is all you have done. You put numbers out and make your own opinions off them, you dont prove anything. For instance saying that a B-24 was easier to build because more were built and showing the numbers is just quoting numbers. Until you can say this many were built because the B-24 was easier to build because it of this... you have not proven anything. You are just quoting numbers. 



syscom3 said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those stats made the Lanc look better than what they really reflect as there were more Lancs (in the first 1/2 of 1943) doing missions than there were B24's.



And in defense of you, this does not prove that a Lancaster is better than a B-24. However nothing you have posted proves that it a B-24 is better. 



syscom3 said:


> The numbers will speak for themselves.



No, the way you present the numbers will speak for you and nothing else. 



syscome said:


> You yourself shouldnt be so blindly accepting of such data without asking more questions.



You yourself should not question how I look at things, or you might just get yourself into a fight that you can not win.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Difference between you and I is I will admit when I am wrong or someone has proven their point.
> 
> I dont feel you have proven some of your points about the Lanc beyond a doubt. Sorry to make you uncomfortable when I bring up points about either bomber and you dont have data available.



No you do not, because we have explained to you that some of the points you have made, hold no bearing and yet you keep repeating them over and over. It really is fucking annoying.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2006)

well if you want to ask me questions about my figures ask them! don't wait for me to tell you............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

You answers do not matter Lanc, his statistics say so...


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 12, 2006)

Very true Alder they do and Lancs figures back up what syscoms statistics say...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2006)

If he has more data about the statistics then post them. If it clarifies how the stats were derived then we can discuss it.

And I proved plenty about the production rates. Among them:
1) The B24 was built in far more quantities per factory than the Lanc.
2) Untill Flyboy finally found some data showing how many man hours were needed to build the B24, noone really knew who was better. We still dont have the data for the Lanc other than we figure it was similar to another Brit bomber.
3) I had some preliminary data for the B24. None of you had anything for the Lanc. Some data for the B24 beats out NO data for the Lanc.
4) We all learned a bunch about bomber production.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You answers do not matter Lanc, his statistics say so...



Are you afraid of what the numbers say in a different analysis?

If it shows the Lanc was still better, then thats the way it is. If it shows that the differences were so small to be insignificant, then thats the way it is. If it shows the B24 as better, then thats the way it is.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2006)

well, i don't know how it can be made any more simple sys, the loss rates for both planes i've calculated from all sorties, day and night, they did in the war, using all the losses they sustained during the war............

the tonnages were the total tonnages dropped offensively during the war............



> Some data for the B24 beats out NO data for the Lanc



that's not true, there being no data implies that there were none made, as if you make something like that then data can be collected, there IS data for the lanc, i just don't have the exact data you're after...........


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2006)

Heres the first set of info I have for the 8th AF B24's operating in the ETO, all of 1942 and through June 30 1943.

715 sorties with 24 loss's.

Only 2 BG's were used in this time period, with one of them for only a few months of this time period (93rd and 44th BG). I have to look at the 15th AF (MTO) records because they probably had most of the B24 groups in that time period.

So Lanc, how many Lanc sorties and loss's occured in this time period.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2006)

Lets see, lets break down what you just said.




syscom3 said:


> And I proved plenty about the production rates. Among them:
> 1) The B24 was built in far more quantities per factory than the Lanc.



You did not prove anything because everyone already knew that. So what exactly did you prove. That did not prove that the B-24 was easier to make. It proved that the US had a greater production capacity, which guess what, was never contested, that is a fact and everyone knows that.



syscom3 said:


> 2) Untill Flyboy finally found some data showing how many man hours were needed to build the B24, noone really knew who was better. We still dont have the data for the Lanc other than we figure it was similar to another Brit bomber.



Which proves what? Nothing.



syscom3 said:


> 3) I had some preliminary data for the B24. None of you had anything for the Lanc. Some data for the B24 beats out NO data for the Lanc.



However what did this data prove? Nothing. You seem to think it proves the Lanc was harder to build which makes the B-24 so much better. It does not. Do I have to start repeating this like you do over and over like you love doing?


syscom3 said:


> 4) We all learned a bunch about bomber production.



That I did, but I question whether you did because facts about Aircraft building that me and FBJ have posted you seem not to believe. You still seem to think that building a Bomber or any aircraft for a matter of fact is like building a Ford.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lets see, lets break down what you just said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the fact that so many were scrapped so quickly PROVES my earlier statement. The B-24 served well but it was a DUMPTRUCK! Once the war was over, it got turned into Fords!!!! 6000 gone in one year!!! The Lancaster remained around for many years, not because of desperation, because it was an adaptable airframe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2006)

Dont waste your breath FBJ!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dont waste your breath FBJ!


Hey, I think its pretty entertaining!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2006)

It gives me a headache.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 13, 2006)

I'm with Joe, it's a bit entertaining. To be honest though, it's starting to become rather boring.

Oh, and the Lancaster rocked. No stats, just 'cuz I said so. NYAAA-NYYAAAAA!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2006)

If it gives you a headache, then dont read the thread anymore.

I will continue to post things about this as its opened all sorts of variables on what made both planes so great.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2006)

ok sys i did want you want, it took me several hours but i did it! 

ok so you stated over Europe the B-24 did 715 sorties from january 1st 1942 'til june 30th 1943 for 24 lost, i make that a loss rate of 3.4% agreed?

well, the lancaster, in the above time period (although her first opperational was in March '42) completed, accounting for day and night sorties, 17,100 sorties exactily, and 585 were lost, believe it or not, that comes out as 3.4% too  

however i had this feeling you were going to say that's just because the lanc flew by night, so i calculated the the figures for the lancaster's daytime operations for the same period (1st jan. '42 - 30th June '43)...........

just to clarify by a daytime sortie is considdered one in which the aircraft is dispatched at returns in the same day...........

and so for this period the lanc did 382 daytime sorties for 13 aircraft lost, believe it or not but AGAIN that comes out to a loss rate of 3.4% 

but as i was on a role, i thought why stop at the daytime sorties for that period? why not do the whole war?

so i did!

and i can confirm that throughout the entire war the lancaster did 40,139 daytime sorties! and only 281 were lost on these daytime raids, you know what that makes the lancaster's loss rate for daytime sorties in WWII?? *0.7%* !!!!

also considder that by '42 the B-24 had several years development, the lanc was in service in it's first mark with no problems and needed no adjustments!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

LMFAO!!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 13, 2006)

So I suppose the next line of defense is to question the validity of Lanc's statistics and truthfullness???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2006)

in which case i shall show CC my source and ask him to confirm it to you all..........


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 13, 2006)

Good stuff Lanc.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2006)

I will trust his figures. I find it intresting that the loss rate was equal. Next I will look at the figures for Jul 1 1943 to Dec 31 1943.

And the B24 first flew in 1940, with low rate production starting in 1941. No B24 groups were in the UK untill late 1942, and even then it was only two groups through out the first half of 1943.


----------



## Glider (Jan 13, 2006)

Excellent posting Lanc and very interesting results.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> And the B24 first flew in 1940, with low rate production starting in 1941. No B24 groups were in the UK untill late 1942, and even then it was only two groups through out the first half of 1943.



And at that point bomber command was taking the brunt of the Luftwaffe...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2006)

well if they didn't arrive until late '42 why'd you make me go through the whole of '42 

and i'm sorry but it may take me a while to get many figures like that again, i've got a major bit of coursework to do for the next two weeks so anytime i'm not on here i'll be doing that................


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 14, 2006)

The reason I had you post the results of 1942 was to show that there were so few B24 sorties, there really wasnt any meaningfull comparison between the two. I think that the 2nd half of 1943 and first half of 1944 is when we can begin t make meaningfull comparisions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2006)

couldn't you've just said there was no point in making a comparios ninsted of making me do all that??

and what do you think of the lanc's use in daytime now?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 14, 2006)

The same as he did before...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 14, 2006)

I couldnt have said that without having data to presume it. I though there were far more B24 missions in the 8th than there were. One thing that struck me on the B24 missions in 1942, was even though my source said "group" sorties, in actuality, only 1/4 to 1/3 of the planes went on the mission(s). 

The day loss rate was interesting. But I think we will start see a big difference in data from the last part of 1943 onwards. Once the 8th was going on regular mssions deep into Germany, the loss rates went way up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I will continue to post things about this as its opened all sorts of variables on what made both planes so great.



Sometimes, but most of the time it leads you back to the same crap.


----------



## lancasterman (Jul 2, 2006)

The Lancaster with the Halifax a close second


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Well the Lancaster is definnatly a 2nd but there is no way that it was better than the B-29.

The B-29 was the most advanced and best bomber to see service in WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lancasterman (Jul 2, 2006)

The B29 didnt enter the war until late in the conflict


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

The first B29 raid on Japan was 15 June 1944. Hardly "late" in the war.

Target was the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata on the island of Kyushu.

First BG over target was the 468th Bomb Group


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

lancasterman said:


> The B29 didnt enter the war until late in the conflict


The first B-29 raid was June 5 1944 - it flew with payload over distances that eclipsed anything being done in Europe. it was the most advanced bomber of WW2 period, although I do place the Lancaster a distant second.


----------



## Newanda (Jul 3, 2006)

Hello my friends!. 
I'm new around here, but I could assure you I'm very passionate by planes. 

Well by my knowledges, the best bomber plane in the II WW was indeed the B24 Liberator, but I want to say that the B17 Flying Fortress is one I like more.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

Newanda said:


> Hello my friends!.
> I'm new around here, but I could assure you I'm very passionate by planes.
> 
> Well by my knowledges, the best bomber plane in the II WW was indeed the B24 Liberator, but I want to say that the B17 Flying Fortress is one I like more.



Welcome!

Neither one of them could touch a B-29 - it's fire control system alone was probably more complicated than both aircraft put together....


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Welcome!
> 
> Neither one of them could touch a B-29 - it's fire control system alone was probably more complicated than both aircraft put together....



It was more than just that. The avionics suite alone was the culmination of all that was learned in the 4 years of the air war.

The B29 was the first bomber designed as a system, similar to a warship in the navy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

lancasterman said:


> The B29 didnt enter the war until late in the conflict



First of all in June 1944 there was still a year left in the war. 2nd even if it had not seen combat until March of 1945, the war was still going on and therefor it is a WW2 bomber. Therefore since it was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 it is number 1.

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24
5. Halifax

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## red admiral (Jul 3, 2006)

The title "best" can only go to the Arado 234. You can drop your bombs uninterrupted sauf for ack-ack. It is by far the "best".

Most useful during the war period would go to Lancaster.

Best piston-engined is the B29 by some way. If only the sabre mosquito had come about...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

While I agree that the Ar-234 was a magnificent aircraft and was very innovative and ahead of its time, its useful bomb load was not very much and it was better suited to small tactical bombing or aerial recon.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 3, 2006)

Isn't it better to drop a small amount of bombs with negligible loss rate than to drop slightly more bombs with a loss rate of around 3-4%? (highest rate for 8AF 6.5%)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

If you are doing tactical boming yes, but for the purpose of Strategic bombing no. For Strategic bombing you need to put out the most tonnage of bombs as possible to destroy large vast areas of targets. 

In order to do that with a Ar-234 you would need litterally thousands of them.


----------



## starfish1 (Jul 3, 2006)

"best"has naught 2 do w/#of sorties,only best machine.B-29 was the best,obviously..nuff said


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

The Arado's payload is way to small to make it an efficient strategic bomber. There is no way it could qualify as a great bomber because it didnt do anything spectacular to mention.

Using your logic, I nominate the P38 droop snoop's as they could drop 2 tons on target accurately and then outrun the defending fighters.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 3, 2006)

Who said strategic bombing?

The comparison with droop snoot is poor. It can get shot down on the way there and on the way back. The 234 is still flying.



> In order to do that with a Ar-234 you would need litterally thousands of them.



The Allies also needed thousands of B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters, Halifaxes, Stirlings and B-29s. With the 234 you don't lose half of your production run, you don't use as many resources to build them, you only lose 1 crewman and you have about 75% - 50% of the bombload of a B-17/24


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

red admiral said:


> With the 234 you don't lose half of your production run, you don't use as many resources to build them, you only lose 1 crewman and you have about 75% - 50% of the bombload of a B-17/24


With an engine that lasted 20 hours if you were lucky!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## red admiral (Jul 3, 2006)

> With an engine that lasted 20 hours if you were lucky!



Better than flying for an hour then being shot down. 

It was only the 004B that had the lifetime problems, they were alleviated with the 004C and 004D.models.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

red admiral said:


> Better than flying for an hour then being shot down.
> 
> It was only the 004B that had the lifetime problems, they were alleviated with the 004C and 004D.models.


Doesn't mean squat - the 234, while very advance was still a flash in the pan by the time it was deployed. It's outcome on the war was minimal and with a bomb load could still be easily intercepted. As far as great bombers of WW2 it belongs in the bottom 50....


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 3, 2006)

Along with the Batttle and the Vildebeest then


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

The Arado was fast. Thats what its only adavtage.

It did not have an advanced avionics suite like the Lanc and B29 had. It didnt have the payload to make a difference. And it didnt have the range. 

No capability at night, no capability in cloudy weather.

Bottom line, it was an interesting jet, but would have had no impact on strategic bombing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> Along with the Batttle and the Vildebeest then


hehehehe



syscom3 said:


> The Arado was fast. Thats what its only adavtage.
> 
> It did not have an advanced avionics suite like the Lanc and B29 had. It didnt have the payload to make a difference. And it didnt have the range.
> 
> ...


Agree...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2006)

The Ar-234 would have been an exceptional tactical bomber however. Speed was the focal point of the Mosqutio excellence, and the Ar-234 had it in abundance. I know this is not a bomber variant, but the Ar-234 was never reported by Allies on recon missions yet the plane brought plenty photographs. 

I disagree that the Ar-234 would be an effective strategic bomber, of any sort. But tactically it had the potential and proved it's ability by destroying the Remagen Bridge. Given more time and development, it would have been one of the premier tactical bombers of the war. But history happened and the war ended.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 4, 2006)

Everyone seems to have different images of "best" ranging from most effective to most impact on the war.

Bombs dropped per plane lost seems a good indicator, and since losses with the Ar 234 are negligible it is "best".

The Ar 234s flying recon over Britain were never intercepted to my knowledge.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2006)

And that is why I said it was better to be a recon aircraft than a bomber since its bomb load was negligable.

The best bomber is hands down B-29, how you can even argue with that red admiral goes right over my head!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## trackend (Jul 4, 2006)

Im with you Adler the B29 in my opinion was by far the best and most advanced heavy bomber to come out of WW2 most other machines where 3or more years behind thats not to say that it was the most effective as its role during WW2 lasted for a relitively short time compared to the Lanc and B17
But then the thread is after the best not the most effective.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 4, 2006)

See I'm having the same problem with people not understanding that the Ar 234 is "best".

The B-29 is undisputedly the best piston-engined bomber in WWII. But it was the last save the B-36. The Ar 234 was the new generation of aircraft and a taste of things to come. The B-29 just cannot compete with that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2006)

Besides red admiral, do you have info on the ammount of bomb tonnage was dropped by the Ar-234. I am sure you will see it was not much.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2006)

red admiral said:


> See I'm having the same problem with people not understanding that the Ar 234 is "best".
> 
> The B-29 is undisputedly the best piston-engined bomber in WWII. But it was the last save the B-36. The Ar 234 was the new generation of aircraft and a taste of things to come. The B-29 just cannot compete with that.



Yes the B-29 can compete with that. The B-29 can drop an Atomic Bomb, the B-29 can carry one aircraft the amount of tonnage as many Ar-234s.

No one is argueing with that the Ar-234 was not a good aircraft. It was a marvelous aircraft but as it comes to bombers it does not rank as the best and no where near it.

It was a decent tactical field bomber and a a really good recon aircraft but not as a strategic bomber.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> First of all in June 1944 there was still a year left in the war. 2nd even if it had not seen combat until March of 1945, the war was still going on and therefor it is a WW2 bomber. Therefore since it was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 it is number 1.
> 
> 1. B-29
> 2. Lancaster
> ...



I agree except I might would select the B-24 over the B-17 due to a better range/payload value, quantity produced and success in other roles (it seems to have made an impact in the Battle of the Atlantic). I know nothing about the Halifax. The B-29 was easily the best bomber going on to become the first strategic bomber for the US and the USSR. The Arado maybe fortold the future of combat aircraft but in itself was nothing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2006)

Exactly there about there Arado.

It was a great aircraft but its range was limited and its payload was limited. Its only advantage over the others is its speed.

The B-17 and the B-24 to me are a toss up. Personally the B-24 was probably a better bomber but you can not beat the survivability of the B-17 which the B-24 did not have.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2006)

Could a whole wing of Arado's be stationed on Guam and then fly 1600 miles to Japan and carry a usefull bombload? And have the avioncs required to navigate and find its targets?

I think not.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 4, 2006)

I would go B29; Lanc; Liberator; Hally; Fort simply because I think the Halifax was better than people make out, I don't have any stats to prove this, it's my personal opinion


----------



## davparlr (Jul 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly there about there Arado.
> 
> It was a great aircraft but its range was limited and its payload was limited. Its only advantage over the others is its speed.
> 
> The B-17 and the B-24 to me are a toss up. Personally the B-24 was probably a better bomber but you can not beat the survivability of the B-17 which the B-24 did not have.



Yeah, that is a tough call. Certainly the B-17 was a better flying aircraft and had a grace about it the B-24 could only dream of.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 4, 2006)

Could the B-29 operate without being detected? The Ar-234 did.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Could the B-29 operate without being detected? The Ar-234 did.



And why was it undetectable?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

How am I supposed to know? But I do know the Allies didn't report a single Ar-234 operating over France or Britain until well into the Ar-234s service, and the first one destroyed was on it's landing pattern. 
The Ar-234s operated over Britain until the last days of the war without any Allies knowing.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

It has no stealth charachteristics, therefore it should have been seen on radar.

Maybe its speed was such that radar operators ignored it as being "something cant be flying that fast"


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

Possibly. Either way, it wasn't reported or reacted to.


----------



## trackend (Jul 5, 2006)

Spoke to a ex Raf pilot two weeks ago in Spain Mossie who joined at the end of WW2 he flew Mosquito's mainly, including in Korea. He told me that he ferried Lancs and Halifaxes and didn't think much of the Halifax. He also flew Daks as part of the Berlin airlift.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 5, 2006)

trackend said:


> .....he flew Mosquito's mainly, including in Korea. .....



They flew in Korea? I didnt knwo that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2006)

Never heard that but the RAF had Mosquitoes until 1960 or 61....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2006)

Either way the Ar-234 in no way is the best bomber of WW2. As stated by myself and others it was a great aircraft and represented the future of modern bombers but other than superior speed it did not have the capabilities of the B-29, Lancaster, B-17, and B-24 and that is the ability to pulverise whole countries into submission basically.


----------



## Neilster (Jul 13, 2006)

plan_D said:


> How am I supposed to know? But I do know the Allies didn't report a single Ar-234 operating over France or Britain until well into the Ar-234s service, and the first one destroyed was on it's landing pattern.
> The Ar-234s operated over Britain until the last days of the war without any Allies knowing.



Perhaps the home defence radar at the time was incapable of detecting a single aircraft. Fleets of He 111s yes but a single quite small Ar 234?

Either that or they knew they were there but as the Ar 234 is penetrating at very high speed and altitude, what could scramble, climb to that height and catch it before it's gone? The Meteor 1s weren't fast enough.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Cheers, Neilster


----------



## Henk (Jul 16, 2006)

Well Neilster the Arado 234 Blitz did not have a great range if you take that a jet engine loves to drink up fuel.

I wonder if the Ju-390 bomber version could have been a great bomber? I am not talking about at the time it flew but if it stats could have proved it self as a great bomber. 

Forget about the situation of Germany of the time.


----------



## Neilster (Jul 17, 2006)

Henk said:


> Well Neilster the Arado 234 Blitz did not have a great range if you take that a jet engine loves to drink up fuel.



I was referring to an earlier post about the detectability of Ar 234s over Britain and was not making any statement about their suitability as a bomber. Over Britain they were reconnaissance machines and according to The Arado Ar-234...

_When used as a reconnaissance aircraft, the Ar-234B carried a 300 liter (79 US gallon) drop tank under each engine in place of the bombs._

And further...

_The fuel consumption of the Jumos varied widely with altitude. At 10,000 meters, it was a third of what it was at sea level. This meant that for low-altitude bombing missions, the operational radius of the aircraft was only about 190 kilometers (120 miles), while in high-altitude reconnaissance operations the range was as much as 720 kilometers (450 miles) with the drop tanks._

Also, your statement about jet engine fuel consumption is somewhat broad. Early gas turbines were thirsty by modern standards but they were more compact than piston engines and their associated supercharger installations, leaving extra room for fuel. All gas turbines are much more efficient in the cold, dry air at high altitude, which is where a recon aircraft spends most of its time.

As far as I'm aware, as part of Operation Fortitude North, the Allied strategic deception to convince Germany of a US Army Group in East Anglia, some German aircraft were deliberately allowed to overfly England in order to see the dummy formations. I know that Ar 234s were involved in these missions and that may go part way to explaining why it appears they were "undetected".

Even a high flying, single Ar 234 would most likely be spotted by the Observer Corps in the clear conditions conducive to reconaissance operations, and it then could have been picked up by the accurate locally based radars that were common by mid 1944. Whether it could have been intercepted is another matter.

Cheers, Neilster


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

Neilster said:


> Also, your statement about jet engine fuel consumption is somewhat broad. Early gas turbines were thirsty by modern standards but they were more compact than piston engines and their associated supercharger installations, leaving extra room for fuel. All gas turbines are much more efficient in the cold, dry air at high altitude, which is where a recon aircraft spends most of its time.



Yet still burn way more fuel than piston engine aircraft. Your assumption that they were more compact is also false. Have you ever seen a Jumo 004 placed next to a DB-601? The 004 is much much bigger.

Here is some comparisons to show you that the Piston engines were not larger than the Jet engines of those day. In fact there is no way. Jet Engines are much more complex being made up of Compressors, Igniters, Combustion stages, etc...

*DB-601*
Bore: 150 mm (5.91 in) 
Stroke: 160 mm (6.30 in) 
Displacement: 33.9 L (2,070 in³) 
_*Length: 1,722 mm (68 in) *_
_*Dry weight: 590 kg (1,320 lb) *_

*Jumo 004*
_*Length: 3,860 mm (152 in)*_
Diameter: 810 mm (32 in) 
_*Dry weight: 719 kg (1,585 lb) *_

Therefore the whole compact thingie is not true. Jet engines burn more fuel as well. More fuel than any piston aircraft. As a matter of fact Jet aircraft of that time were very unefficient.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2006)

as a bomber no one single or even a small handful of Blitzs could've done much if any damage, high level = little accuracy and low level = little range the Blitz was by no stretch of the imagination a strategic bomberand couldn't flatten cities, as for it's use as recon yes it was more succesful but little used, and yes a fair few Luftwaffe were, sticking with a plan, allowed to overfly parts of Britain to deceive the enemy with inflatable tanks and wooden aircraft and such, but of course a sprinkling of flack kept them high enough not to realise they were fake......


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2006)

No one ever stated the Ar-234 was a strategic bomber. The title of the thread is not "Best Strategic Bomber...". The Ar-234 was a tactical bomber that flew low and fast to attack it's target, just like the Mosquito. 

Allied reports never mention anything about a jet recon plane, or anything that resembles the Ar-234 until one was shot down on it's landing pattern. It was operating over Britain until the end of the war, and was never intercepted in flight on these missions. Allied reports never mention the Ar-234 over the Ardennes either where it took part in many picture taking operations.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 17, 2006)

But if all it did was perform photo-reconaissance, then how can it really be called a bomber? Yes, I know it was designed as one, but I can't recall any record of it actually dropping a bomb.


----------



## Neilster (Jul 17, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yet still burn way more fuel than piston engine aircraft.



I didn't say they didn't. I was comparing the efficiency of gas turbines at high altitude to that of gas turbines at low altitude. I didn't mention piston engines in this part of my post.



> Your assumption that they were more compact is also false. Have you ever seen a Jumo 004 placed next to a DB-601? The 004 is much much bigger.
> 
> Here is some comparisons to show you that the Piston engines were not larger than the Jet engines of those day. In fact there is no way. Jet Engines are much more complex being made up of Compressors, Igniters, Combustion stages, etc...
> 
> ...



A fair comparison would be the DB 605 which is about 2300 mm long. Also, the jet is internally cooled. You haven't considered all the radiators, pipes and pumps associated with water and oil cooling in the piston engine. They significantly add to the volume to be considered. Additionally, the jet's smaller frontal area is the really important figure. As far as compactness goes, this is the most important consideration in high speed flight. Add to that that the jet produces considerably more power in it's normal flight regime, improving it's specific power output in relation to weight and volume.

Hence an Me 262 can have 2 engines in a fighter sized aircraft by placing them under the wings, freeing up the fuselage for extra fuel. Same goes for the Gloster Meteor. This is what I was on about. "Compact" was my shorthand for all of the above.

As for complexity, the gas turbine is conceptually a very simple engine. The early, single-spool turbojets were especially basic. The 004 (to use an example) was actually pretty complicated for it's day as it's an axial flow design that required fancy cooling due to it's lack of high temperature materials. Most jets of the period were centrifugal designs which look like child's play compared to the piston engine behemoths they replaced.

The difficulty in developing jet engines was to get the materials to handle the temperatures required, perfect combustor design and get the efficiencies high enough, not the inherent complexity of the designs.

For comparison, the DB 605 has zillions of moving parts, two cooling systems, a methanol-water injection system and a supercharger that is basically a centrifugal jet engine's compressor anyway. It's massively complicated.

I know a few things about this topic as I'm a piston and gas turbine engine technician.



> ...Jet engines burn more fuel as well. More fuel than any piston aircraft.



I never claimed they didn't and you have to be careful anyway because the Froude efficiency of a turbojet increases with velocity (until the hypersonic regime) whereas propeller efficiencies decrease exponentially as they approach their maximum theoretical velocity. At low speeds, yes, a piston engine will always be more efficient. I mentioned the high fuel consumption of the early turbojets in my post and the AR 234 carried a large amount of fuel in its fuselage to counter this.



> As a matter of fact Jet aircraft of that time were very unefficient.



I guess you mean inefficient. I've already covered this above but the bottom line is if you want to go faster than about 530mph, you need a jet. In 1944/45 jets were especially good in high altitude combat and were very fast at low level. For an interceptor these are vital qualities. Even the Meteor 1, who's figures don't look too flash on paper, was reported to be far superior to contemporary Spitfires in mock, high altitude dogfights. A P-51 might have had longer range but it would have been dead against a P-80 Shooting Star. It all depends what you mean by efficient.

Cheers, Neilster


----------



## Neilster (Jul 17, 2006)

evangilder said:


> But if all it did was perform photo-reconaissance, then how can it really be called a bomber? Yes, I know it was designed as one, but I can't recall any record of it actually dropping a bomb.



This is from The Arado Ar-234

_Bomber sorties did not take place until Christmas Eve, when nine Ar-234Bs, each carrying a single 500 kilogram (1,100 pound) bomb, took off from a German airbase single file to attack Liege in Belgium, in support of the Wehrmacht's ground offensive then underway in the Ardennes. Such attacks continued until the weather became too nasty in early January to allow operations to be safely continued. 

An inventory of Ar-234s at that time indicated 17 of them in service, with 12 configured as bombers and 5 as photo-reconnaissance machines. This quantity was surprisingly small, since 148 had been delivered to the Luftwaffe by the end of 1944. The small number of the aircraft in service was almost certainly due to the disruptions caused by Allied air attacks on German industrial and military infrastructure. 

The continuous, harrassing presence of Allied airpower made operations increasingly risky. When 18 Ar-234s were relocated to a new airfield in early January 1945 and came in to land, they were bounced by Spitfires who shot down three of them and damaged two others, killing two German pilots. Nonetheless, as the weather improved again, Ar-234s performed as many sorties as they were able, attacking targets in the Low Countries and mounting a large number of attacks in the defense of Aachen, Germany, on 21 February 1945._

Cheers, Neilster


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2006)

_"But if all it did was perform photo-reconaissance, then how can it really be called a bomber? Yes, I know it was designed as one, but I can't recall any record of it actually dropping a bomb."_

The sole operater of the Ar 234B-2 bomber was KG 76. On 18 December, 1944, the 9. Staffel was transferred to Munster-Handorf. It performed the worlds first jet bomber raid on 24 December when nine Ar-234B-2s attacked the rail yards at Liége. Each armed with a single SC 500 (1,100 lb) bomb the Arado bombers all attacked, and reported success without loss. Only minor damage occured to one Ar 234 when it's undercarriage failed on landing. 

9./KG 76 continued raiding Allied positions in Belgium throughout early 1945. Six Ar 234s attacked Gilze-Rijen during the famous attacks on 1 January, 1945, by the Luftwaffe against the Allied airfields. Other attacks were mounted on Antwerp, Liége and Bastogne. 
In February III Gruppe was declared operational after full conversion to the Ar 234B-2 bomber. They performed no more operations until March, when the US captured the bridge at Remagen. III./KG 76 were sent to destroy it, attacking five times in one week, losing five planes in the process. The bridge was eventually collapsed from the repeated attacks.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 17, 2006)

plan_D said:


> _......Each armed with a single SC 500 (1,100 lb) bomb the Arado bombers all attacked, ....._


_

Nine jet bombers carrying nine bombs total.

Not much of a payload to be considered usefull, is it._


----------



## red admiral (Jul 17, 2006)

THE GREAT PLANES Community - Lancasters, Halifaxes and Lancastrians

You might be interested in this discussion of jet engines on Lancasters/Lancastrians. It addresses the fuel issue of the early jets.


----------



## Henk (Jul 17, 2006)

Any answer on my Question about the Junkers 390 bomber?

Here is a pic of a Arado 234 dropping its load. Great plane the Arado 234.







Pretty impressive.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2006)

Very useful, syscom, as they destroyed the rail yards. The Ar 234 was a tactical bomber, and unless you're calling tactical bombers useless, the load of nine planes carrying one 1,100 lbs bomb each to hit a target with precision is very useful. Or are you losing the braincells that grasp there's more than one type of bomber that isn't a strategic bomber?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 17, 2006)

plan_D said:


> .....Or are you losing the braincells....



 

Just keep thinking that way, bucko......

I'd take a mosquito or a Lanc over a -234 any day.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2006)

The Lancaster is not a tactical bomber, syscom. It is not in the same catergory as the Ar 234. The Ar 234 performed tactical missions where nine planes each carrying 1,100 lbs of bombs is very useful. 

I notice you have quickly steered away from your claim. And have not admitted your mistake.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 17, 2006)

SBD Dauntless's sank a "ton" of ships.

That made it superior to the -234.

B25's and B26's, Beaufighters and Mosquito's carried a far heavier payload and accomplished far more.

That made it superior to the -234.

A20's were the single best light attack bomber of the war and it accomplished far more than the -234 did.

That made it superior to the -234.


And youre claiming that nine -234's each carrying a single 1000 lbs bomb, attacking an undefended railyard is proof positive its the greatest tactical bomber of all?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> SBD Dauntless's sank a "ton" of ships.
> 
> That made it superior to the -234.
> 
> ...



If you want to speak in terms of operational records and accomplishments, you are correct, all the aircraft mentioned are miles a head....

If you want to speak in terms of advancement, innovations and production achievements, the -234 is superior to all of them.

And one of those "what ifs." If Germany possessed 4000 of these in late 1943 things might of been a little different!!!

What if?!?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 17, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ...
> If you want to speak in terms of advancement, innovations and production achievements, the -234 is superior to all of them.
> 
> And one of those "what ifs." If Germany possessed 4000 of these in late 1943 things might of been a little different!!!
> ...



We are dealing "with what actually happened".

Its operational life was way to short and indecisve to be mentioned in the best bombers of any type.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2006)

plan_D has actually made a good point. 

The Ar-234 was not a strategic bomber. We all know that, but as a tactical bomber it may very well have been the best bomber. I was not looking at that way. I for somereason have been thinking only of Strategic bombers.

The Ar-234 was by far the most capable tactical bomber the war has seen. 

syscom it did not achieve those numbers that you have shown that others have, but with eneogh of them and early eneogh in the war it could have achieved greater numbers.

You say well it did not, so that does not count. The B-29 did not accomplish as many missions as the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster. Does that make it inferior to them? It did not drop the ammount of tonnage that the they dropped. Does that make it inferior? Nope. The Gigant could carry more cargo than the C-47, does that make it more superior to the C-47? Nope.

You see that arguement you just made does not hold up.

Lets look at the overall capability of the Ar-234 as a tactical bomber and you will see that it was superior to all the rest.

Why?

Because it could get in, get out and not be caught by enemy fighters.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 18, 2006)

I'm glad to see that someone has caught on to what I was saying in the first place. 

syscom, I never claimed that nine planes each carrying 1,100 lbs bomb made it the best bomber. You, however, claimed that an attack like that would be useless with this: 

_"Nine jet bombers carrying nine bombs total.

Not much of a payload to be considered usefull, is it."_

I replied kindly with the simple idea that the load mentioned would be very useful: 

_"Very useful, syscom, as they destroyed the rail yards."_

And then you claim that I had said the Ar 234 was the greatest tactical bomber of all time with that statement: 

_"And youre claiming that nine -234's each carrying a single 1000 lbs bomb, attacking an undefended railyard is proof positive its the greatest tactical bomber of all?"_

Where did I claim that, syscom? Can you find it for us all? I merely countered your claim that 9,900 lbs worth of bombs on a tactical strike was useless. 

You are backing out again, syscom. Let's get back to the point, the Ar 234 was a tactical bomber and that kind of payload would be extremely useful. Are you going to admit your mistake, or are you going to keep digging your hole?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2006)

I agree with you pD. It certainly was not the best bomber, it certainly was not the best jet aircraft, but it was not useless or utterly worthless as syscom makes it out to be.

I bet if it had been built by Boing or Bell or Consolidated he would be saying otherwise...


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 18, 2006)

A payload of 1000 punds in WW2 is worthless. Most tactical bombers were carrying triple that number with just as much effect. And considering many tactical operations were not against precise targets such as railyards but whole areas where troops and material were spread out, the low payload of the -234 made it irrelevent.

The -234 was a harbringer of things to come, but had no impact on the the war or operations.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The -234 was a harbringer of things to come, but had no impact on the the war or operations.



Which does not make the aircraft irrelivant. It was still more capable than any other tactical bomber based of what it could do. That is what you dont understand.



syscom3 said:


> Most tactical bombers were carrying triple that number with just as much effect.



The Ar-234 could carry 3300lb of bombs. For an early jet bomber that is not bad.

*Bomb Load:*
_various combinations of bombs slung under fuselage and/or engines to maximum of 1500kg (3,300lb)_

Oh well does not matter, I am not going to argue the fact with you, because it will not matter.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 18, 2006)

Railyards and transport networks are of extreme importance, syscom. Tactical operations exist to support the ensuing battle. The attack on Liége disrupted Allied reinforcement for the Ardennes, this was the precise aim of the attack. 

1,000 lbs dropped on a precise target is certainly not useless, as you believe. Attacking a bridge, road, rail, supply depot or HQ are all tactical strikes and 1,100 lbs from each plane could easily destroy these things when hit with precision. 

The Ar 234 was designed to fly in and out without any threat of interception. It's attacks were to be precise, dropping the 500 KG bomb on it's target and leaving the area quickly. It achieved this, and the attacks the Ar 234 were often very successful. Proving the point, that 1,100 lbs of bombs was not "worthless". 

The Stuka often carried a single SC 500 bomb into battle, and caused much havoc on the tactical scale.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 18, 2006)

plan_D said:


> ... 1,000 lbs dropped on a precise target is certainly not useless, as you believe. Attacking a bridge, road, rail, supply depot or HQ are all tactical strikes and 1,100 lbs from each plane could easily destroy these things when hit with precision. .....



Attack with precision. A misnomer of sorts for any combatant on WW2.

And if they could carry 3000 lbs bombs, why were they only fitted with one?

Still it only makes it a what if bomber.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 18, 2006)

The Ar-234 certainly is no "what if" bomber. It stayed in combat as a plane from D-Day till wars end and in the bomber role from late 1944 till wars end, actually it had a longer service time than the Me-262, and this plane also cannot be counted as a "what if" design.
Usual bomb load for Ar-234B was 1000 Kg (2202 lbs) with two 500 Kg bombs on each ETC under the engines. Maximum bomb load was 1500 Kg with a single PC 1500 halfly embedded under the fuselage or 1000 Kg with a single 500 kg bomb and two 250 Kg bombs under the engines. A reduced payload (a single 500 Kg bomb) was used in case high speed attack runs were preferred (with this payload it could exceed 410 mp/h at sea level or 450 mp/h at 10000 ft for quite a duration. The top speed of ~ 480 mp/h was only achievable without bombs.
Technically interesting "what if´s" are those 23 Ar-234 C delivered to the Luftwaffe...


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 18, 2006)

I menat "what if bomber" as in if it had been deployed in quantity to show what it could do.

It was one of the too little, too late planes the Germans had.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2006)

That still does not take away from its capability, and the fact that it was the most advanced tactical bomber to see service.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

The fact remains, syscom, the Ar 234s that attacked the Liége railyards went in and out without interception. And the 9,900 lbs of bombs they delivered put the railyards out of action. 

I am sorry that I didn't point out they only carried the one SC 500 to keep their speed high. I thought it would have been stating the obvious. After all, we all know that Mosquitoes would often carry payload of 1,000 lbs to keep their speed high. And even many strategic bombers wouldn't carry a full payload, even if the fuel did permit them to. 

Shall I assume that you still believe that a group of nine planes, each carrying a single SC 500 (1,100 lbs) is useless? Or are you going to admit that you were wrong. As many planes in World War II, went into combat with payloads around that weight, if not lower. 

What the USAAF and RAF called precision for the high-level strategic bombers is completely different for the low-level tactical bombers. Attacking from low-altitudes many bombers throughout the war achieved precision against HQs, bridges, supply depots, rail yards, tunnels etc. The most famous, of course, being the Mosquito attack on Amiens prison, or Gestapo HQ in The Hague.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

So its fast. Thats a fact. But its trading payload for speed, and that means the larger targets it would eventually need to attack would require hundreds of them to accomplish anything.

And this was a single mission that attacked an undefended target. Now I wonder how it would do with people shooting back at it.

I bet a P38L with a single 1000 pounder could maintain a pretty fast speed too. Does that mean its a great tactical bomber?

Didnt it also attack the Remegan bridge without accomplishing a single thing?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

The Liége railyards were defended, the Allies weren't idiots. And all railyards had, at least, light AA. The trade off between speed and payload was made by all airforces during high-speed pinpoint raids. This wasn't just for the Ar 234. 

Larger targets, like what? The Ar 234 could carry higher payloads, and would carry them at a higher speed than other tactical bombers. Once the payload had been dropped, the Ar 234 could easily pace away from the target area. 

Could the P-38L maintain a speed near that of the Ar 234 with a 1,000 lbs bomb? No. Could the P-38L catch up to the Ar 234 when both had dropped their bombs? No. This leaves the Ar 234 in a higher standing than the P-38L in a tactical bomber role. 
The Mosquito was a great tactical bomber because it could fly in and out fast. With little chance of interception. The Ar 234 did the exact same, but faster. 

Ar 234 and Me-262A-2a attacked the Remagen Bridge. There's varying reports of the incidents. Some say the Me-262s got it, some say the Ar 234s got it, others say it was merely the weight of US Army rolling over it ... in the end, however, the bridge fell. Result !


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

Fair enough.

So in the grand scheme of things, what impact on the war did the -234 have, considering it was in use for several months?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

In the grand scheme of things? Nothing. The larger part of the Ar 234 on the war was from the bomber variant, Ar 234B. It hampered the US army movements in many areas of the front, and also destroyed a few Allied planes on the ground. 
Some would argue that the Ar 234 may well have delayed the inevitable German defeat by delaying the U.S at Remagen and Aachen. There's many scattered reports about the various Ar 234 raids. 

I never said the Ar 234 was the best bomber of the war, nor have I claimed it had a massive effect on the war. I'm merely trying to explain to you that a 1,000 lbs bomb is not useless. As you claimed nine planes each carrying a single 1,000 lbs was useless.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

By late 1944, there was nothing the Luftwaffe could do to slow up any allied advance. There simply were way too few aircraft and crews. Any hold ups the allies had were due to other factors, and air bombardment wasnt one of them.

I'd rate the -88 sooner than the -234 as deserving a ranking as among the best bombers of WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

Since the destruction of the Remegan bridge prevented an armoured thrust deep into the Ruhr-Rhine valley earlier than it really happened, certainly gives some credit to the slowing of the Allied advance. 

Technically, the Ar 234 was one of the best bombers of the war. It had a record to prove that it wasn't a paper tiger, but it doesn't earn it's place amongst the best because of that record. It's technical ability, and advanced technology bring it forward into the race. 

But once again, you're trying to skip the question of the payloads being useful or not. Once again, I never said the Ar 234 was the best bomber of the war. I'm merely trying to get through to you that an attack by nine planes carrying a grand total of 9,900 lbs of bombs is a useful load on a tactical strike. Are you going to admit your mistake of calling it useless? Or are you going to try and dodge out of it again? 

And you never told me what these larger targets were, that would apparently to take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack effectively.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Since the destruction of the Remegan bridge prevented an armoured thrust deep into the Ruhr-Rhine valley earlier than it really happened, certainly gives some credit to the slowing of the Allied advance.



it gets zero credit because the collapse of the bridge cannot be ascribed to it.

And it stopped nothing as the combat engineers were busy building bailey bridges to span the Rhine as well as hauling up thousands of landing craft.



> Technically, the Ar 234 was one of the best bombers of the war. It had a record to prove that it wasn't a paper tiger, but it doesn't earn it's place amongst the best because of that record. It's technical ability, and advanced technology bring it forward into the race.



As a bomber it gets no recognition because it didnt do anything. As a recon, I would place it high on the list.



> But once again, you're trying to skip the question of the payloads being useful or not. Once again, I never said the Ar 234 was the best bomber of the war. I'm merely trying to get through to you that an attack by nine planes carrying a grand total of 9,900 lbs of bombs is a useful load on a tactical strike. Are you going to admit your mistake of calling it useless? Or are you going to try and dodge out of it again?



2000 pounds of bombs per plane is nothing impressive at all. It was fast, but a bomber needs to carry lots of bombs.



> And you never told me what these larger targets were, that would apparently to take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack effectively.



Airfields, troop concentrations, bridges, supply depots, harbors, blah blah blah.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 19, 2006)

From some point, I can understand Syscom´s position. The -234 saw little but quite effective combat at the closing months of ww2. Problem of this thread is that nobody specified what means "best". Technically the -234 wins, hands down, at least from all those to see combat use. But if we factor war effect than a bomber to see combat through the whole wartime with various modifications has some benefits. Take the B-25, the Ju-88, the B-17, the Lancaster, SBD-Dauntless or even the Ju-87, all of them contributed more heavily for their nation than did either the -234 or the B-29 (despite the latter gains some additional credit for shortening the war by delivering nukes to Japan. However, this credit should be given to the whole Manhatten project rather than to the carrier plane).


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

delcyros said:


> .... However, this credit should be given to the whole Manhatten project rather than to the carrier plane)....



No B29 means no way to deliver the a-bomb.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

The destruction of Remagen Bridge was part due to the Ar 234s bombing of it. This is one thing everyone agrees on. The collapse of the Remagen Bridge itself was due to many factors, but mostly the bombing done by the Me 262 and Ar 234 bombers. 

_"And it stopped nothing as the combat engineers were busy building bailey bridges to span the Rhine as well as hauling up thousands of landing craft."_

You gave me a good laugh with this, syscom. It delayed the U.S advance by a week, and cost the Allies many more troops when they had to employ paratroopers in Operation _Varsity_. A week is a long time when you're attempting to sweep up enemy formations. 

_"As a bomber it gets no recognition because it didnt do anything. As a recon, I would place it high on the list."_

Your lack of reading ability amazes me. I don't believe I stated the Ar 234 deserves recognition for it's achievements in World War II. On the contrary, syscom, I stated the Ar 234 did very little in the war as a bomber. I, in fact, stated it had no effect on the war whatsoever. 
I said that it should be recognised for it's technical ability, to which it proved it could achieve in the few combats it did take part in. Surely you understand that? Don't come back and say that the bomber didn't do anything, when we've already come to something nearing on an argeement that the Ar 234 did very little as a bomber. 

_"2000 pounds of bombs per plane is nothing impressive at all. It was fast, but a bomber needs to carry lots of bombs."_

The raiders on Liége railyards carried a single SC 500 (1,100 lbs) bomb. The payload used was not the Ar 234s maximum load. This has been established previously. The raid was set to impress, it was set to get the bombers in, destroy the target, and get out unscathed. Which all the bombers did, and they destroyed the target. Making your statement that the raid's payload was useless, a pathetic statement. The Ar 234 could carry quite a few bombs, and would be faster than any other tactical bomber carrying the same payload.

_"Airfields, troop concentrations, bridges, supply depots, harbors, blah blah blah."_

To attack an airfield would not need hundreds of Ar 234s. A single 1,000 lbs could easily crater runways, or destroy planes on the ground. Six Ar 234s attacked the airfield at Gilze-Rijen on 1st January, 1945, causing considerable damage. And these planes carried a single SC 500 bomb each. Disproving yo point that it would take hundreds to attack an airfield. 

Troop concentrations? Ar 234s were used to attack the 101st Airborne Division in and around Bastogne. Hundreds were not used.

Bridges? The Remegan Bridge was attacked by no more than fifteen Ar 234s. And it fell. During the Battle of France, the RAF often sent five or six Fairey Battles against bridges carrying less than 1,000 lbs. And they were credited with quite a few bridges. 

Supply depots? The USAAF would send up P-47s with single 500 lbs bombs to attack these targets. And they would not be in their hundreds. 

A harbour? They were attacked by strategic bombers, mostly. But when any raid took place on a harbour it took hundreds of planes, even when they were B-17s or Lancasters. Except the raid on Taranto, but they were aiming for the ships, not the harbour itself. 

And blah blah blah isn't a tactical target.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The destruction of Remagen Bridge was part due to the Ar 234s bombing of it. This is one thing everyone agrees on. The collapse of the Remagen Bridge itself was due to many factors, but mostly the bombing done by the Me 262 and Ar 234 bombers.



The main damage to the span was done prior to the bombing. 



> You gave me a good laugh with this, syscom. It delayed the U.S advance by a week, and cost the Allies many more troops when they had to employ paratroopers in Operation _Varsity_. A week is a long time when you're attempting to sweep up enemy formations.



In March 1945, the German army had nowhere to run to. It didnt matter if it was a day, a week, a month. They had no transport and nowhere to go. The delay meant nothing at all. 



> Your lack of reading ability amazes me. I don't believe I stated the Ar 234 deserves recognition for it's achievements in World War II. On the contrary, syscom, I stated the Ar 234 did very little in the war as a bomber. I, in fact, stated it had no effect on the war whatsoever.
> I said that it should be recognised for it's technical ability, to which it proved it could achieve in the few combats it did take part in. Surely you understand that? Don't come back and say that the bomber didn't do anything, when we've already come to something nearing on an argeement that the Ar 234 did very little as a bomber.



What technical ability was it outstanding in? It was fast, nothing else. And it wasnt blindingly fast as allied jets were soon to be deployed that were fast enought to shoot it down. And a "few" bombing sorties doesnt count. 



> The raiders on Liége railyards carried a single SC 500 (1,100 lbs) bomb. The payload used was not the Ar 234s maximum load. This has been established previously. The raid was set to impress, it was set to get the bombers in, destroy the target, and get out unscathed.



Which was done by EVERY nation in the war that flew bombing missions. 

Which all the bombers did, and they destroyed the target. Making your statement that the raid's payload was useless, a pathetic statement. The Ar 234 could carry quite a few bombs, and would be faster than any other tactical bomber carrying the same payload.

A single 1000 pound bomb carried by a single aircraft. Bound to impress.

[/quote] To attack an airfield would not need hundreds of Ar 234s. A single 1,000 lbs could easily crater runways, or destroy planes on the ground. Six Ar 234s attacked the airfield at Gilze-Rijen on 1st January, 1945, causing considerable damage. And these planes carried a single SC 500 bomb each. Disproving yo point that it would take hundreds to attack an airfield. [/quote]

Stop the presses!!!!! OMG..... the Luftwaffe was so good that it only took a few -234's carrying a few bombs to put out of commision tactical targets that required hundreds of allied bombers to do. Oh yeah, and that includes the -88's and other German bombers that needed hundreds of planes to do the same on the Allies.



> Troop concentrations? Ar 234s were used to attack the 101st Airborne Division in and around Bastogne. Hundreds were not used.



And your point is what? there were lots of german bombers used.

{quote] Supply depots? The USAAF would send up P-47s with single 500 lbs bombs to attack these targets. And they would not be in their hundreds. [/quote]

Ummm, there were often hundred of -47's and -38's flying around attacking tactical targets.



> A harbour? They were attacked by strategic bombers, mostly. But when any raid took place on a harbour it took hundreds of planes, even when they were B-17s or Lancasters. Except the raid on Taranto, but they were aiming for the ships, not the harbour itself.
> 
> And blah blah blah isn't a tactical target.



Most targets require hundreds of planes to take out. And there were only a handfull of -234's. Hardly enough to influence a battle at any point.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

_"In March 1945, the German army had nowhere to run to. It didnt matter if it was a day, a week, a month. They had no transport and nowhere to go. The delay meant nothing at all."_

I stated that the destruction of the Remagen bridge halted the U.S 3rd Army in it's attack. Which it did. Earlier on, I said some would say the Ar 234 delayed the inevitable by doing this. I never said the Allies weren't going to win. 
The week respite given to the Wehrmacht allowed them to dig-in positions. And forced many more losses on the Allied armies than what would have been encountered if the bridge had remained intact. The delay cost lives. 

_"What technical ability was it outstanding in? It was fast, nothing else. And it wasnt blindingly fast as allied jets were soon to be deployed that were fast enought to shoot it down. And a "few" bombing sorties doesnt count."_

The Ar 234 could fly high and fast. The technical ability that marks it above other tactical bombers is the fact that the plane was faster than all of them. No other tactical bomber of the war could carry a 1,000 lbs, 2,000 lbs or 3,000 lbs payload as fast as the Ar 234 could. 

The bombing sorties the Ar 234 took part in count for proving that the Ar 234 could do what the design papers said it could. You cannot simply wipe parts off history off as not counting for anything. Unless you want to cloud history for your own cause. 

_"Which was done by EVERY nation in the war that flew bombing missions."_

Why are you telling me this, syscom? I was the one that told YOU that in the first place. 

_"A single 1000 pound bomb carried by a single aircraft. Bound to impress."_

When that single plane plants the 1,000 lbs bomb in the middle of your bridge, or your runway than you're not going to be calling it useless. 

_"Stop the presses!!!!! OMG..... the Luftwaffe was so good that it only took a few -234's carrying a few bombs to put out of commision tactical targets that required hundreds of allied bombers to do. Oh yeah, and that includes the -88's and other German bombers that needed hundreds of planes to do the same on the Allies."_

What are you talking about now? The Allies, nor the Luftwaffe attacked single airfields with hundreds of bombers. Are you denying that six Ar 234s attacked Gilze-Rijen airfield on 1st January, 1945 now? 

_"Ummm, there were often hundred of -47's and -38's flying around attacking tactical targets."_

Key word there *targets*. They didn't send hundreds of P-47s or P-38s against one supply depot. It's an overkill. Ten to twenty P-47s carrying 500 lbs bombs could do the job. 

_"Most targets require hundreds of planes to take out. And there were only a handfull of -234's. Hardly enough to influence a battle at any point."_

Once again, where have I said the Ar 234 influenced the battle? Or the war? Where!? Just read properly for once, please! I am telling you that on a tactical strike nine planes carrying a total of 9,900 lbs is not useless. There is no mention anywhere from me saying the Ar 234 was the best bomber of the war. No where do I say that the Ar 234 had an impact on the war. 

Where do you get the idea hundreds of planes were needed to strike tactical targets? The bomber streams of B-17s and B-24s are not tactical, they're strategic. A tactical attack would have less than fifty bombers, in most cases. 
Like on 12 May, 1940, 12 Sqdn. Battles based at Amifontaine attacked a bridge on the Albert Canal at Maarstricht. Five Battles carried a single 250 lbs bomb each, they attacked and destroyed the bridge. Of course, this isn't possible, it would take hundreds of Ar 234s carrying a higher payload to destroy a bridge. Right, syscom? How in gods name did five Battles manage it!?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

I looked at the 9th army website and they stated that the bridge was heavily damaged by the demolition charges the day of the capture.

They also state the bridge was still standing for ten days afterwards, in which time several Baily bridges were built by the time the Remagan bridge finally collapsed.

Therefore, the -234 attacks accomplished little, and it didnt stop the allied advance one second. In fact, the web site suggests several -234's were shot down. I dont know if thats true, so someone confirm it.

By the way, hordes of B26's and -47's and -38's would attack a single target (and I suppose the RAF did the same). And they were just as accurate as the -234. In fact probably more accurate because high speed often means introduces new errors. 

And the -234 attacks on the airfields? They were just several bombers among many dozens who contributed equally to the damage. To say they went on a sortie is one thing. To say they contributed mightly to the damage because they each had a single bomb is a stretch of the imagination.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

If the U.S Army had already gone across the Rhine in force at Remagen. Why did it take paradrops during Operation _Varsity_ to secure the eastern bank? The collapse delayed the U.S assault for a week, and cost more lives. The website is right, five Ar 234s were lost to AA fire over the bridge.

"Hordes" does not indicate a number, syscom. Single targets would be attack by dozens, rarely more than fifty. That would look like a horde, I suppose. 

Stop steering away from the original comments, syscom. You claimed that 9,900 lbs worth of bombs is useless. Yet that payload destroyed the railyards, so they have use. 

You also claim that it would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack a target, like a bridge. Yet it only took five Battles with a single 250 lbs bomb each to destroy a bridge on May 12, 1940. 

Just admit you're wrong. It wouldn't take hundreds of Ar 234s to perform tactical jobs. It didn't take hundreds of bombers to attack tactical targets. And 9,900 lbs worth of bombs is a very useful load for tactical targets. Stop trying to steer away from it, you're just increasingly looking like an idiot. A single 1,100 lbs bomb can easily destroy gut a building, or crater a runway.

How do you know about the Ar 234 raids on New Years Day? You don't, that's right. So stop pretending that you know anything about them. You didn't even know they existed until I told you. Oh, and where did I say they contributed "mightly" to Bodenplatte? Stop claiming I say things that I never have.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> If the U.S Army had already gone across the Rhine in force at Remagen. Why did it take paradrops during Operation _Varsity_ to secure the eastern bank? The collapse delayed the U.S assault for a week, and cost more lives. The website is right, five Ar 234s were lost to AA fire over the bridge.



The reasons are beyond the scope of this discussion. WE do know that the -234's contributed to the additional damage to the span, but were not the sole reason the bridge collapsed. And the fact it took 10 days for the bridge to go down indicates that the US had plenty of time to get ready for its offensive. The fact that five were shot down is indictaive that their engines MIGHT be quite vulnerable to damage at the low altitudes it flew at, regardless of its speed.



> "Hordes" does not indicate a number, syscom. Single targets would be attack by dozens, rarely more than fifty. That would look like a horde, I suppose.



The B26's attacked in wing strength, involving 3 groups or more per target. Thats about 100 - 300 B26's per mission. The fighter bombers would go out a few at a time or send out a whole group. But they are fighters, not bombers.



> Stop steering away from the original comments, syscom. You claimed that 9,900 lbs worth of bombs is useless. Yet that payload destroyed the railyards, so they have use.



9000 pounds per aircraft is great. 1000 pounds is next to worthless.



> You also claim that it would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack a target, like a bridge. Yet it only took five Battles with a single 250 lbs bomb each to destroy a bridge on May 12, 1940.


. And what bridge was this? was it as big as the one at Remagan? [/quote]



> Just admit you're wrong. It wouldn't take hundreds of Ar 234s to perform tactical jobs. It didn't take hundreds of bombers to attack tactical targets. And 9,900 lbs worth of bombs is a very useful load for tactical targets. Stop trying to steer away from it, you're just increasingly looking like an idiot. A single 1,100 lbs bomb can easily destroy gut a building, or crater a runway.



It took hundreds of bombs to put an airfield out of commision. It took thousands of bombs to hit troop concentrations and supply dumps that were dispersed. A thousand pound bomb is big, but when your only dropping a few of them from only a few aircraft, then whats the point.



> How do you know about the Ar 234 raids on New Years Day? You don't, that's right. So stop pretending that you know anything about them. You didn't even know they existed until I told you. Oh, and where did I say they contributed "mightly" to Bodenplatte? Stop claiming I say things that I never have.



You said a few -234's was all it took to cause extensive damage to an airfield. I said they helped but were not the sole reason for the damage because their payload and numbers were way to few to be meaningfull.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

So here is my question syscom. If you take a A-26 and put 1000lb of bombs on it and send 9 of them each to attack a rail depot. Are those 9000lb of bombs of no use like the Ar-234's. Just wondering your take on it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So here is my question syscom. If you take a A-26 and put 1000lb of bombs on it and send 9 of them each to attack a rail depot. Are those 9000lb of bombs of no use like the Ar-234's. Just wondering your take on it.



Yes. Nine airframes and nine aircrews risked to drop nine bombs is just plane usless. 

Better to use the fighter bombers for jobs like that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

Okay lets put it this way then.

One plane vs another plane. Not 9 bombers vs. 9 bombers.

When it comes to tactical bombers.

What tactical bomber would be more advanced and better than the Ar-234.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay lets put it this way then.
> 
> One plane vs another plane. Not 9 bombers vs. 9 bombers.
> 
> ...



the -234 was advanced but it definatly not the best.

Its only advantage was its speed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

Not saying it was the best bomber, but I am saying in the role that it was used there is not a single tactical bomber out there that was more capable and advanced.

The main reason is this. It could get to the target fast, drop its bombs and get out faster and easier than any other so that it could live to bomb another day easier than other tactical bombers.


----------



## Henk (Jul 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not saying it was the best bomber, but I am saying in the role that it was used there is not a single tactical bomber out there that was more capable and advanced.
> 
> The main reason is this. It could get to the target fast, drop its bombs and get out faster and easier than any other so that it could live to bomb another day easier than other tactical bombers.



I agree.

9 Arado 234 with 1000lb bombs each is not so stupid. If you send in more to do the job you risk of losing more aircraft and just to attack a railroad depot you do not need more. 

The Germans could not risk more and they only send in the right amount to do the job and not more or less.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 20, 2006)

The key is bombs on target to destroy it so you dont need to come back.

Better to send in slower aircraft with a larger payload than to hope your aircrews achieve 100% success with every bomb they drop.

So far my list is:

Heavy bomber: B29
Medium Bomber: over all, the -88. Although in some roles, the A26 and B26 were superior.
Light bomber: Mosquito for most of the war, with the P38 being better in the last several months.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

I will agree with your list overall there. I just think that we need to look at somethings from a different point of view.


----------



## Henk (Jul 20, 2006)

It is Ju-88 guys. If you say Bf-109 and not Me-109 it must thus be Ju-88 and not 88. Only 88 I know is the cannon, 88mm.

I would say the;

B-29, Ju-88 and the B-17.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 20, 2006)

What I have been pondering the past several days is what makes up a great medium bomber.

For instance, the -88 was supurb in many roles, yet the A26 and B26 were both fast bombers, tough airframes and could carry a high payload. But that was for medium altitude operations. I wouldnt say either of them would make a good commerce raider or even hope to be a night fighter, so the -88 is superior there.

I also wonder how the -88 could handle the tough low altitude enviornment the B25 strafers had to operate in in the PTO.

Lots of things to pomder.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> the -234...
> 
> Its only advantage was its speed.



No, it had several advances over it´s competitors, with the most striking beeing faster:

-superior cockpit layout and -visiblity (according to post war RAF-tests), which eased cockpit operations. A very important point for a tactical bomber
-superior crit. Mach speed (.82)-allowed the plane to disengage in a dive 
-very high degree of platform stability
-multirole compatible (with versions flying as recon, bomber, attacker and night fighter)
-all -234C and the post march1945 -234B beeing delivered with Askania computing bombsight (allows bomb dropping solutions for up to 1250 km/h TAS)
-plenty of space weight reserved for future developments as shown in the four engined -234C and swept back sichel wing -234 V27.

None of them is as striking as pure speed, but Your statement imply that it has noting comparable to other bombers except for speed, and to this I disagree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2006)

Henk said:


> It is Ju-88 guys. If you say Bf-109 and not Me-109 it must thus be Ju-88 and not 88. Only 88 I know is the cannon, 88mm.



Way off topic but the actual name of the 109 was the Bf-109 not the Me-109. After the change from the Bf to the Me, the 109 was the only one that kept the Bf.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> What I have been pondering the past several days is what makes up a great medium bomber.
> 
> For instance, the -88 was supurb in many roles, yet the A26 and B26 were both fast bombers, tough airframes and could carry a high payload. But that was for medium altitude operations. I wouldnt say either of them would make a good commerce raider or even hope to be a night fighter, so the -88 is superior there.
> 
> ...



I believe the Ju-88 was the best overall medium bomber but I will agree that the A-26 and the B-25 were better suited for the low level strafing and ground attack.


----------



## Henk (Jul 21, 2006)

The Ju-88 are regarded as the best medium bomber and all round aircraft of WW2 and I have read it in many books and it proved it also such during the war.

Sorry for being off topic here, but Adler did the Bf-110 not also keep the Bf and not become the Me-110?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2006)

I believe you are correct as well. The Bf-110 stayed the Bf-110. The general rule of thumb is this, everything passed the Bf-162 became the Me, hence the Me-163, Me-262.


----------



## Henk (Jul 22, 2006)

Yes, correct Adler.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 1, 2006)

It has to be the Lancaster.

Who else but a genius pom would take a 33 foot long hole and build an airplane around it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> It has to be the Lancaster.


 


k9kiwi said:


> Who else but a genius pom would take a 33 foot long hole and build an airplane around it.


Robert Oppenheimer Oh wait, he just built the bomb that went in the 33 foot long hole, that being the B-29, the best bomber of WW2!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2006)

the B-29's bomb bay was nowhere near as big or versatile as the lancaster's, there was no way she could've taken a tallboy internally, mostly because she actually had two separate bomb bays yes? whilst the B-29 was the better bomber the size of bomb bay and range of weapons it allowed to be carried is still one advantage the lanc had over the B-29, who had to carry outsized loads externally.............


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2006)

I admit that in the picture I've shown it's not a Tallboy...




...it's a Grand Slam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 2, 2006)

There is also this one (although not in the bomb bay the lanc couldn't do this):





B-29 with 2 Tallboys (could also be Grandslams in the same positions). Source on right click.

VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2006)

i struggle to believe the B-29 could take two grand slams, and quite what either of those pictures are supposed to prove is beyond me as i was simply commenting on their ability to carry internal loads, i actually explicitly said the B-29 had to carry outsized loads externally so again, what point are you trying to prove? do you actually think i wasn't aware of those two pictures they've been posted several times before.........


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2006)

Those pictures prove the B-29 could carry just a diverse payload as the Lancaster. Mine proves the B-29 could carry the Tallboy and Grand Slam internally, or just as internal as the Lancaster. When the Lancaster had any of those bombs, they weren't any further in the bomb bay than they are on the B-29.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2006)

only two weapons were ever carried semi-recessed in the lanc, the Upkeep, the riad for which it's questonable the B-29 could've completed anyway, and the Grandslam, tallboys and the 12,000lb HC bomb and the rest of her family could all be carried internally without any problems.........


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 2, 2006)

After or if the Lanc was built / modified with the bulged bomb bay.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2006)

firstly i don't count the simple job of replacing bomb doors as a problem and second most if not all tallboy carrying lancs had the bulged bomb bay long before the tallboy was used...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> only two weapons were ever carried semi-recessed in the lanc, the Upkeep, the riad for which it's questonable the B-29 could've completed anyway, and the Grandslam, tallboys and the 12,000lb HC bomb and the rest of her family could all be carried internally without any problems.........


B-29's were flown and tested with 2 Tallboys on pylons - no sweat. There were also tests and plans to have it carry internally the 42,000 pound T-12. For that its bomb bay had to be modified. Testing in this configuration continued into 1946. Here's a site about it, good stuff....

VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS. Bomb, SAP, 25,000-lb, T28E4

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 2, 2006)

The bulged bomb bay was needed to fit the 8,000 and 12,000 pound cookies in Lancasters.

Many Squadrons used them, The Tallboy was used operationaly only by 617 and 9 Squadrons. After their aircraft were modified.

Your point is?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 2, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> B-29's were flown and tested with 2 Tallboys on pylons - no sweat. There were also tests and plans to have it carry internally the 42,000 pound T-12. For that its bomb bay had to be modified. Testing in this configuration continued into 1946. Here's a site about it, good stuff....
> 
> VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS. Bomb, SAP, 25,000-lb, T28E4


 
dude at no point am i doubting the B-29's abilities to carry bigger payloads than the lanc, nowhere in those few posts have i said the lanc carried bigger payloads than the B-29 i'm getting annoyed now that everytime i comment regarding the B-29 and lanc that i'm trying to say the lanc is the better bomber, i make the exact opposite explicitly clear if you take the effort to read my posts! this all started from me saying the lanc had a bigger, more versatile bomb bay that allowed a greater range of weapons to be carried internally, and that was only in responce to a post from annother member, in reply everyone is posting about the B-29 carrying loads externally which i'd already talked about! jeezz....


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 2, 2006)

Lanc, in what way is the Lancaster better than the B29?

In fact, to be fair, do you think the Lincoln was a better plane?


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 2, 2006)

To quote the shortest sentence ever written.

"Jesus wept".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> dude at no point am i doubting the B-29's abilities to carry bigger payloads than the lanc, nowhere in those few posts have i said the lanc carried bigger payloads than the B-29 i'm getting annoyed now that everytime i comment regarding the B-29 and lanc that i'm trying to say the lanc is the better bomber, i make the exact opposite explicitly clear if you take the effort to read my posts! this all started from me saying the lanc had a bigger, more versatile bomb bay that allowed a greater range of weapons to be carried internally, and that was only in responce to a post from annother member, in reply everyone is posting about the B-29 carrying loads externally which i'd already talked about! jeezz....


Well gee Lanc, do you think there's an obvious reason why we're a little gun-shy???


----------



## johnbr (Aug 2, 2006)

For me it is the B29 big bomb load and long range.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Lanc, in what way is the Lancaster better than the B29?
> 
> In fact, to be fair, do you think the Lincoln was a better plane?



oh for christ's sake! are you incapable of understanding something a 16 year old's saying   i've tried to make it as explicitly clear as possible that i'm _not_ arguing for the lanc being the better bomber, i was simply commenting on their bomb bays in responce to annother member's post! go back, read all my posts carefully, i make it explicitly clear if you take the time to read them as opposed to just reading me say "lanc" and "B-29" and assume i'm contradicting myself by arguing for the lanc being the better bomber, because i've made it quite clear i'm not!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> i make it explicitly clear if you take the time to read them as opposed to just reading me say "lanc" and "B-29" and assume i'm contradicting myself by arguing for the lanc being the better bomber, because i've made it quite clear i'm not!


Are you sure!?!?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2006)

lanc, my picture was of a B-29A with a Grand Slam. It's carrying the load in the exact same way as the Lancaster, "semi-recessed". How is the Lancaster's bomb-bay more diverse? When the B-29 can carry the same equipment internally too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 6, 2006)

it can't carry a tallboy internally, it can't carry a 12,000lb HC bomb internally, it can't carry an 8,000lb HC bomb internally, i don't know the exact dimensions but you'd have to be quite abstract to get a cookie in there, not to mention the range of different payloads, in one lanc you can fit a massive variety of different bombs in one go, pictures i've found of the B-29's bomb bays arrangement seem to be suggestive of the bomb bays being particularly suited to carrying pretty much one size of bomb at a time, and i believe the biggest the yanks had in that range was the 2,000lber? the only modification i've seen for the B-29 even attempting to carry the tallboy internally still has the tallboy semi-recessed..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2006)

Uh Lanc the B-29 had a larger bombay than the Lancaster so how was the Lancasters more versatile? The B-29 could carry the same weapons internally as the Lancaster.

You need to post some evidence for that arguement of yours because its not true.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2006)

length of tallboy- 21ft

length of B-29's bomb bays- each one was 13ft 6 inches, she had two but there was the huge wing spar running between them, ruling out the tallboy internally.........

the 12,000lb HC bomb would also be ruled out owing to similar dimensions

this diagram







also suggests that bombs were only carried facing each other on those racks and bombs were not faced outwards into the centre? I'm also struggling to find dimensions of the cookie and 8,000lb bomb, however if the bombs are stacked in pairs to the sides then no racks would be available anyway and I'd imagine it'd be a squeeze in terms of bomb diammeter...........

Lancaster Bomb Loads

that site lists a number of the lancaster's standard payloads, many of which carry a wide range of different bombs and commanders knew that for whatever bombing they were doing the lancs could carry any combination of RAF bombs for the exact desired effect, the bomb loads were easily adjusted to what was needed allowing many, many more possabilities that were not "standard"

as a final note on bbomb bay versatility after the dams raid, all lancs were converted back into standard bombers no different to any other lancs and were back on normal ops in the next few weeks............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2006)

Good info, where did you get that diagram at?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2006)

sorry should've said, source on right click, or just go straight to B-29 Cutaways: 39th Bomb Group (VH) there are some _very_ interesting shots on that page.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 7, 2006)

To carry oversized bombs internally the B-29 had to be modified and there were plans to modify several for this role.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2006)

Cool thanks guys, learned something new.


----------



## Mtr Bao (Aug 18, 2006)

My vote goes to the He-111 for providing the opp'ty for so many of our brave lads to get onto the score board.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 19, 2006)

what the   and just how many Americans actually shot down He-111s? after the BoB they were mostly used on the eastern front, and there were easier bombers to shoot down.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2006)

Interesting concept I guess.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 25, 2006)

Mtr Bao said:


> My vote goes to the He-111 for providing the opp'ty for so many of our brave lads to get onto the score board.



Hi Lanc, do you think that it is possible for an American to have a sense of irony? There were Americans flying in the BoB (I think about 15-20) so they obviously made the vast majority of the He-111 kills  

But seriously, the He-111 was a good aircraft for it's original design criteria, and was one of the mainstays of the Luftwaffe until it was rendered obsolete.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 26, 2006)

Wow, thanks for doubling the number of Americans in the BoB.  There were only 7 Americans that flew in the BoB. Unfortunatlly, some Americans don;t know that there was actually a war going on in Europe _before_ we got involved!  Morons.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 27, 2006)

I've always known only seven Americans flew in the Battle of Britain. But I'm curious about their performance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2006)

6 KIA, one killed in a non-combat crash...

Battle of Britain American Pilots

The Battle of Britain - Home Page

Here another good link...

Eagle Squadron - Home > History > Eagle Squadrons


----------



## Raf ace (Jan 13, 2007)

I think the greatest bomber needs to carry loads of bombs and could clime altidute that fighter can t reach


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

You just described the B-29.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

but mostly because of the low ceiling of the japaneese fighters


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

No the B-29 could fly higher than all the other major bombers including the Lancaster, B-17, and B-24. Besides the Pressurized Cockpit was really fricken nice at those altitudes.

Service Cielings 

Lancaster: 23,500 ft (8,160 m) 
B-17: 35,600 ft (10,850 m)
B-24: 28,000 ft (8,500 m)
*B-29: 36,000 ft. (10,973 m)*

However for the most part over the ETO that would not have mattered because the Luftwaffe had aircraft that could flyer higher than that. So in that case you are correct in saying that the Japanese did not really have a true high alltitude fighter to deal with the B-29.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2007)

that's the point i was trying to make, with a little baiting


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)

Oh you dirty little fox, oh......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2007)

you just couldn't help but rise to it either could you


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)

Nope ofcourse not. Its part of our cat and mouse game. Atleast we keep it friendly...unlike others


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2007)

which one's which between us then


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)

You are definatly the mouse....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2007)

good because i was just thinking you're a bit of a pu$$y


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2007)

you shouldda seen that one coming


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 14, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)

Yeah I walked right into it.


----------



## YakFlyer (Jan 15, 2007)

I am going to say straight out, B-29. Haven't read most of the pages in this one, but haven't looked at the statistics. The B-24 and Lancaster both contributed a huge amount ,but were cut up in huge numbers, as was the B17, what do you mean by best? Stats wise? Losses wise? Or what? 
Anyway, still the B-29.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2007)

I dont think it can be argued at all. The best bomber period of WW2 was the B-29.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

with the lancaster a _very _clear second


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2007)

You just had to throw that in there did you know...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

of course i had to! don't want people getting the wrong idea now


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2007)




----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

Since I am a openmined fellow,

off course the best Bomber in WWII was the B-29.


----------



## trackend (Feb 20, 2007)

B29 the best, but most effective (using conventional bombs) The Lanc 

The splinters from this fence are killing me


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Since I am a openmined fellow,
> 
> off course the best Bomber in WWII was the B-29.



What are you really thinking? Me-262....


----------



## Jabo (Feb 21, 2007)

Yes,
without any doubts B-29

Jabo


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

You have 15 more minutes Jabo....clocks ticking...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You have 15 more minutes Jabo....clocks ticking...




This is fun following Chris around. Watching Chris kick some butt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

I am not kicking but. I will simply just ban his ass...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not kicking but. I will simply just ban his ass...



LOL


----------



## Civettone (Feb 21, 2007)

Couldn't it be that someone else is posting from the same IP? 
(I assume you're basing this on IP, right?)


I hope I'm not wrong. Would be so stupid of him to get banned this way 

Kris


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Couldn't it be that someone else is posting from the same IP?
> (I assume you're basing this on IP, right?)
> 
> 
> ...



Mods have talked to him and taken care of it.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 21, 2007)

> taken care of it.


What does that mean? Do I have to understand that as a maffia expression? 


Kris


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2007)

Civettone said:


> What does that mean? Do I have to understand that as a maffia expression?
> 
> 
> Kris



If you want more ask Wespe, I doubt any Mods will tell you anything about it.

Jabo account has been banned, the Wespe account is not banned.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Couldn't it be that someone else is posting from the same IP?
> (I assume you're basing this on IP, right?)
> 
> 
> ...



No this was not based off of IP.

We have certain security features on this site. I will leave it at that. 

On that note, we dont tolerate playing games, that are childish or not in the interest of this forum.


----------



## BAGTIC (Mar 29, 2007)

It isn't even close. 

Best bomber: B-29. Faster, higher, farther, and more payload.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

From time to time I read "farther". Is it American English or does it exist next to "further" in British English?


Off-topic, I know.
Kris


----------



## Negative Creep (Apr 5, 2007)

If you mean best in terms of specification and achievements I'd have to go with the B-29. From a romantic POV, I'd say the Lancaster due to the looks and noise. Also got a soft spot for the B-24, as it's totally ignored in favour of the B-17


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2007)

There is no argueing about it. Favorite and best are 2 different things. The B-29 is the best bomber of WW2.

I do understand what you are saying though. To me the best is the B-17 only because I love what she did and the way she looks but the Best Bomber of WW2 was the B-29.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 5, 2007)

My favorite bomber is the Do 217 but I consider the Mosquito and the B-29 the best. I can't chose between them as they are really different class. I think I would go for a compromise: the Mosquito as the best WW2 bomber but the B-29 the best bomber ever (because it lead to the B-50 and Tu-95 and in a way to the B-52).

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 5, 2007)

Civettone said:


> My favorite bomber is the Do 217 but I consider the Mosquito and the B-29 the best. I can't chose between them as they are really different class. I think I would go for a compromise: the Mosquito as the best WW2 bomber but the B-29 the best bomber ever (because it lead to the B-50 and Tu-95 and in a way to the B-52).
> 
> Kris



And why was the Mosquito superior to the B17/B24/B32 and Lanc in the bombing role?


----------



## MAV_406 (Apr 7, 2007)

can some one explaine the B-29s gun aiming system. i know it was remote but did they use a camera to aim it or something. 

you also can not forget the wellington for its strucsher. 
sorry about spelling, im dislexsict


----------



## Civettone (Apr 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> And why was the Mosquito superior to the B17/B24/B32 and Lanc in the bombing role?


Easy Sycom, it suffered lower losses and was more accurate.
I even recall the Mosquito suffering the lowest losses of all WW2 bombers. 

As you mention only heavy bombers, I assume you believe bomb load is what makes the best bomber. According to such a theory, all heavy bombers are better than all medium or light bombers. 
Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Easy Sycom, it suffered lower losses and was more accurate.
> I even recall the Mosquito suffering the lowest losses of all WW2 bombers.
> 
> As you mention only heavy bombers, I assume you believe bomb load is what makes the best bomber. According to such a theory, all heavy bombers are better than all medium or light bombers.
> Kris



The B29, Lanc, B17, B24 and B32 all carried a heavier payload at a farther range than the Mosquito. 

The B29 also could carry an atomic bomb which no other aircraft in WW2 could.

All of the other bombers were used successfully in the long range maritime patrol role, of which the Mosquito was at a tremendous disadvantage.

The B29 and Lanc could also carry mines.

The Mosquito's accuracy was good at low altitudes, but no better than any other bomber at mid and high altitudes.

Now what were you saying about the Mosquito being the best bomber?


----------



## mkloby (Apr 7, 2007)

Civettone said:


> From time to time I read "farther". Is it American English or does it exist next to "further" in British English?
> 
> Off-topic, I know.
> Kris



far /fɑr/ - adverb, adjective, far·ther or fur·ther, far·thest or fur·thest. 
–adverb 

I think it's hard to justify another A/C being a better bomber than the 29. B-17 will always have a special place in my heart, but the B-29 was hands down the best HEAVY bomber, and you'd have a tough case to argue another bomber was better. The mosquito and and superfort only really have in common that they are both generally called "bombers." On an operational note, they shared little.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Apr 7, 2007)

Completely agree. They are difficult to compare. The main reason why I chose Mosquito over B-29 is because the Mosquito was around longer than the B-29 which I consider the best bomber of all times.

Thanks for the English lesson. Appreciate it! 
Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2007)

MAV_406 said:


> can some one explaine the B-29s gun aiming system. i know it was remote but did they use a camera to aim it or something.
> 
> you also can not forget the wellington for its strucsher.
> sorry about spelling, im dislexsict



The B29 aiming system was comprised of optical sights that fed range and az/el infomration to a analog ballistics computer.

The computer in turn, automatically controlled four remote gun turrets. If everything went well, this was quite an accurate setup.

What made this system unique was the use of a central fire control gunner, who determined which gunner on the airplane had the best "view" of the approaching target, and slaved the turrets to his sight.

The only gunner who was not part of the system was the tail gunner, who had his own gunsight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 8, 2007)

Allright syscom and Civettone. You guys are letting your arguement in the sea lion thread carry over to this one now. Lay off of each other okay. It really is pathetic and childish.

You can not compare any heavy bomber to a Mosquito. They were two different types of aircraft with different kind of missions.

To compare the B-29, B-32, B-17 and B-24 to the Mossie is rediculous!


----------



## Civettone (Apr 8, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Allright syscom and Civettone. You guys are letting your arguement in the sea lion thread carry over to this one now. Lay off of each other okay. It really is pathetic and childish.


[whine voice]But he started it!![/whine voice] 

But seriously, he is the one replying to every post I make just to piss me off. But fine, I'll just ignore him from now on...



> To compare the B-29, B-32, B-17 and B-24 to the B-29 is rediculous!


I suppose you mean to the Mosquito ... or any light/medium bomber.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I suppose you mean to the Mosquito ... or any light/medium bomber.
> 
> Kris



Yes thankyou.


----------



## Camarogenius (Apr 13, 2007)

I haven't been on the site for awhile, Did this question ever get answered definitively?
I still say the 17.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2007)

Camarogenius said:


> I haven't been on the site for awhile, Did this question ever get answered definitively?
> I still say the 17.



Get real - B-29....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Apr 14, 2007)

Also depends on if you want to take WW2 as a whole or just at any given time in WW2. I prefer the first option else no aircraft or weapon of the early war years has a chance of being the best in its category.

Kris


----------



## Hop (Apr 14, 2007)

> The B29 and Lanc could also carry mines.



So could the Mosquito.

They were only used for minelaying sorties occasionally, though. In general, minelaying carried far less risk from enemy action than conventional bombing operations, and was carried out by secondary types. Of the minelaying sorties flown by BC, the Wellington carried out the most, then the Stirling, Halifax, Hampden, Lancaster and Mosquito.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2007)

The tittle of the thread is "Best bomber of WW2", which is inclusive of the years 1939-1945.

If you want to subdivide it then start a new thread.


----------



## renrich (May 7, 2007)

I agree with the proposition that the B29 was the best heavy bomber of WW2. I expect this is common knowledge but had a conversation with a fellow who was a navigator on B29 in WW2. He said they started bombing Japan from high altitude where the plane was designed to operate from above a lot of the flak and fighter opposition. Said they couldn't hit doodley squat because the winds aloft were so fierce that their bombing was grossly inaccurate. That is when they started going in at low altitude at night and quit flying formation and started going in in a stream.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2007)

It is called the jet stream and we did not know much about it at the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## T4.H (May 9, 2007)

The B29 was the best bomber over japan.

I think, there was a reason, why this bomber was not used over europe. The germans could construct and build fighters, who would fly even higher and faster. The japanese couldn't. This bomber was big. It could fly realy fast and high and this was the best protection for the B29. But if I remember correctly, it was not good protected against hits.
For me, the Lancaster was the best bomber, the Mosquito was the best of the smaler ones over europe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2007)

T4.H said:


> The B29 was the best bomber over japan.
> 
> I think, there was a reason, why this bomber was not used over europe. The germans could construct and build fighters, who would fly even higher and faster. The japanese couldn't. This bomber was big, fast and could fly realy high and this was the main protection for the B29. But if I remember correctly, it was no good protected.
> 
> For me, the Lancaster was the best bomber, the Mosquito was the best of the smaler ones.



Both the Germans and Japanese had fighters that were capable of intercepting the B-29. The reason why the B-29 wasn't used in Europe was because the USAAF was going to replace all the B-17s and B-24s with the B-32 Dominator and during 1944 had plenty of aircraft to supply the 8th Air Force armada over Europe during that period and the B-32 was over a year behind schedule. The B-32 would have been used in Europe had the war lasted longer. The B-29 was first needed over the Pacific because of range. The B-29 was a technology a head of the Lancaster in all aspects of systems, operations and performance, and don't forget about that little bomb 2 B-29s carried. The B-29 had the most advanced fire control system in existence and could more than take care if itself. You’re a little lacking in facts and figures; I suggest you go through this whole thread as both aircraft were discussed in great detail.

I rate the Lancaster a distant second.


----------



## Juha (May 10, 2007)

Hello FlyboyJ
Even if I think that B-29 was the best bomber used during WWII, I’d not say that it 

“could more than take care if itself.” If that was true why the need for escort fighters and why the bombing campaign was so expensive in men and machines. Of course one reason was the unreliability of R-3350 engines but there were also many losses to Japanese fighters.

And Lancaster Specials could carry 5 and 10 tons bombs, so Lanc had the lifting capacity but not the range.

“The B-29 was a technology a head of the Lancaster in all aspects of systems, operations and performance” 
I agree that but B-29 still lacked reliability even if they found out ways to minimize the strain to engines and so improve the reliability. 
I still agree with that that B-29 was the best bomber of WWII.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2007)

Juha said:


> Hello FlyboyJ
> Even if I think that B-29 was the best bomber used during WWII, I’d not say that it
> 
> “could more than take care if itself.” If that was true why the need for escort fighters and why the bombing campaign was so expensive in men and machines. Of course one reason was the unreliability of R-3350 engines but there were also many losses to Japanese fighters.
> ...



You're almost right....

Many of the B-29 raids were accomplished without escorts as the 29s were flown at altitudes beyond the ability of most Japanese fighters to intercept. It was later in the war when the big bomber went low level is when they were escorted in and out of target, and even at that point the fighter escort was permitted to leave the bombers to strafe target of opportunity once the target was bombed. The B-29 never had more than a 10% loss loss rate from all causes, both WW2 and during the Korean conflict.

As far as reliability? Sure the first year there were problems with the 3350, but many of those problems (like any other new aircraft would have) were remedied by the time the firebombing offensive against Japan was started in April 1945. The B-29 turned out to be a very reliable aircraft, served in 2 wars and served for 15 years, it doesn't get any better than that.

Bomb loads? The B-29 could carry block busters under its wings. The Lancaster came close to bomb carrying ability but it wasn't flying that bomb load as fast, as long and as high as a B-29....

It wan't a Lancaster the USSR chose to copy ....


----------



## Juha (May 10, 2007)

Hello FlyboyJ

I agree with that. But not so sure that the problems of 3350s were erased. IIRC when the British used Washingtons (loaned B-29s in 50s) they still had problems with engines. "Very good 3-engine bomber" they tended to say, but admitted that it was more sophisticated than Avro Lincoln.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2007)

Juha said:


> Hello FlyboyJ
> 
> I agree with that. But not so sure that the problems of 3350s were erased. IIRC when the British used Washingtons (loaned B-29s in 50s) they still had problems with engines. "Very good 3-engine bomber" they tended to say, but admitted that it was more sophisticated than Avro Lincoln.


But that was the case with all large radial recips, especially when installed on multi-engined aircraft. The 3350 had a large part of the engine made out of magnesium, a little flame and, well you know the rest. The reliability factor of the radial was apparent in the post WW2 years where all major airliners kept to the large radial until the turbine engine was scene.

When TWA was operating the Constellation, there was a continual program to ensure that engines were available, even at stations where there were little or no maintenance facilitilites. It was accepted that these engines in post war operation weren't going to last to overhaul.

Here's some more info on the 3350 and the B-29...

_"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat.

These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing.

This problem would not be fully cured until the aircraft was re-engined with the more powerful Pratt Whitney R-4360 'Wasp Major' in the B-29D/B-50 program, which arrived too late for World War II. Interim measures included cuffs placed on propeller blades to divert a greater flow of cooling air into the intakes, which had baffles installed to direct a stream of air onto the exhaust valves. Oil flow to the valves was also increased, asbestos baffles installed around rubber push rod fittings to prevent oil loss, thorough pre-flight inspections made to detect unseated valves, and frequent replacement of the uppermost 5 cylinders (every 25 hours of engine time) and engines (75 hours)."_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2007)

The fact that the B-29 needed air escort is a weak argument. The B-17 needed air escort, the B-24 needed air escort, and if the Lancaster had flown more day missions it would have needed air escort. It certainly needed air escort when it flew day missions.

ALL BOMBERS NEEDED AIR ESCORT, ESPECIALLY OVER EUROPE.

The B-29 could carry a large load, the furthest distance at high altitudes and was more advanced than any bomber in the sky at the time. As FBJ pointed out, it had the best fire control system of any bomber.

There is no way to say that any bomber was better than the B-29.

If the need had risen the B-29 would have found its way to Europe as well...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (May 10, 2007)

Adler
I know, I know...but as I wrote, my post was a reaction to Flyboy J's statement that B-29 “could more than take care if itself". To my understanding a plane that can take care of itself doesn't need escort, and a plane which can more than take care of itself needs escort even less. Now unescorted B-29s could always, at least during WWII, fought their way to their targets but sometimes suffered rather heavy losses to enemy so USAAF decided that the escort would not be a bad idea after all.
Flyboy's answer was very good so I have no reason to continue argument with him and after all I have been in opinion that B-29 was the best bomber of WWII since late 60s onwards.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2007)

My uncle flew in B-29s in Korea and in both B-29s and B-50s after Korea. He revealed to me that he had flown 'ferret' missions into the Soviet Union. On one occasion they shot their way out but not without having their aircraft filled with holes. F-86s showed up to save the day.

Of course this is just one of many Cold War actions that will never be confirmed or denied.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## B-17G (May 25, 2007)

Has anyone mentioned the B-17? I personally think that it was the best bomber.(just look at my username) Correct me if I am wrong but couldn't the B-17 withstand the most battle damage of all the bombers in WWII?


----------



## B-17G (May 25, 2007)

Sorry, I see that the B-17 was already discussed. How do you determine which is the best bomber? (missions, lossses, range)? I don't think this discussion will ever be done.


----------



## syscom3 (May 25, 2007)

B-17G said:


> Sorry, I see that the B-17 was already discussed. How do you determine which is the best bomber? (missions, lossses, range)? I don't think this discussion will ever be done.



Ultimatley, it was the USSBS produced after the war that identified what worked and what didnt.

The B29 was obviously the best bomber of WW2.

The Lanc came in 2nd place as it could carry the large bombs needed to destroy the industrial machinery in the factories.

Although I still say the B24 was 2nd best in the PTO and CBI theaters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2007)

B-17G said:


> Sorry, I see that the B-17 was already discussed. How do you determine which is the best bomber? (missions, lossses, range)? I don't think this discussion will ever be done.


Bomb load, performance, impact, defensive armament and systems. The B-29 was almost a generation a head of any WW2 heavy bomber.


----------



## bomber (May 31, 2007)

Aren't numbers built and number of missions taken as a factor ?

If we applied the same criteria to fighters, it'd make the 262 the best fighter of WWII wouldn't it ?

Simon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2007)

bomber said:


> Aren't numbers built and number of missions taken as a factor ?
> 
> If we applied the same criteria to fighters, it'd make the 262 the best fighter of WWII wouldn't it ?
> 
> Simon


No - the 262 had little or no impact on the war, can't say the same about the B-29....


----------



## drgondog (May 31, 2007)

_ You're almost right....

Many of the B-29 raids were accomplished without escorts as the 29s were flown at altitudes beyond the ability of most Japanese fighters to intercept. It was later in the war when the big bomber went low level is when they were escorted in and out of target, and even at that point the fighter escort was permitted to leave the bombers to strafe target of opportunity once the target was bombed. The B-29 never had more than a 10% loss loss rate from all causes, both WW2 and during the Korean conflict.

As far as reliability? Sure the first year there were problems with the 3350, but many of those problems (like any other new aircraft would have) were remedied by the time the firebombing offensive against Japan was started in April 1945. _

It is perhaps a nit but the first low level firebombing missions occurred on March 9, 1945 shortly after LeMay took over XXI BC while reporting to Joint Chiefs.

His reasoning was a.) low stress on engines, b.) Japanese had almost zero night defense capability - Nothing to compare to Germans, c.) heavier bomb load capability after stripping all guns (and gunners) except tail, and removing Tokyo tanks, d.) Japanese believed to have lousy firefighting capability and most dwellings made of wood, e.) no escort required, and f.) high level results were TERRIBLE to date.

His crews thought they were all going to die and the rest is history. 

I'm often wrong (but rarely uncertain) but I don't think any of the night raids ever had fighter escort! And most of the missions after March, 1945 until the Okinawa pre-invasion were night raids - after that a mix of high and low

The two most amusing parts of his 'recollections' were a.) LeMay had to get to the 5th Page of the Logistics Priorities set by the US Navy to find the first item related to the B-29s (the primary reason for taking the Marianas) and .b) He told Nimitz after the 13th that he would run out of incidieries by the 19th of March - and Nimitz didn't believe him - and got reamed by Joint Chiefs when LeMay had to stop these extremely successful attacks until more (many more) incindieries could be shipped in. They used up what was believed adequate for 6 months in 10 days.

The best single reference on this subject is Mission With LeMay an autobiography by McKantor(?CRS in play)

My vote is on the B-29, too bad the 36 didn't fly a little bit sooner.

Regards,

Bill

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2007)

Some of those early spy missions flown deep into the USSR with B45s, B47s and others are really interesting stories. I would not argue the point but my favorite WW2 bombers were the B26 Marauder, the A20 and it's succesor the other B26. I read somewhere that the early pilots of the Marauder were afraid of the airplane and Jimmy Doolittle came to the base and put it through it's paces to reassure them. It went on to be a formidable medium bomber with a low loss rate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2007)

The lowlevel B29 missions were also a function of poor bombing accuracy from high altitude because of the jet stream.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bomber (Jun 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No - the 262 had little or no impact on the war, can't say the same about the B-29....



If we take away the 2 nukes... what was the comparable impact between the B29 and B24 on the war ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2007)

bomber said:


> If we take away the 2 nukes... what was the comparable impact between the B29 and B24 on the war ?


The B-29 buried mainland Japan, especially the firebombings in April 1945 which killed more people than the atominc bombings. It was also used to mine the entire Japanese coastline as well. 

The B-24 in the Pacific was a good reliable heavy bomber that was used to hit targets that were soon to be invaded. No way did it have the range and bomb load to do what the B-29 did.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 4, 2007)

A lesser known mission that the B29's had were the mining of the inland seas.

Two mines were carried by each B29.

This shut down the last of the merchant ship operations between the Japanese cities. If anything, the Japanese were not only having their cities burned to the ground, but now were on the verge of famine since food stocks could not be distributed with any efficiency

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2007)

This is from the USAF Historical Research Agency. Look at the jump in dropped bomb tonnage in 1944, about the time the B-29 came on scene. Compare it to Mid 1945 and I think the B-29s impact is more than apparent.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 4, 2007)

Joe - well put. Another thought regarding the B-29 is that the case could be made that the Japanese were very close to capitulating before the Atomic bomb was dropped.. in retorspect I think the shock of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the political leverage necessary to push them over but we will never know.

As pointed out, it also made a huge contribution to choking Japanese freighters on the coast via the mine dropping campaign.

It was the best Weather Recon beast in the war.

The B-29 basically burned out Japan, destroying all of the cottage industries the Japanese located within their cities - burning to the ground every city the size of Nashville and up. LeMay ran out of targets and the B-29 became the closest approximation for airpower actually winning a war. We know that far too many keys to the war including Naval Airpower, Subs and Marine/Army blood was shed to make that statement 'true' but still close.

The Lancaster, the B-17 and the B-24 were each crucial to advancing airpower in Europe (ditto B-24 in Pacific) and individually Important - but individually neither the Most Important or the Best. The Me262 is not even close in this discussion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eodmatt (Sep 9, 2007)

Good morning all!

I happened upon this forum accidentally whilst doing some research on bombing accuracy and found it fascinating, so joined up. A reason I found this site was that a Google search revealed that a member of this site, called Krazy Kanuk, posted a link to a table or chart some time ago, which apparently gave bombing accuracy figures for either the Vietnam war or WW2. Regrettably that link doesn't lead anywhere now and I wondered if any of the members could give me any references to, or data regarding, bombing accuracy during those periods. If anyone could, I would be most grateful and it would assist my research considerably. Thanks in advance, Matt.


----------



## planeman45 (Sep 10, 2007)

Hello, I really like this forum, my friend Bobby has told me about a few websites and I want to say , I did not know a place with hobbyists alike existed out there. 

I think of the Mustang as the best fighter of WWII, just as the car is...but this account of a pilot who flew both the Jug and the Mustang was quite interesting.

P-47 THUNDERBOLT

Below i've put a summary of his 12 points 

Air-cooled radial engine was more reliable and could take hits and keep on running, even with inoperable cylinders.

The Jug's air-cooled engine did not have the Achilles' heel that the Mustang did.

The P-47's big turbocharger enabled it to fly to 40 000 feet

The Jug could outdive the Mustang.

The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six.

Later Jug's could carry 2,500 lbs of bombs.

The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction.

The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom, so it handled ditchings and gear up landings much better.

The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit. 

The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection.

The Jug had a very wide landing gear

The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is remarkable. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and 160,000 vehicles.

Although Mustang seems to be defeated in all these categories, I think the fascination with the classic aircraft to this day has something to do with its aesthetic appeal.


----------



## renrich (Sep 10, 2007)

Some good points on the P47 but the Jug never had the range of the Mustang and could not get into the fight far into Germany. The F4U had many of the attributes of the Jug and could operate off of carriers so how about it for the best WW2 fighter?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2007)

planeman45 said:


> Hello, I really like this forum, my friend Bobby has told me about a few websites and I want to say , I did not know a place with hobbyists alike existed out there.
> 
> I think of the Mustang as the best fighter of WWII, just as the car is...but this account of a pilot who flew both the Jug and the Mustang was quite interesting.
> 
> ...




And what does this have to do with the Best Bomber of WW2?!?!?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2007)




----------



## johnbr (Sep 11, 2007)

I wonder how the B29 would have done with Wright R-3350 turbo compound engines.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 12, 2007)

johnbr said:


> I wonder how the B29 would have done with Wright R-3350 turbo compound engines.



The B29 was eventually reequipped with R4360's and was known as the B50.

Better engine and better plane.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 15, 2007)

Wot, no kudos for the Short Stirling? By jove, how cheeky.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 15, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Another thought regarding the B-29 is that the case could be made that the Japanese were very close to capitulating before the Atomic bomb was dropped.. i



I'm not so sure about that. Why do you think that? Their Army, Navy and Royal court were all in disarray. Capitulation... NO! 

A conditional surrender... yes. There is a BIG difference.

Operation Coronet? Operation Olympia? I believe the A Bombs prevented the fore mentioned operations from becoming reality. Capitulation was not a realistic option...

.


----------



## k9kiwi (Sep 18, 2007)

> no kudos for the Short Stirling



Nope, due to a stupid design spec its wing span was shortened to fit the hangers of the day, leading to wierd wing angles and large propellers, requiring a complicated landing gear that was prone to failure.

Nope, not even a passing hallo for the Stirling. Kiwis from 75 Sqn that flew it, hated it with a passion and were much happier when they changed to the Lancaster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> Wot, no kudos for the Short Stirling? By jove, how cheeky.


Not even close governor!


----------



## 16KJV11 (Oct 8, 2007)

Ahh, it's the venerable, obsolete Fairy Swordfish for me, put the bloody Eyetie Navy out of action and mortally wounded the Bizmark she did.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 8, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> Ahh, it's the venerable, obsolete Fairy Swordfish for me, put the bloody Eyetie Navy out of action and mortally wounded the Bizmark she did.



Youre kidding right?

An obsolete in 1942 torpedo bomber in the same league as the B17, B24, B29, Lanc, B25 and B26? Even the Avenger was magnitudes better than the Swordfish when it came to level bombing.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 8, 2007)

In fairness though, the Stringbag outlasted at least 2 other aircraft that were designed to replace it. 

These debates always lead to no real conclusion, comparing the big heavy bombers to the smaller ones, or even the medium bombers is tough. They all fulfilled different roles in different situations.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 8, 2007)

evangilder said:


> In fairness though, the Stringbag outlasted at least 2 other aircraft that were designed to replace it.
> 
> These debates always lead to no real conclusion, comparing the big heavy bombers to the smaller ones, or even the medium bombers is tough. They all fulfilled different roles in different situations.



Evan, the Avenger outlasted the Swordfish and out performed it in every aspect in far more intense naval battles.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Oct 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Youre kidding right?
> 
> An obsolete in 1942 torpedo bomber in the same league as the B17, B24, B29, Lanc, B25 and B26? Even the Avenger was magnitudes better than the Swordfish when it came to level bombing.



I am kidding, but the old Stringbag did have a profound effect upon the war effort as well as morale for Britain.
I have read "To War in a Stringbag" by Lt. Commander Lamb several times and continue to be amazed that an aircraft that couldn't reach 150mph in a dive, with a tailwind,  could be so effective.


----------



## magnocain (Oct 31, 2007)

Even though the Swordfish wasn't the _Best_ bomber of ww2, it was among the _greatest_ bombers of ww2. We have to give it some credit.
But otherwise the best bomber was the B-29


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2007)

magnocain said:


> Even though the Swordfish wasn't the _Best_ bomber of ww2, it was among the _greatest_ bombers of ww2. We have to give it some credit.
> But otherwise the best bomber was the B-29



The "Kate" and Avenger were magnitudes better than the Swordfish.


----------



## Neto (Nov 1, 2007)

magnocain said:


> But otherwise the best bomber was the B-29



you said b 29 ..
b 29 is one of the most recent bomber of ww2 and have incredible tecnoligies advancements,but i don't conform that is the best bomber of ww2 due to his limited number of missions that partecipated.
He don't have sufficient time to prove that is the best bomber of ww2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2007)

Neto said:


> you said b 29 ..
> b 29 is one of the most recent bomber of ww2 and have incredible tecnoligies advancements,but i don't conform that is the best bomber of ww2 due to his limited number of missions that partecipated.
> He don't have sufficient time to prove that is the best bomber of ww2.



Hogwash....

As stated earlier in this debut, the B-29 entered service in 1944 and its impact was immediately felt. It was a technical leap ahead of ANYTHING flying during that period and the fact that by war's end there were over 1000 available was also a feat in itself.

Limited missions? Look here...


Army Air Forces in World War II

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2007)

I suppose two nuke bombings 1600 miles from base isnt enough for anyone to pass judgement on its capabilities.


----------



## Neto (Nov 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hogwash....
> 
> As stated earlier in this debut, the B-29 entered service in 1944 and its impact was immediately felt. It was a technical leap ahead of ANYTHING flying during that period and the fact that by war's end there were over 1000 available was also a feat in itself.
> 
> ...



ok i see that b 29 is your favorite bomber...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2007)

Neto said:


> ok i see that b 29 is your favorite bomber...


Actually its not - but I do know it was the best all round heavy bomber of WW2.


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 1, 2007)

I see the B-29 was by far the most advanced bomber aircraft in WW2. To me it is not exciting to compare the B-29 with Japanese airplanes like Ki-61s in terms of aviation technology, but the fighting is.

It is very interesting that the B-29 became one of the worst machine to fly in just few years later during the Korean Conflict. 

The Lancaster is my choice if I were asked. I see the Swordfish was the only aircraft capable of flying from the small MAC ships to provide air covers for the convoys in the Atlantic during 1943-44 period.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2007)

> It is very interesting that the B-29 became one of the worst machine to fly in just few years later during the Korean Conflict.



It wasnt the worst aircraft to fly in the Korean war. Few were lost.



> The Lancaster is my choice if I were asked.


And why is that? The B29 had a longer range, payload, defensive capability, electronics ECM and radar bombing capability and flew faster.



> I see the Swordfish was the only aircraft capable of flying from the small MAC ships to provide air covers for the convoys in the Atlantic during 1943-44 period.



The Avenger was far superior to the Swordfish in every catagory, after it became available in late 1942.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> I see the B-29 was by far the most advanced bomber aircraft in WW2. To me it is not exciting to compare the B-29 with Japanese airplanes like Ki-61s in terms of aviation technology, but the fighting is.
> 
> It is very interesting that the B-29 became one of the worst machine to fly in just few years later during the Korean Conflict.


The B-29 maintained about a 10% combat loss rate from WW2 to Korea. It was far from the worse aircraft of the Korean War.


ppopsie said:


> The Lancaster is my choice if I were asked. I see the Swordfish was the only aircraft capable of flying from the small MAC ships to provide air covers for the convoys in the Atlantic during 1943-44 period.


The Lancaster was a half a generation behind the B-29 in terms of systems, configuration and capability.


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 maintained about a 10% combat loss


Ten percent? One percent combat loss is better make sense to me.

My fault was not mentioning about the source; some veteran's comments in a very beautiful photo book "Korean Air War" by Dorr and Thompson on the pages71,72 and 85 about the bomber was mostly against it. 

According to them during the Korean war the B-29s were still with power plant probelms, being obsolecent and heavy, and was difficult to fly. Even an ex-pilot mentioned on the book that he was advised to choose any type of the air force planes but the -29s before he got a wing. 

These views were directed toward once the best bomber of the world just a few years back ,and are amazing things to me. Aviation technologies advenced or jumped so rapidly in and around the era. 

Many of the remarks in the book are very interesting but are out of the focus on the forum, aren't they?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> Ten percent? One percent combat loss is better make sense to me.


For a heavy bomber that populated the 19th and 20th AF during the heaviest bombing of Japan plus its service in Korea against the Mig-15, 10 percent was a great number considering that totaled about 300 B-29s lost in both wars


ppopsie said:


> My fault was not mentioning about the source; some veteran's comments in a very beautiful photo book "Korean Air War" by Dorr and Thompson on the pages71,72 and 85 about the bomber was mostly against it.
> 
> According to them during the Korean war the B-29s were still with power plant probelms, being obsolecent and heavy, and was difficult to fly. Even an ex-pilot mentioned on the book that he was advised to choose any type of the air force planes but the -29s before he got a wing.
> 
> ...


My uncle was a B-29 radio operator. He had no problems with the B-29 but preferred the B-50 (which he also flew in). The only thing that passed up the B-29 was time and technology, but then again the Russians saw through this producing their own bootleg copy...


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 2, 2007)

>their own bootleg copy...
Yes. They proved it was useless by themselves.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2007)

The B-29 became obselete in Korea simply because of the advance in turbojet fighters; hardly surprising and pretty obvious.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Neto said:


> you said b 29 ..
> b 29 is one of the most recent bomber of ww2 and have incredible tecnoligies advancements,but i don't conform that is the best bomber of ww2 due to his limited number of missions that partecipated.
> He don't have sufficient time to prove that is the best bomber of ww2.



Since according to you the B-29 only flew on a limited number of missions I would like you to list every mission that it flew on. Date and target please. I mean if it flew on limited missions you should be able to do that.

Besides that would not decide whether it was the best or not. The fact that it was more advanced and its capabilities make it the best bomber.

Now seriously the B-29 flew its first combat mission on June 5, 1944. There was still over a year left in the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> >their own bootleg copy...
> Yes. They proved it was useless by themselves.



How's that? They used it into the eraly 1960s. The Chinese were still flying it up to a few years ago....


It was useless by the time it entered service with their air force. The only thing it could of been counted on was a one way suicide mission into the US, but the fact remains the Russians still built it and it gave them the technology to build larger multi-engine aircraft, both military and civilian. Without the Tu-4 program, the Soviet Union would of been 10 years behind the west in large multi-engine aircraft production.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2007)

Neto said:


> you said b 29 ..
> b 29 is one of the most recent bomber of ww2 and have incredible tecnoligies advancements,but i don't conform that is the best bomber of ww2 due to his limited number of missions that partecipated.
> He don't have sufficient time to prove that is the best bomber of ww2.



Not sure how you measure best so help me out here.

it was the fastest, highest flying, biggest load carrying, most versatile heavy bomber in production in World War II. Usually that helps define 'best'

It was a day bomber, a night bomber, a high altitude bomber and low altitude bomber, it was a mine layer, weather recon ship.

It burnt out every city in Japan larger than Toledo Spain and suffered very few losses without escort to either flak or fighters. Combined with USN Submarines its mine laying closed off maritime shipping to and from Japan - completely blockading Japan from all external supplies and food.

It was the instrument of final defeat to Japan with the delivery of both atomic boms - perhaps saving the lives of millions of Japanese and 500,000+ American and Soviet lives if an invasion had been necessary.

it was thye primary deterrent to USSR expansion into western Europe post was and the sword hanging over USSR until they attained their own nuclear weapons.

please help me understand why you don't think it was either a.) most important, or b.) the 'best'??

Regards,

Bill

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## magnocain (Nov 9, 2007)

the b-29 is clearly the best in 95 of 100 catagories. it also has the huge advantage of coming very late in the war with lot of advanced technology.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 14, 2007)

I think it's always an easy way to list a heavy bomber as these usually carry a bigger payload over a greater distance with a similar speed. As such a light bomber like the A-20 would never have a chance in a comparison with a B-24. But you can have two, three or four light bombers for one heavy. Same thing goes for certain modern-day aircraft. F-22 versus F-5. F-22 better at everything but at what cost? 
The B-29 was the most expensive plane of WW2 and you could probably get half a dozen of B-25s for that. Those combined would not make it the strategic bomber the B-29 was ... but ... the B-29 was not suited as a tactical bomber either. So if you talk about the best bomber, be sure to compare tactical vs strategical bombers. 

For those two reasons alone, I feel the best bomber would have to be a medium bomber which was capable of both strategic as tactical bombings. And medium bombers aren't too expensive. So ... B-26, Mosquito, Tu-2, Ju 88, ... 


A second issue is that late WW2 aircraft are generally better than early WW2 aircraft. A list of best WW2 aircraft would only list those which were operational at the end. If these were already operational in the beginning, they would be mentioned, but if not, there would be little chance of them getting in the list. As such, talking about the best ... of WW2 does not really mean they were the best of WW2. It means, "which was the best at the end of WW2?"

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2007)

Based on the tactics of the day, equipment carried and the operational results, to pick a "best" bomber of WW2 it would have to be a heavy and with that falls back to the B-29. Even though you point out you could have several medium bombers for the cost of one heavy, all those heavies take away the need for the tactical requirement (in many cases) if you could shower your enemy with 500 pound bombs. I'm sorry Kris, no matter how you slice it as far as a dedicated bomber, be it light, medium or heavy, the B-29 still takes it.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Based on the tactics of the day, equipment carried and the operational results, to pick a "best" bomber of WW2 it would have to be a heavy and with that falls back to the B-29. Even though you point out you could have several medium bombers for the cost of one heavy, all those heavies take away the need for the tactical requirement (in many cases) if you could shower your enemy with 500 pound bombs. I'm sorry Kris, no matter how you slice it as far as a dedicated bomber, be it light, medium or heavy, the B-29 still takes it.



Not sure if I understand, Joe. You're saying that strategic bombing took away the need for tactical bombing? But if that's true, why wasn't just strategic bombing of Germany sufficient to get the germans on their knees? With all the bombing a massive land-war was still needed to beat them and they needed close airsupport with that to succeed. You cannot do that with a heavy bomber like the B29 but need a medium- or fighterbomber to do the job. Even in the pacific war, B29's alone were not sufficient to beat the Japanese. Tactical bombers (particulary divebombers) took care of the military defeat of Japan. The strategic bombing was neccesairy to confince the Japanese government in the end that all was lost. So were the divebombers less important then the B29 in beating Japan? One couldn't be done without the other.
I agree with you on B29 of technically being one of the most advanced bombers of WWII and being one of the most effective.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Not sure if I understand, Joe. You're saying that strategic bombing took away the need for tactical bombing? But if that's true, why wasn't just strategic bombing of Germany sufficient to get the germans on their knees? With all the bombing a massive land-war was still needed to beat them and they needed close airsupport with that to succeed.


That's because there was support needed for a moving army and that's where a tactical air force is needed and with the technology available of that day is why we seen the need for the medium bomber.


Marcel said:


> You cannot do that with a heavy bomber like the B29 but need a medium- or fighterbomber to do the job. Even in the pacific war, B29's alone were not sufficient to beat the Japanese. Tactical bombers (particulary divebombers) took care of the military defeat of Japan. The strategic bombing was neccesairy to confince the Japanese government in the end that all was lost. So were the divebombers less important then the B29 in beating Japan? One couldn't be done without the other.


To a point - in later years when we seen the "medium bomber" disappear, carpet bombing was the flavor of the day and that's where you seen heavies used in a tactical capacity. If the "medium bomber" was a viable concept that would of been able to evolve, you would of seen it happen, instead the "medium bomber" in the tactical sense just about disappeared after WW2 as single engine fighter bombers were able to do the same job. The same thing happened to "night fighters" as the normal fighter attained all-weather capability.



Marcel said:


> I agree with you on B29 of technically being one of the most advanced bombers of WWII and being one of the most effective.


 8)


----------



## drgondog (Nov 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's because there was support needed for a moving army and that's where a tactical air force is needed and with the technology available of that day is why we seen the need for the medium bomber.
> 
> To a point - in later years when we seen the "medium bomber" disappear, carpet bombing was the flavor of the day and that's where you seen heavies used in a tactical capacity. If the "medium bomber" was a viable concept that would of been able to evolve, you would of seen it happen, instead the "medium bomber" in the tactical sense just about disappeared after WW2 as single engine fighter bombers were able to do the same job. The same thing happened to "night fighters" as the normal fighter attained all-weather capability.
> 
> 8)



Total agreement

Joe - it occurs that most of the combatants built nice medium and light bombers, single engine and twin - but only the Brits and US built the weapon platforms capable (and operational) of daylight and night time strategic bombing. The Ar 234 would have a great case for being the best of that batch.

Only the US and Japan put escort fighters at the point of the spear to enable successful daylight raids.

If necessary the B-29 could have performed Tactical missions from UK, it was fast enogh to perform the medium and light attack role at low level - but the reverse was not true.. so the list for consideration as Best narrowed quickly to B-29, Lanc, B-32, B-17 and B-24.. the He 177 and He 277 are contenders but hard to talk about potential when it just didn't execute in that role.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2007)

In agreement with Joe as well. You also have to see what is doing more damage to the enemy. A few medium bombers or streams of Heavy Bombers night and day?

Of all Bombers it was the Heavies that won the war.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's because there was support needed for a moving army and that's where a tactical air force is needed and with the technology available of that day is why we seen the need for the medium bomber.





FLYBOYJ said:


> To a point - in later years when we seen the "medium bomber" disappear, carpet bombing was the flavor of the day and that's where you seen heavies used in a tactical capacity. If the "medium bomber" was a viable concept that would of been able to evolve, you would of seen it happen, instead the "medium bomber" in the tactical sense just about disappeared after WW2 as single engine fighter bombers were able to do the same job. The same thing happened to "night fighters" as the normal fighter attained all-weather capability.


I see your point and can agree to some point. One objection, tho. As you said, after WWII stronger engines (particular jet engines) rendered the medium bombers absolete as it enabled smaller aircraft to carry as much load and taking over the role. But we're talking about WWII and in WWII, medium bombers were still a valid concept. They did the job and some of them were maybe as advanced as the B29. 
As I said, I agree with you on the B29 being one of the best planes in WWII. But it's difficult to say it was better than one of the medium bombers as the roles they were used were much different. I don't think the B29 could have done the same job as for instance the A26 or the other way around.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 14, 2007)

Marcel said:


> I see your point and can agree to some point. One objection, tho. As you said, after WWII stronger engines (particular jet engines) rendered the medium bombers absolete as it enabled smaller aircraft to carry as much load and taking over the role. But we're talking about WWII and in WWII, medium bombers were still a valid concept. They did the job and some of them were maybe as advanced as the B29.
> As I said, I agree with you on the B29 being one of the best planes in WWII. But it's difficult to say it was better than one of the medium bombers as the roles they were used were much different. I don't think the B29 could have done the same job as for instance the A26 or the other way around.



But can medium bombers arry 10,000 pound payloads 1600 miles from base?

Or can medium bombers carry oversize payloads like what the Lanc carried?


----------



## Marcel (Nov 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In agreement with Joe as well. You also have to see what is doing more damage to the enemy. A few medium bombers or streams of Heavy Bombers night and day?
> 
> Of all Bombers it was the Heavies that won the war.



Not wanting to disagree with you, but a lot of people are still not sure about the value of the strategic bombing on Germany (or on London). In Japan it proved it's worth, but only after Japan almost had been militairy defeated. IMHO only a few of those missions really did matter, the bombing of the Romenian oilfields is the first one that comes to my mind at this time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2007)

Marcel said:


> But we're talking about WWII and in WWII, medium bombers were still a valid concept. They did the job and some of them were maybe as advanced as the B29.


The closest one might be the Douglas B-26 or Arado 234. In either case if given a choice of 20 medium bombers vs. 10 heavies, I think the heavies would win out



Marcel said:


> As I said, I agree with you on the B29 being one of the best planes in WWII. But it's difficult to say it was better than one of the medium bombers as the roles they were used were much different. I don't think the B29 could have done the same job as for instance the A26 or the other way around.


No but look at the impact of the aircraft along with it's systems and capabilities. I think the world would still be the same if the A26 never entered service, i don't think we could say the same about the B-29.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No but look at the impact of the aircraft along with it's systems and capabilities. I think the world would still be the same if the A26 never entered service, i don't think we could say the same about the B-29.


On this I fully agree.
But (of course wanting to have the last word  ) what would the world have been without those divebombers at Midway?


----------



## Marcel (Nov 14, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> But can medium bombers arry 10,000 pound payloads 1600 miles from base?
> 
> Or can medium bombers carry oversize payloads like what the Lanc carried?



Could heavy bombers have sunken all those carriers at midway? I think they tried..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2007)

Marcel said:


> On this I fully agree.
> But (of course wanting to have the last word  ) what would the world have been without those divebombers at Midway?


True, but do we consider an SBD a medium bomber in the sense of the tactical application seen in Europe? I don't think so. In terms of a twin engine aircraft, yes....


----------



## Marcel (Nov 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> True, but do we consider an SBD a medium bomber in the sense of the tactical application seen in Europe? I don't think so. In terms of a twin engine aircraft, yes....


No, but it is a bomber, right?
Sorry Joe, I was probably not clear on the point I was making. What I was trying to say is not that one of the medium bombers should be chosen as one of the best bombers. I'm not even diagreeing with you on your statement that the B29 should be considered as the best Bomberaircraft of WWII. What I'm saying is comparing a B26 to a B29 is like comparing apples to pears. IMO you cannot say that the B29 or any else was the best overal bomber. If you would say: "the B29 was the best _heavy_ bomber" I would fully agree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Not wanting to disagree with you, but a lot of people are still not sure about the value of the strategic bombing on Germany (or on London). In Japan it proved it's worth, but only after Japan almost had been militairy defeated. IMHO only a few of those missions really did matter, the bombing of the Romenian oilfields is the first one that comes to my mind at this time.



The Heavy Bombing of Germany did several things. It effected the Industry and it demoralized the German people.

Thats a pretty big impact in my opinion.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Heavy Bombing of Germany did several things. It effected the Industry and it demoralized the German people.
> 
> Thats a pretty big impact in my opinion.



Don't know about the demoralisation effect of the bombing. I heard that usually people got more hatred towarth their enemy an became more resolved to fight on because of this bombing. But I'm no way an expert on that 

About the impact on industry:


> At Regensburg, the Messerschmitt factory was so devastated that it was first decided not to resurect it, but start up afresh on another site. Then it was discovered that the vital machine tools had suffered less than had been feared. Four months later the works had fully regained their former output. As for Messerschmitt, Augsburg, it resumed production om March 9th-i.e. only two weeks after the "double blow"


From _The luftwaffe War diaries_ about "Big Week"
So aparently the industry did suffer some but not really that desicive. In fact, despide a massive bombing on aircraft factories by the US, the overal output of planes in Germany rised to recordhights. I speculate that other industry were also less hindered by the bombing than should be expected.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 14, 2007)

The USSBS analysis of the strategic bombing showed that the destruction of the German oil industry was the single biggest contributor to the defeat of the German military and industrial capabilities.

Only Lancs, B17's and B24's could attack the refineries. Medium bombers cant.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 14, 2007)

Marcel said:


> So aparently the industry did suffer some but not really that desicive. In fact, despide a massive bombing on aircraft factories by the US, the overal output of planes in Germany rised to recordhights. I speculate that other industry were also less hindered by the bombing than should be expected.



The direct annihilation of some factories is certainly a factor used to determine success. But I believe the effect of destroying the Luftwaffe's fighters and the bleeding of massive amounts of Germans resources had the greatest effect.

Yes, the amount of destroyed targets could have been better. 

Why weren't they? Because the nazi's did a pretty good job at defense and recovery. Take away strategic bombing and all those resources used to repel the bombers would have resulted in money spent else where.

If they weren't building exotic interceptors and building and manning flak installations, they woulda built more submarines, more tanks , more fighters (less interceptors).

The strategic bombing offensive kept them off balance and allowed us to dictate the terms of battle. Also, it took some heat off the Russians until we could land troops

,


----------



## Marcel (Nov 15, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The direct annihilation of some factories is certainly a factor used to determine success. But I believe the effect of destroying the Luftwaffe's fighters and the bleeding of massive amounts of Germans resources had the greatest effect.
> 
> Yes, the amount of destroyed targets could have been better.
> 
> ...


Agreed and I don't want to claim that strategic bombing didn't have any value. More that other bombers had value of their own and were equally important. Syscom is right claiming the bombing of the oilfields was a major contributor to the defeat of Germany. But you just don't defeat a country by strategic bombing. You'll need to defeat them military. While strategic bombing helps, you'll also need a tactical airforce consisting of fighter bombers, medium bombers, dive bombers etc. And they can be as decisive as well, as the Midway showed. No heavy bomber could do that. In fact B17's joined the battle, making no impact at all. Without that, the B29 woud not have been able to bomb Japan like that.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 15, 2007)

Marcel, the attacks on the German petro industry was extremely damaging to their economy. The fact the LW commited so many resources to protect it is an indixation how sensitive they viewed the matter.

Only the heavy bombers could attack them.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 15, 2007)

I can't help but see this discussion turning into an argument over heavy bombers taking on the role of tactical bombers. 

Marcel has a valid point; to be able to truly discover what was the best you should see which was the best at doing *their* job - not every other job in the war. Meaning, a tactical bomber could have been better at doing its job than the B-29 was at doing its job - otherwise you're comparing two different aircraft doing two different jobs (just dropping bombs was a strategic bombers job description, not the same for a tactical bomber). 

And syscom;

_"Marcel, the attacks on the German petro industry was extremely damaging to their economy. The fact the LW commited so many resources to protect it is an indixation how sensitive they viewed the matter.

Only the heavy bombers could attack them."_

9th May, 1942 - Operation C-170

6 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

8th June, 1942 - Operation C-191

12 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

27th November, 1942 - Operation (?)

2 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack oil refinery at Maasluis. 

Just three operations with 88 squadron operating the Boston Mk.III. It wasn't a case of only heavy bombers attacking them. I'm sure you'll rant and rave about how ineffective these attacks were...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

Marcel said:


> From _The luftwaffe War diaries_ about "Big Week"
> So aparently the industry did suffer some but not really that desicive. In fact, despide a massive bombing on aircraft factories by the US, the overal output of planes in Germany rised to recordhights. I speculate that other industry were also less hindered by the bombing than should be expected.



And thats 4 months that it was not putting out maximum production. That helps.

Dont take me wrong I do not want to take away from the medium bombers. I think that they made a major effort to the war in the use of tactical bombing.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Nov 15, 2007)

Im to scared to post.......there is war in the forum  

i would say the best bomber must be the most accurate bomber(no use in using a blind sniper), but I only starting to research my comment and I might be complely wrong.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I can't help but see this discussion turning into an argument over heavy bombers taking on the role of tactical bombers.
> 
> Marcel has a valid point; to be able to truly discover what was the best you should see which was the best at doing *their* job - not every other job in the war. Meaning, a tactical bomber could have been better at doing its job than the B-29 was at doing its job - otherwise you're comparing two different aircraft doing two different jobs (just dropping bombs was a strategic bombers job description, not the same for a tactical bomber).
> 
> ...


I think Plan_D sees the big picture here.

The reasoning behind chosing the B-29 seems to be that strategic bombers are considered to be more important that tactical ones as they have a larger impact. And the B-29 was the best strategical bomber.
Sure, we can say that strategic 

But I wonder if that's the way you should look at it. Why chose? I believe both tactical and strategical bombers were important. Plan_D already gave the excellent example of the A-20. Same thing goes for the Mosquito or Ju 88 which could do both jobs which cannot be said about the B-29.

And again, the Mosquito, Boston and Ju 88 had been around for years when the B-29 became operational. I think that should also be a factor as else only 1944/1945 aircraft can be regarded as best ... of WW2.

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 15, 2007)

plan_D said:


> And syscom;
> 
> _"Marcel, the attacks on the German petro industry was extremely damaging to their economy. The fact the LW commited so many resources to protect it is an indixation how sensitive they viewed the matter.
> 
> ...



Whoop-de-doo.

Limited and small attacks in 1942 of small oil plants.

Now lets talk about the RAF/USAAF raids in 1944 on Leuna, Lutzkendorf, Brux, Magdeburg, Politz, Polesti, Hamburg, blah, blah, blah.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2007)

The thread said best bomber - I think if you want to get specific then break it up into light, medium and heavy. In either case I think if you did that and went for the best over-all bomber the B-29 still takes it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And thats 4 months that it was not putting out maximum production. That helps.
> 
> Dont take me wrong I do not want to take away from the medium bombers. I think that they made a major effort to the war in the use of tactical bombing.


Yes it helps, just like the tactical bombers helps as you say in the next line, exactly my point. 



eddie_brunette said:


> Im to scared to post.......there is war in the forum


 No worries eddie, no war here, just a quite polite discussion, exactly what a forum is there for.



plan_D said:


> Marcel has a valid point; to be able to truly discover what was the best you should see which was the best at doing *their* job - not every other job in the war. Meaning, a tactical bomber could have been better at doing its job than the B-29 was at doing its job - otherwise you're comparing two different aircraft doing two different jobs (just dropping bombs was a strategic bombers job description, not the same for a tactical bomber).



Again, exactly my point.



FLYBOYJ said:


> The thread said best bomber - I think if you want to get specific then break it up into light, medium and heavy. In either case I think if you did that and went for the best over-all bomber the B-29 still takes it.


Yes, that's exacly what I'm saying. You can't go for the best overal bomber as there is none. It's like saying that a car is the best transportation in the world. It is as long as you don't want to travel 8000 km or just going upstairs for that matter  And again the B29 was probably the most advanced and best plane in that could deliver bombs but was it better in it's job than the B25, mossy, Ju88 their own job job?



syscom3 said:


> Marcel, the attacks on the German petro industry was extremely damaging to their economy. The fact the LW commited so many resources to protect it is an indixation how sensitive they viewed the matter.
> 
> Only the heavy bombers could attack them.


Yes and I already agreed. I think the biggest impact that the heavy bombers made in ETO was destroying the romenian oilfields. It hampered the german war machinery. I never claimed the heavy bombing did not help but to say that heavy bombers alone did alter the course of war is a bit too far. A groundwar was still needed and there tactical bombers did their share. War couldn't be won without the one nor the other. The machines, especially the B29 were very good in their role, but so were some of the medium bombers in theirs. And all nescessary. Midway clearly showed that light divebombers could make as much impact on a war as heavy bombers, that's my point.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 16, 2007)

Typical sys response there. You're not doing yourself any favours getting all upset because you made a mistake. To avoid it stop blabbing about how only heavy bombers can attack oil plants, because mediums and lights did too. 

I only needed to mention three operations of one squadron in one year to show everyone it wasn't a sole heavy bomber affair.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 16, 2007)

Marcel said:


> I think the biggest impact that the heavy bombers made in ETO was destroying the romenian oilfields. It hampered the german war machinery.


The Romanian oilfields were not put out of action til the Soviets captured them in Aug 1944.

The attacks on the synthetic plants payed higher dividends and not just for the fuel part.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (European War)


----------



## lancaster mad (Nov 16, 2007)

A B-24 is hardly a match for a Lanc as the B-24 needed more crew than the Lanc and that the Lanc could carry a bigger bomb load to Berlin from Britain than the B-24.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 16, 2007)

lancaster mad said:


> A B-24 is hardly a match for a Lanc as the B-24 needed more crew than the Lanc and that the Lanc could carry a bigger bomb load to Berlin from Britain than the B-24.




It was proven in the thread that the Lanc was better than the B24 in placing more bombs on target, as well as having a better bomb load and could carry oversize bombs.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 16, 2007)

lancaster mad said:


> A B-24 is hardly a match for a Lanc as the B-24 needed more crew than the Lanc and that the Lanc could carry a bigger bomb load to Berlin from Britain than the B-24.


And the Lib took bigger bombloads to Rabual Rangoon and numerous other places in the CBI and PTO and the Lib sank more subs then the Lanc and the Lib had the advantage of 2 pilots


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

lancaster mad said:


> A B-24 is hardly a match for a Lanc as the B-24 needed more crew than the Lanc and that the Lanc could carry a bigger bomb load to Berlin from Britain than the B-24.



While I agree the Lancaster was an overall better bomber than the B-24, I still find this post amusing. I dont know why. Sorry...


----------



## lancaster mad (Nov 17, 2007)

Oopps, didn't read the rest of it syscom3!


----------



## Aussie1001 (Nov 17, 2007)

personally the lancaster hands down (in the role of a heavy anyway) The B17 in my opinion gets nailed because it was a flying fortress and not a bomber.
The B 24 is nice but it has already pointed out why the Lanc was superior.
The B 29 did not see enough service sure it nuked Japan but that is quite differn't to going through germany for over 3 years dropping bombs while getting shot down by aircraft and flak.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> personally the lancaster hands down (in the role of a heavy anyway) The B17 in my opinion gets nailed because it was a flying fortress and not a bomber.
> The B 24 is nice but it has already pointed out why the Lanc was superior.
> The B 29 did not see enough service sure it nuked Japan but that is quite differn't to going through germany for over 3 years dropping bombs while getting shot down by aircraft and flak.



How did the B-29 not see eneogh service. It flew over Japan for over a year and dropped plenty of bombs. Over Germany it would have been better than anything else because of its advanced technology and its ability to fly higher.

The B-29 is the best heavy bomber hands down and it really cant be argued.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

And not only did the B-29 drop bombs, it dropped mines through out Japan's waterways helping in the blockade of the country.


----------



## lancaster mad (Nov 17, 2007)

So did the Lanc


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 17, 2007)

lancaster mad said:


> So did the Lanc



But not 1300 miles from base.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 17, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> And the Lib took bigger bombloads to Rabual Rangoon and numerous other places in the CBI and PTO and the Lib sank more subs then the Lanc and the Lib had the advantage of 2 pilots



I used that line of argument too. The B24 was the superior of the two in the PTO.

But, in Europe, the ultimate decider was the USSBS results which showed the Lanc was the better of the three types.

The main purpose of a bomber is to accurately place bombs on target. And the most and biggest is the winner.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 17, 2007)

lancaster mad said:


> So did the Lanc



The lanc was a great bomber and arguably the best in ETO (apart from that belly turret ), but the B29 was just half a generation further in development. It did prove it's worth against the Japanese homeland in the last year of the war. I'm not sure how it would have fared against the German air defence as it was much better than the Japanese but I suspect equally if not better than the B17, B24, Lanc and Halifaxes, but with a higher payload.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

lancaster mad said:


> So did the Lanc


So did the Lanc what? Have the most advanced defensive fire control system in the world at that time? No. Carry the same bomb load at the same distances as the B-29? No. Fly the durations the B-29 had to do doing its bombing of Germany? No. Shall I keep going?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Man too bad Lanc is gone. He would love this guy!


----------



## Civettone (Nov 25, 2007)

Even the P-38 was used as a strategical bomber, attacking the Ploiesti oil refineries. 

And about the Lanc ... the Halifax was as good as the Lancaster but was around two years before the Lanc! And was more versatile. And faster...

Kris


----------



## helmitsmit (Nov 26, 2007)

I think the Lancaster was the best heavy of the war (accept for maybe the B29 but that was very late on in the war). I mean it could carry 14,000lb to Berlin! And some very heavy special presents! 22,000lb Glam slam! With the B24 second. I don't rate the fortress at all! I read in "Mosquito stories" that the Fortress in order to get to Berlin could only carry 4,000lb at a speed of 200mph! Yet the pregnant mossie light bomber could carry a 4,000lb cookie to berlin at 300mph! and complete the trip in half the time! It also didn't waste millions of .50 rounds or five crew members (as it carry two crew compared with seven)


----------



## helmitsmit (Nov 26, 2007)

I actually see the mosquito as the best bomber. Purely on a strategic view but still. It was the most efficient in terms of human life (only two crew), minimal time over enemy territory, hardest to shoot down, beautiful (oops that isn't strategic!), manoeuvrable, long range matched with very high cursing speed (higher cursing speed then a P51!), very cheap and easy to build, parts can be built in random places over the country so production less likely to be effected by enemy bombing, Hitler hated it (oops not strategic either!) and versatile.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2007)

helmitsmit said:


> I think the Lancaster was the best heavy of the war (accept for maybe the B29 but that was very late on in the war). I mean it could carry 14,000lb to Berlin! And some very heavy special presents! 22,000lb Glam slam! With the B24 second. I don't rate the fortress at all! I read in "Mosquito stories" that the Fortress in order to get to Berlin could only carry 4,000lb at a speed of 200mph! Yet the pregnant mossie light bomber could carry a 4,000lb cookie to berlin at 300mph! and complete the trip in half the time! It also didn't waste millions of .50 rounds or five crew members (as it carry two crew compared with seven)



Yet the B-24 had about the same crew as the B-17. Carried a bomb load comparable to the B-17 and as you say wasted millions of .50 rounds.

The B-17 was more dependable than the B-24 and overall a better bomber than the B-24.

I dont understand how you can rate the B-24 but not the B-17....


----------



## helmitsmit (Nov 26, 2007)

because the liberator was useful in other less common bomber roles like mining and actually had much better range which was useful in the pacific war.


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Nov 27, 2007)

but you can't beat the ruggedness of a B-17


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2007)

helmitsmit said:


> because the liberator was useful in other less common bomber roles like mining and actually had much better range which was useful in the pacific war.



The B-17 was as well. Infact the B-17 was probably used in more roles than the Liberator and flew better and was more rugged and dependable.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 27, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The B-17 was as well. Infact the B-17 was probably used in more roles than the Liberator and flew better and was more rugged and dependable.



The B24 was more versatile than the B17, due to its larger bomb bays and larger fuel load.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 27, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The B-17 was as well. Infact the B-17 was probably used in more roles than the Liberator and flew better and was more rugged and dependable.



Also, although I can't speak from first hand experience, I've heard from more than a few that the B-17 was a lot easier to fly than the B-24, or for that matter any of the heavies of WW II. And yes, the ruggedness and dependability of the Fort is legendary. 

Battle-Damaged B-17 Flying Fortresses

TO


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 27, 2007)

Yes, the B17 was quite rugged. But...... the purpose of a bomber is to drop as many bombs on target as possible. And the B17 had the lowest payload and range of the four principle heavy bombers of the war.

There was also the issue of it flying so high. Good for survivability.... but.... bad for bomb accuracy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The B24 was more versatile than the B17, due to its larger bomb bays and larger fuel load.



I was not talking about bomb sizes and what not. I am talking about varients and versatility. The B-17 was more versatile overall.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 28, 2007)

What were the uses the B-17 and B-24 were put to?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> What were the uses the B-17 and B-24 were put to?



Recon, ASW, SAR, transport, training, and later for the B-17, target drones.

Just a few off the top of my head....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> What were the uses the B-17 and B-24 were put to?



*B-17*

Bomber
Trainer (TB-17)
Bomber Escort (YB-40 26 built; unsuccessfull and never put into full production)
Transport (C-108 and CB-17)
VIP Transport (VB-17)
Recon (RB-17)
Photo Recon (F-9 Flying Fortress)
AWACS (PB-1 and PB-1W utilized the AN/APS-20 radar and used to develop Airborne Early Warning equipment)
Search and Rescue (SB-17G and PB-1G equipped with an airborne lifeboat and ASV radar)
Target Drone (QB-17)

*B-24*

Bomber
Bomber Escort (XB-41 only 1 built)
Trainer (AT-24 or TB-24 or RB-24L)
Transport (C-87)
Fuel Tanker (C-109)
Photo Recon (F-7 or PB4Y-1P)


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 28, 2007)

The B-17 and B-24 were also used in "Operation Aphrodite" as remotely controlled "bombs". This use was short-lived as it was very dangerous. I believe Joe Kennedy Jr. (brother of JFK) was killed on a mission, I think in a B-24.

TO


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *B-17*
> 
> Bomber
> Trainer (TB-17)
> ...



B-24 also used as OSS/agent Night insertion ship all over ETO


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 28, 2007)

I dont think B17's were used extensively in the dedicated ASW aspect of the war. They did perform it on occasion, but only when no other aircraft were available

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think B17's were used extensively in the dedicated ASW aspect of the war. They did perform it on occasion, but only when no other aircraft were available


Don't forget the RAF...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2007)

Bill said:


> plus Target Drone Control (Mother Ship) - one of my father's best friends was killed accidentally at Eglin in 1952(?) when an F86D under the hood acquired and shot down the control B-17 instead of Drone



Sorry to hear that Bill. 



drgondog said:


> B-24 also used as OSS/agent Night insertion ship all over ETO



Yeah but that is pretty much transport I think.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry to hear that Bill.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but that is pretty much transport I think.



Chris - if you lived at Eglin or Edwards in the 50's someone you knew or liked died every month in an accident.

The Carpetbagggers otherwise known as the 36th and 406th of the 801st BG flew from March 1944 until April 26, 1945. They flew B24D, B-24H, B-24J, C-47, Mossie XVI and A-26B's. They were detached to 15th AF in Jan 1945 and 'did it all'. Dropped guerillas, agents, supplies, petroleum re-supply, radio relay (night - to coordinate R/T traffic from agents), Weather Scout and finally Training... but yes - definitely Transport..



Fairly unique operations throughout Europe. RAF also had this type unit but not sure what the designation was.


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 4, 2007)

The RAAF in the Pacific had two B-24 special duties flights, 200 and 201. 200 Flight was used for dropping agents and Z force soldiers behind enemy lines and also resupplied them etc. 201 flight was an electronic warfare and surveillance unit, however I don't believe they flew any operations before the war ended.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Dec 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't forget the RAF...



Or the Luftwaffe.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Dec 6, 2007)

Here's a possible rehashed question.
What was the philosophy in British bombers, except the Hampden, not having underside protection such as the B17 had?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 7, 2007)

You can get larger bomb loads without a ball turret.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2007)

One might also observe that a manned ball turret was strictly and uniquely American in concept, applied only to heavy bombers and the evolotionary doctrine (say B-29) eliminated it.

I suspect that it was deemed less useful by RAF for night ops - even with intro of Schrage Musik tactics.

The unmanned turrets in the early B-17D, and B25C were discared later as 'useless' with their periscope sights


----------



## militaryguyatl42 (Dec 8, 2007)

Very simply I think if you look at the overall record of the Lancaster versus the B24 you will find the lancaster the much better aircraft it was much more adaptable( as seen vis-a-vi the damnbusters and use of tall boy type bombs) had a longer service life spured further development with the Shakelton. It should also be noted that the B24 did get developed a a maritime patrol a/c this was a highly redeveloped a/c and should not have been counted as a B24 the only thing it truly carried over was the Davis wing and very basic fuselage structure ( all new tail and after fuselage ). Thats just my take.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2007)

militaryguyatl42 said:


> Very simply I think if you look at the overall record of the Lancaster versus the B24 you will find the lancaster the much better aircraft it was much more adaptable( as seen vis-a-vi the damnbusters and use of tall boy type bombs) had a longer service life spured further development with the Shakelton. It should also be noted that the B24 did get developed a a maritime patrol a/c this was a highly redeveloped a/c and should not have been counted as a B24 the only thing it truly carried over was the Davis wing and very basic fuselage structure ( all new tail and after fuselage ). Thats just my take.



Not to be overy picky with your synopsis, but the B-24D started out as the maritime patrol bomber for both RAF and USAAF and did just fine w/o the USN mods. 

The Pb4Y-1 was the unmodified D. The XB-24K incorporated the first single tail (derivative of B-23 tail).. the production version of that would have been the B-24N - but it (the K) was the baseline a/c for the PBY4-2. True that many mods were made (no ball turret, two top turrets, different nose and tail turrets) but I am not aware of other major changes to actual fuselage and tail from the B-24N/K.. what might they have been?

Dambusters certainly innovative as low level attack - 

But would you say more innovative than Low level August 1943 Raid at Ploesti? Was there a significant increase in innovation from skip bombing (tactics for sure) modified depth charges as contrast skip bombing HE with delayed fuses into the refineries?

I agree the Lanc a 'better bomber', particularly for RAF doctrine... it might have done as well (survivability in daylight ops 1943-1944) and did as well or better in accuracy in daylight ops in 1944-1945... but difficult at the end to truly compare as they didn't fly the same primary mission profile until Allies had air superiority over Germany. 

Using "Much batter aircraft" may be too strong to describe the relative superiority as a heavy bomber, patrol bomber, mine layer, cargo ship, maritime bomber, low level/high level strategic bomber, etc... B-24 pretty darn good aircraft. 

Regards,

Bill

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hugh Spencer (Jan 14, 2008)

I witnessed the fact that the Lancaster was so reliable that it would bring us home although badly damaged. Sir Arthur Harris stated " It was the finest bomber of the war......could take ever increasing loads......easier to handle......fewer accidents and the casualty rate was below others" from his book "The Bomber Offensive".


----------



## ppopsie (Jan 14, 2008)

Quote; "At the same time, at that range (Berlin) the Halifaxes and the Stirlings could only carry half or less of the bombload of the Lancaster."
from "The Bomber Offensive" by Arthur Harris, Greenhill Books, p.135.

That was the best and the clearest comment about three types of the British four engine bombers in WW2 I have ever read. 

From other books it can be assumed that there had been significant difference existed between L/Ds of the Lancaster and the Halifax.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2008)

Hugh Spencer said:


> I witnessed the fact that the Lancaster was so reliable that it would bring us home although badly damaged. Sir Arthur Harris stated " It was the finest bomber of the war......could take ever increasing loads......easier to handle......fewer accidents and the casualty rate was below others" from his book "The Bomber Offensive".


Harris never flew a B-29!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2008)

Hugh Spencer said:


> I witnessed the fact that the Lancaster was so reliable that it would bring us home although badly damaged. Sir Arthur Harris stated " It was the finest bomber of the war......could take ever increasing loads......easier to handle......fewer accidents and the casualty rate was below others" from his book "The Bomber Offensive".



While I certainly agree with you that the Lancaster was the best in the ETO it was no where close to the B-29.

Also the reason it had such a lower casualty rate is because it flew at night. If it had been used predominatly on day missions it would have had higher loss rates.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ppopsie (Jan 14, 2008)

I understand CinC Harris' comment shall be restricted within what the Bomber Command had in the war. So what happened if the CinC actually had a chance to see, fly or to think about the B-29? I don't think he then satisfied with the Lincorn, a slightly modofied version of Lancaster and its successor.

I haven't read well about the reasons why the 8th AAF did not use the B-29s in ETO. The only thing I understand was that there were no airfields (infrastructure) in Britain where the B-29s can operate from.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 14, 2008)

ppopsie said:


> I haven't read well about the reasons why the 8th AAF did not use the B-29s in ETO. The only thing I understand was that there were no airfields (infrastructure) in Britain where the B-29s can operate from.



There were plenty of airfields in England to allow the B29 to operate from.

Dont you think it would have been a tad better than in India, China or Guam?

One thing the B29 crewman and ground crews always harped about, was the shear boredom of the Mariana's. Absolutely nothing to do during your off watch hours.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2008)

The plan was to have the B-32 used in Europe. The program ran behind schedule and the war ended so that never materialized.


----------



## ppopsie (Jan 14, 2008)

As I understand the wartime airfields in Britain, the runway lenghts was limited to 2000yds on Class "A" airfields. As can be read from Harris' book, the CinC Bomber Command even suffered with shortage of the airfields in Britain, from which the loaded bombers could operate, during 1941-42 period, and also wrote about the problem to get the larger ones with longer runways constructed rapidly.

I don't know how a large bomber like B-29 with higher wing loading can safely operate from such runways of 2000yds of length. In this context in India or even China should be better, simply to build longer ones almost all from scratch and this could be applied well to the Marianas. But these must have been quite a huge business to carry out, though.

RAF-lincolnshire.info :: Generic airfield layout


----------



## Hugh Spencer (Jan 15, 2008)

The B-29 Superfortress would have replaced the B-17 had Germany not surrendered earlier. Post war RAF Bomber Command was equipped to some extent with B-29's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2008)

Hugh Spencer said:


> The B-29 Superfortress would have replaced the B-17 had Germany not surrendered earlier. Post war RAF Bomber Command was equipped to some extent with B-29's.



No.

The B-32 was to replace the B-17 AND B-24...


_"Initial plans to use the B-32 to supplement the B-29 in re-equipping B-17 and B-24 groups before redeployment of the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces to the Pacific were stymied when only five production models had been delivered by the end of 1944, by which time full B-29 operations were underway in the Twentieth Air Force."_

Bomber Command received B-29s in 1950.

_"In order to meet postwar British nuclear-capable bomber needs until the English Electric Canberra could be delivered in quantity, in 1950, 87 B-29s were loaned to the Royal Air Force as the Boeing Washington. Serials were as follows: WF434/448, WF490/514, WF545/574, WW342/355, and WZ966/968. The RAF Washingtons were all returned to the USAF by 1955. However two RAF Washingtons (WW345 and WW353) were turned over to the Royal Australian Air Force and were assigned the serials A76-1 and A76-2." _

From "Joe"...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 15, 2008)

ppopsie said:


> As I understand the wartime airfields in Britain, the runway lenghts was limited to 2000yds on Class "A" airfields. As can be read from Harris' book, the CinC Bomber Command even suffered with shortage of the airfields in Britain, from which the loaded bombers could operate, during 1941-42 period, and also wrote about the problem to get the larger ones with longer runways constructed rapidly.
> 
> I don't know how a large bomber like B-29 with higher wing loading can safely operate from such runways of 2000yds of length. In this context in India or even China should be better, simply to build longer ones almost all from scratch and this could be applied well to the Marianas. But these must have been quite a huge business to carry out, though.
> 
> RAF-lincolnshire.info :: Generic airfield layout



So the runways are extended. Not a big deal at all.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jan 15, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-32 was to replace the B-17 AND B-24...



Joe,

Wasn't the B-32 also intended (at least early on) primarily as insurance in the event B-29 development ran into problems? Or is that just revisionist history and/or over-active imaginations on the part of aviation historians?

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> Joe,
> 
> Wasn't the B-32 also intended (at least early on) primarily as insurance in the event B-29 development ran into problems? Or is that just revisionist history and/or over-active imaginations on the part of aviation historians?
> 
> TO



It was true. A "plan B."

There was a plan to have it replace all the B-17s and B-24s in the ETO. It was so hopelessly behind schedule it barely made to the the Pacific.


----------



## ppopsie (Jan 15, 2008)

>The B-32 was to replace B-17s and B-24s
In the case was the B-32 w/o pressurization? 

Or what the XXXX was the B-32? It is easier to understand if it was equipped to the same level as the B-29, with pressure cabin, sophisticated defence firepower and similar performances, like the relationship of the Halifax and the Lancaster in Britain.

Could a just powered up version of the B-17/24 had any meanings in the sky over Europe can be an interesting question now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2008)

ppopsie said:


> >The B-32 was to replace B-17s and B-24s
> In the case was the B-32 w/o pressurization?
> 
> Or what the XXXX was the B-32?












ppopsie said:


> It is easier to understand if it was equipped to the same level as the B-29, with pressure cabin, sophisticated defence firepower and similar performances, like the relationship of the Halifax and the Lancaster in Britain.



See Below...

*Specifications (B-32)*

General characteristics
Crew: 10 
Length: 83 ft 1 in (25.3 m) 
Wingspan: 135 ft 0 in (41.2 m) 
Height: 33 ft 0 in (10.1 m) 
Wing area: 1,442 ft² (132.1 m²) 
Empty weight: 60,000 lb (27,000 kg) 
Loaded weight: 100,000 lb (45,000 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 111,500 lb (50,580 kg) 
Performance
*Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 575 km/h) 
Cruise speed: 290 mph (252 knots, 467 km/h) **Range: 2,600 nm (3,000 mi, 4,815 km) 
Service ceiling 35,000 ft (11,000 m) *Rate of climb: 658 ft/min (3.4 m/s) 
Wing loading: 70.3 lb/ft² (341 kg/m²) 
Armament
*Guns: 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns 
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) *

Here's more from "Joe." Consolidated B-32 Dominator



ppopsie said:


> >
> Could a just powered up version of the B-17/24 had any meanings in the sky over Europe can be an interesting question now.


See Above


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 15, 2008)

"15 were operational and 40 were used as training. A mission were 2 B-32's destroyed alcohol industries so the Japanese couldn't use alcohol as fuel. The B-32's bombed at 20,000 feet. The Zero's on the first pass knocked out the pressure system and the pilots dove to 10,000 feet. 3 of the 20 men on both B-32's were injured. THere was one casualty his name was Anthony J. Marchione. He was the last casulaty of the USAAF. 

THe Names of the B-32's were Hobo QUeen and Hobo Queen II 



THe B-32 had a pressurized cabin, remote control Gunnery, and reversible pitch propellers that allowed it to slow down on landing."

From a book called BOmber Missions of WWII


----------



## Flyboy2 (Mar 21, 2008)

I have that book too!! Pretty cool paintings.
Why wouldn't have they used the B-29 over Europe, it carries more bombs right.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> I have that book too!! Pretty cool paintings.
> Why wouldn't have they used the B-29 over Europe, it carries more bombs right.


B-17s and B-24s were in place. You have to consider crew training, logistics, supply and tactics. The war in Europe was winding down, it was evident the B-29 would be better served in the Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 22, 2008)

I've been amazed for years at the breadth of advancements and innovations made during the war years. The difference between a B-17 and B-29 is drastic.


----------



## Célérité (Mar 23, 2008)

The most surprising comparison is to think that a Skyraider could transport the same load as a B17.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 23, 2008)

Célérité said:


> The most surprising comparison is to think that a Skyraider could transport the same load as a B17.



But not as far, nor high, nor defend itself.

Two different airplanes for two different roles.


----------



## Old Wizard (Mar 26, 2008)

Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the Mosquito is hard to beat.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 26, 2008)

Old Wizard said:


> Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the Mosquito is hard to beat.



What if the target is 1600 miles away and defenses require the mossie to fly at high altitudes?


----------



## Hunter Hawk (Apr 3, 2008)

FOr the best Bomber/fighter bomber you can't go past the DH98 Mosquito!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 3, 2008)

Hunter Hawk said:


> FOr the best Bomber/fighter bomber you can't go past the DH98 Mosquito!!!



I think the B17, B24, B29 and Lancaster is better than the Mossie. For the long range bombing role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2008)

Old Wizard said:


> Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the Mosquito is hard to beat.


How about a B-29 with one a bomb?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 3, 2008)

How about lugging 6000 pounds of bombs 1000 miles from target?

Are you sure your mossie can do that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2008)

Hunter Hawk said:


> FOr the best Bomber/fighter bomber you can't go past the DH98 Mosquito!!!



Well condidering the thread is about the best *bomber*, no I dont agree with you. Mossie is a great plane but there are plenty of *bombers* that are better.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 3, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I think the B17, B24, B29 and Lancaster is better than the Mossie. For the long range bombing role.



Depends on what you want to bomb on a long range. The mossie had the range in the same category, but not the same bomb load as those 4. But for city bombing, I guess the B29 beats them all.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 3, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Depends on what you want to bomb on a long range. The mossie had the range in the same category, but not the same bomb load as those 4. But for city bombing, I guess the B29 beats them all.



The B17, B24, B29 and Lanc beats the Mossie for range and payload.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 4, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The B17, B24, B29 and Lanc beats the Mossie for range and payload.



Right, but does that make them the best bomber? The Mossie had a different role, another kind of bombing and it did it brilliantly, a role that could not be performed by the Lanc, B17, B24 or B29. So why are the latter better? They were better in their own role, but as I pointed out in this thread some months earlier, you cannot speak of a "best bomber" as it's like comparing apples to pears when you try to compare a B29 to a mossie.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 4, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Right, but does that make them the best bomber? The Mossie had a different role, another kind of bombing and it did it brilliantly, a role that could not be performed by the Lanc, B17, B24 or B29. So why are the latter better? They were better in their own role, but as I pointed out in this thread some months earlier, you cannot speak of a "best bomber" as it's like comparing apples to pears when you try to compare a B29 to a mossie.



Start a thread on 2 engined bombers, then we can rank it.

The Mossie was good in its role, but wasnt a world beater like the other four planes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2008)

The Mossie was a great aircraft - a battle winner. The heavies, especially the B-29 were campaign and war winners.

And again, looking at the technical aspects of the B-29 when compared to other WW2 heavies, it was in a class by itself.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 4, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Start a thread on 2 engined bombers, then we can rank it.



 Already done, last time we debated this in this thread, Adler started the "Top medium bomber" thread.



syscom3 said:


> The Mossie was good in its role, but wasnt a world beater like the other four planes.





FLYBOYJ said:


> The Mossie was a great aircraft - a battle winner. The heavies, especially the B-29 were campaign and war winners.


Don't agree. The only time strategic bombing with a 4 engine was really decisive on its own during WW2 was Hiroshima, which was not as much a feat of the bomber as of the bomb itself. For the rest, they just played their part, just like all the other a/c during the war. I agree, the mossie couldn't have flown the same missions as these 4 heavies, but neither could they have flown the mossie missions. I firmly believe that the role of strategic bombing is fairly overestimated. It was a factor in winning the war, but only amongst others.



FLYBOYJ said:


> And again, looking at the technical aspects of the B-29 when compared to other WW2 heavies, it was in a class by itself.


That I agree with, although at the end of the war, also some advanced medium bombers were emerging.


----------



## ssmith996 (Apr 4, 2008)

OK, I am late to the discussion. Why is the B-29 omitted? The Russians sure liked it.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 4, 2008)

ssmith996 said:


> OK, I am late to the discussion. Why is the B-29 omitted? The Russians sure liked it.


It 's mentioned in the thread a great deal


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 4, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Don't agree. The only time strategic bombing with a 4 engine was really decisive on its own during WW2 was Hiroshima. I firmly believe that the role of strategic bombing is fairly overestimated.



Marcel,

I am asking respectfully, please explain these two lines better and explain your point more. I am interested in hearing your explanation.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 4, 2008)

Marcel said:


> The only time strategic bombing with a 4 engine was really decisive on its own during WW2 was Hiroshima



Don't forget Nagasaki. And that four engine bomber saved millions of lives. And if the fortunes of war were different the B-29 would have eventually been flying over Germany. Remember, the Atomic bomb was designed with Hitler in mind. 



Marcel said:


> which was not as much a feat of the bomber as of the bomb itself.



But it was the only bomber that could deliver the bomb, so I would say that *was* a feat of the bomber. 

TO


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 4, 2008)

The heavy bombers of the allies crippled the Germans with the oil offensive.

That was done by B17's, B24's and Lancasters.

Now what were you saying?


----------



## Marcel (Apr 5, 2008)

Hi,

I should indeed have used the term IMHO as it is of course my opinion. 
TO, you're right, it was the combined attack of Hirosima and Nagasaki. 

Why do I think strategic bombing is overrated? One reason is that the damage done to industry was usually not as big as one might expect. The buildings are usually destroyed, but the all important machines not as much. One example, during Big Week, the USAAF targeted the german a/c industry. While it did decrease the output of a/c for a little while, the germans simply moved the production underground. The output went down a little, but at the end of 1944, the output of planes had hugely increased, so at best we you could say the bombing slowed the *increase* a little. This of course contributed to winning the war, but didn't have a decisive influence.

I don't want to start a discussion about carpet bombing, but only would say that their impact is still questionable, considering what happened for instance in London during the Blitz.

Sys mentions the bombing of the Romanian oilfields. This is a good point. This had a major impact, but also happened when allied forces were already on the mainland and germany was virtually beaten. It didn't force the germans to surrender like the A'bomb, it only hastened the end. But so did tactical support of thousands of medium bombers.

I could give more examples of smaller bombers having impact on the outcome of the war, Midway and the Doolittle raid and many others coming in mind.

I'm *not* saying the strategic bombing useless, I'm only saying it was just a part of the whole, the bombing of the oil wouldn't have had such an impact if the Russians wouldn't have prevented the Germans from taking the Russian oilfields (while being supported by medium bombers and fighter bombers). My final point: Bombers should be judged on how they performed their role, not by the payload or range they had.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 5, 2008)

Marcel said:


> .....
> Sys mentions the bombing of the Romanian oilfields. This is a good point. This had a major impact, but also happened when allied forces were already on the mainland and germany was virtually beaten. It didn't force the germans to surrender like the A'bomb, it only hastened the end. But so did tactical support of thousands of medium bombers.
> ....



You never heard of the oil offensive against the German refineries? Have you read the statistics from the USSBS that showed that while German production of material was going up, fuel supplies were going down at an alarming rate?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 5, 2008)

There were several raids on Ploesti, with the first on August 1, 1943, before the allies were on the European continent soil. 

In the spring and summer of 1944, US Fifteenth Air Force hammered Ploesti. A raid on June 23, 1944, sent 761 bombers against Rumanian oil targets. 60,000 airmen eventually flew against Ploesti, dropping 13,000 tons of bombs, eventually knocking out the oil fields and accelerating Germany's defeat.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 5, 2008)

The AAF and BC raids on the oil complexes in SE Germany in the second half of 1944 were among the deadliest and most contested bomber raids of the war.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> You never heard of the oil offensive against the German refineries? Have you read the statistics from the USSBS that showed that while German production of material was going up, fuel supplies were going down at an alarming rate?



Yep, but you're missing my point. As I said heavy bombing did their share, but it was one factor amongst others.



evangilder said:


> There were several raids on Ploesti, with the first on August 1, 1943, before the allies were on the European continent soil.



 my bad, forgot that when I made my remark, thanks for reminding me Eric.




evangilder said:


> In the spring and summer of 1944, US Fifteenth Air Force hammered Ploesti. A raid on June 23, 1944, sent 761 bombers against Rumanian oil targets. 60,000 airmen eventually flew against Ploesti, dropping 13,000 tons of bombs, eventually knocking out the oil fields and accelerating Germany's defeat.


I mentioned that, didn't I? I never said it didn't help, not even said it didn't help a lot, but it's just one factor amongst others.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 5, 2008)

Yep, you mentioned it, but I was just adding some info to it. It's hard to imagine 60,000 men for one target, much less having that many air crewmen available.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 5, 2008)

evangilder said:


> There were several raids on Ploesti, with the first on August 1, 1943, before the allies were on the European continent soil.
> 
> In the spring and summer of 1944, US Fifteenth Air Force hammered Ploesti. A raid on June 23, 1944, sent 761 bombers against Rumanian oil targets. 60,000 airmen eventually flew against Ploesti, dropping 13,000 tons of bombs, eventually knocking out the oil fields and accelerating Germany's defeat.



Actually, the first raid on Ploesti was on June 11, 1942 and IIRC it was the first raid by USAAF on a Eurpean target, preceeding the 8th AF by two months.

Halvorson led the 12 B-24s on the attack - code named "Halpro".. scared the bejeesus out of the Germans leading them to heavily fortify Ploesti in time for Avalanche.. There is no way to know how much more effective the August 1 mission could have been if not for the ability of the Germans to deveote a fucused 14 months building up the defenses.

I used to have film taken from one of the B-24s in which it was 'dueling' with a flak train running parallel to them and you would swear the gunners are shooting uphill as they could not have been more that 10 feet off the deck.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 5, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Yep, but you're missing my point. As I said heavy bombing did their share, but it was one factor amongst others.



You are missing the point.

The heavy bomber offensive against the German petroleum industry did more to defeat Germany than any single cause.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 5, 2008)

Marcel is right, the strategic bombardment was not as effective as originally thought. German war production increased throughout the war until 1945 when factories were being lost to ground forces. However, it's hard to imagine Germany's production figures without the Allied bombing campaign. 

The single factor that did more than any other to defeat Germany was the ground troops sweeping the Wehrmacht back to Berlin. And tactical air support was much more important to them than any strategic campaign. 

The strategic campaign would have had more effect if the Allies had concentrated on the oil production facilities much sooner. As it was the USAAF did not make a real effort to destroy Germany's oil production until May '44. Instantly the results were impressive but Germany was already defeated. 
For some statistics, in March '44 Germany produced 927,000 tons of Petroleum, in May '44 they produced 715,000 tons and 472,000 tons in June. Luftwaffe supplies of aviation spirit dropped from 180,000 tons in April to 50,000 in June and 10,000 in August. 

The claims of the USAAF throughout 1943 however had led the U.S Chiefs of Staff to be a little less than disappointed and they came close to abandoning the U.S strategic campaign unless it promised that every raid would diminish German fighting power. During the summer of '44 the oil raids slowed and then again in the winter. 
The USAAF did recognise the significance of their find in 1944 but by that time the war was in moving rapidly toward Germany's defeat, and the winter weather didn't help. The Germans could repair an oil facility within two weeks and the production centers were often overcast so repeat visits were difficult. 

The effort made by the USAAF in 1944 cannot be understated, they certainly played a large part in strangling the Wehrmacht but the true impact on Germany's war effort was the capture of her eastern factories and production plants by the Red Army. 

The Allied campaign against Germany's oil targets would have been greater if 'Bomber' Harris had given them more attention. Many leading RAF members wanted to divert all attention to the destruction of German transportation and oil production but Harris gave them 11% of British efforts between July and September '44 and 14% between October and December. In the same time period 20% 58% of British sorties went against cities (time periods respectively). In November '44 Bomber Command did drop more tonnage on oil targets than the 8th Air Force but this was still only 24.6% of the British sorties and no where near enough. 

Even though I have said it myself it is too easy to state that more effort should have been made against the oil production facilities early on. It's worth remembering what the Allied (really, the RAF) had in its air war against Germany's production. Hampdens, Blenheims and Wellingtons were not capable of effectively striking at Germany's oil in 1939 - 1941, and the Allied air effort dropped 60% the entire tonnage of the war between September 1944 and April 1945. In the first four months of 1945 Bomber Command dropped 181,740 tons, in the whole of 1943 Bomber Command dropped 157,367 tons!


The first mention of oil production attacks I know of is in June 1940 when 2 Group was ordered to attack oil refineries at Hamburg, Gelsenkirchen, Sterkrade, Holten, Wanne Eickel, Kamen, Dortmund, Emmerich, Hanover, Bremen, Ostermoor, Salzbergen, Homberg, Dusseldorf, Monheim and Reisholtz. These targets were spread apart to spread the Luftwaffes fighter force, it was obvious that the oil targets would attract a heavy defence but the aim wasn't to destroy them - it was simply to draw the Luftwaffe from France. 
The oil attacks were delayed as the forces in France called for close support from the Blenheims. Once France had fallen the oil attacks were cut back once again when the Blenheims were ordered to attack the airfields in France. The baiting attacks did continue until March 1941 and took great courage.

And drgondog is absolutely right; 13 B-24Ds of the Halverson Detachment attacked Ploesti on the 12th June (they took off 2230 and 2300 hours of 11th June). They took off from Fayid, Eygpt and proceeded individually toward their target. Ten bombed the Astra Romana Refinery at Ploesti, one attack the port of Constanta and two dropped on unidentified targets. Col.Halverson and three others landed at Ramadi, Iraq. Three others reached other parts of Iraq, one crashed on landing, 2 made it to Aleppo, Syria but 4 had to land and were interned in Turkey. An oil depot was destroyed and some port facilities were damaged, but overall the attack was morale booster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 5, 2008)

And has been discussed before, the oil situation made it impossible for the LW to train pilots and expand their AF.

All that production managed to do was to ensure surviving pilots were never short of aircraft.

The oil offensive in 1944 was the deciding factor in the air war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (Apr 6, 2008)

Yep, spot on, drgondog. I forgot about Halpro. IIRC, there was also a raid by P-38s on Ploesti.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 6, 2008)

In the spring of 1944 the Luftwaffe was already suffering as a result of constant bombardment to their airfields and slaughter of their pilots in the sky. The 'oil situation' which became dire after May '44 was not a sole result of the Allied bombing campaign, nor did it decapitate the Luftwaffe. 

More to the point, the sharp decrease in oil production and refining was not because of the Allied bombing campaign it was because of the capture of German refineries by the Red Army. On the 29th August, 1944, the Red Army captured Ploesti which produced one third of the Axis oil supplies. I should have placed more emphasis on that fact in my last post. 

I do make clear that the oil campaign cannot be understated, but it's just as important not to overstate it. The real impact on the German economy, and it's ability to fight was made by the men on the ground rather than those in the air. 

Also, the German production peaked in September '44 so the Luftwaffe would have been running out of aircraft as each factory was captured by the advancing Allied armies.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 6, 2008)

plan_D said:


> I do make clear that the oil campaign cannot be understated, but it's just as important not to overstate it. The real impact on the German economy, and it's ability to fight was made by the men on the ground rather than those in the air.



Great two posts PlanD and very well put what I wanted to say.



syscom3 said:


> You are missing the point.
> 
> The heavy bomber offensive against the German petroleum industry did more to defeat Germany than any single cause.



No, I did not miss the point, I just don't agree that this means the heavy bomber was exclusively decisive.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Yep, spot on, drgondog. I forgot about Halpro. IIRC, there was also a raid by P-38s on Ploesti.



There was. I would have to research date and units but IIRC it was 82nd and 14th, one flying top cover for the other, and the bomb aiming done by a Droop Snoot 38... strictly from an aging memory.

I think there are strong elements of truth on both sides of the oil campaign debate.

One they were the most important strategic class of targets, and you have to mention Oil/Chemical in the same context. The Chemical plants were key also for simple reasons of ammunition/ordnance as well as fertiler for food production. IIRC Speer basically authorized fertilizer runs to detriment of gunpowder becuase he didn't want German people to starve.

Two, they were the Luftwaffe magnet and the 8th and 15th were the 'bait'. The LW was largely tring to avoid day by day clashes after April, 1944 - trying to hoard resources for the invasion - but the Oil/Chemical campaign forced their hand and enabled 8th and 15th AF fighters to take another big chunk of skills out of the Luftwaffe in May

Three, it took the Luftwaffe capability to rebuild and re-train to a point of no return.. It didn't really matter that German aircraft production continued through March, 1945. In many examples of allied strafing attacks on airfields in March and April, the aircraft were accorded 'damaged' awards simply becuase the a/c would not ignite with empty tanks.

Four, the RAF was more effective in the late fall and winter of 44 as US blind bombing techniques were not as effective at RAF methods. 

Plan_D is correct that the ultimate 'stop' of production at any facility was only achieved when that plant/refinery was over run, and contextually correct that allied bombing didn't completely stop oil/chemical production. The Germans were masters of damage control and operations management.

The USSR was amazed at the damage they found at Ploesti, given that American 'capitalists' had joint ownership of the facilities before Axis takeover.

That being said, on or about September 1944 the reserves that Speer had carefully hoarded was on the downhill path, never to recover.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 6, 2008)

Marcel, if you dont have fuel for your tanks, what are they going to do?

If you dont have fuel for your airplanes, what are they going to do?


----------



## Marcel (Apr 6, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Marcel, if you dont have fuel for your tanks, what are they going to do?
> 
> If you dont have fuel for your airplanes, what are they going to do?



I know syscom and agree that it was important. But as PlanD already pointed out, this fuel shortage was only really felt after the Germans were in fact already defeated. Furthermore, the fuel shortage was not just caused by bombing, but manly because they were captured on the ground, read Plan's post:


> More to the point, the sharp decrease in oil production and refining was not because of the Allied bombing campaign it was because of the capture of German refineries by the Red Army. On the 29th August, 1944, the Red Army captured Ploesti which produced one third of the Axis oil supplies.


So this somewhat counters your claim about strategic bombing. 
So I state again, strategic bombing was important and contributed a lot to the defeat of the axis, but it was not as effective as might expected. 

I first said the A-bomb was the only time strategic bombing was decisive, but there's a problem with that, too. Although very valuable to the allied cause, the event was not decisive in that it changed the outcome of the war, it only hastened the inevitable. Japanese defeat was by the marines on Guandalcanal and the little dive bombers at Midway. After that, the war for them could only end in one way.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 6, 2008)

Youre ignoring the fact that most of the refineries in Germany were using synthetic means to produce their POL's.

It was the heavy bombers disrupting the production of fuel that enabled the allies to win the war.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 6, 2008)

drgondog, you are absolutely right. The RAF recognised the oil targets as the ultimate target to force the Luftwaffe into combat. Using bombers as bait to force the Luftwaffe away from the front. Even with that recognised in 1940 the Allied strategic bombing didn't make any more attempts on the oil production until spring '44... it's a wonder why.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 6, 2008)

This is from the USSBS....

"With the reduction of German air power, oil became the priority target in the German economy. The bomber force for several months had been adequate for the task. A preliminary attack was launched on May 12, 1944, followed by another on May 28; the main blow was not struck, however, until after D-day. In the months before D-day and for a shorter period immediately following, all available air power based on England was devoted to insuring the success of the invasion.

Virtually complete records of the German oil industry were taken by the Survey. In addition, major plants that were subject to attack and their records were studied in detail.

The German oil supply was tight throughout the war, and was a controlling factor in military operations. The chief source of supply, and the only source for aviation gasoline, was 13 synthetic plants together with a small production from three additional ones that started operations in 1944. The major sources of products refined from crude oil were the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania and the Hungarian fields which together accounted for about a quarter of the total supply of liquid fuels in 1943. In addition, there was a small but significant Austrian and domestic production. The refineries at Ploesti were attacked, beginning with a daring and costly low-level attack in August 1943. These had only limited effects; deliveries increased until April 1944 when the attacks were resumed. The 1944 attacks, together with mining of the Danube, materially reduced Rumanian deliveries. In August 1944, Russian occupation eliminated this source of supply and dependence on the synthetic plants became even greater than before.

Production from the synthetic plants declined steadily and by July 1944 every major plant had been hit. These plants were producing an average of 316,000 tons per month when the attacks began. Their production fell to 107,000 tons in June and 17,000 tons in September. Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September. Production recovered somewhat in November and December, but for the rest of the war was but a fraction of pre-attack output.

The Germans viewed the attacks as catastrophic. In a series of letters to Hitler, among documents seized by the Survey, the developing crisis is outlined month by month in detail. On June 30, Speer wrote: "The enemy has succeeded in increasing our losses of aviation gasoline up to 90 percent by June 22d. Only through speedy recovery of damaged plants has it been possible to regain partly some of the terrible losses." The tone of the letters that followed was similar. "

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Apr 7, 2008)

You're right Syscom,

I did some research on the synthetic production which I did ignore as you said. I must admit the destruction of the plants seriously crippled the German army and thus shortened the war considerably. Do you think the Allieds would not have been victorious if these plants had not be bombed?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 7, 2008)

Allies would of still won hands down, bombing the plants just helped to shorten the war.

Nothing short of a nuke (more like 20+ nukes) could of stopped the massive advantage the Allies had in numbers of every type.

Between Russia, USA and Commonwealth they produced more then Germany could ever hope to stop with conventional weapons.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2008)

The allies would still have won, but the LW might have recovered from its pilot losses and made the last 6 months of the war ever more bloody.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 8, 2008)

The Luftwaffe was in no position to rebuild or rearm in the final 8 months of the war whether they had fuel or not. The movement of the Red Army through the Eastern oil production centres and factories led to the destruction of the German war machine. By the time the Allied air force made the effort against oil production (after the invasion) the days of Germany were numbered. 

I'm not denying that the attack on Germany's oil made any difference - it was the best course of action. I am merely stating that it's being inflated here as the war was already won. If the RAF had sunk the Tirpitz in '42 or '43 it would have been impressive and useful, but when it happened in '44 it was merely a circus act. Just like the oil strikes - too late to make a massive impact.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 8, 2008)

plan_D said:


> The Luftwaffe was in no position to rebuild or rearm in the final 8 months of the war whether they had fuel or not. The movement of the Red Army through the Eastern oil production centres and factories led to the destruction of the German war machine. By the time the Allied air force made the effort against oil production (after the invasion) the days of Germany were numbered.
> 
> I'm not denying that the attack on Germany's oil made any difference - it was the best course of action. I am merely stating that it's being inflated here as the war was already won. If the RAF had sunk the Tirpitz in '42 or '43 it would have been impressive and useful, but when it happened in '44 it was merely a circus act. Just like the oil strikes - too late to make a massive impact.



I felt like it (Strategic Oil Campaign) was by far the most effective strategy and execution of the airwar during WWII. Absent the attacks and success the Germans may have been able to continue to feed the strategic reserves - even without Ploesti.

The consequence to that would have been better training opportunity in summer and fall of 1944 for LW pilots, making the airwar not only more painful but also capable of more sorties against Allied armies, and possibly have enough fuel to go to Antwerp and exploit the breakthrough at the Bulge.. we will never know what the thinking or actions would have been. 

Possibly Bodenplatte a month earlier with much better pilots could have really hurt TAC for both RAF and USAAF and made it possible for Germany to succeed.

It is always a little iffy to predict that the Allies could have cut them off had they been able to drive to Antwerp - and achieved the same or better results. If not we are looking at a different Europe with Russians maybe stopping at Rhine instead of Elbe.

I agree your thesis that the days were numbered, and agree that the oil campaign has zero effect on the invasion or the Russian advance from the east..

My impression is that the Oil campaign was hugely important.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 8, 2008)

Were not only talking about av gas here.

If the Panzers had enough fuel to go limited offensives, then they could very well have held up the allies for additional months.

And it wasnt untill the last 2 months of the war that the factories were occupied.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Apr 9, 2008)

Does anyone know what part of the german oil comsuption was synthetic?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Does anyone know what part of the german oil comsuption was synthetic?



Look for it in the USSBS documents or the fischer-tropsch archives.

*U*nited *S*tates *S*trategic *B*ombing *S*urvey


CONTENTS

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/MofFP/ger_syn_ind/mof-sectef.pdf

BIOS 1697 - Synthetic Oil Production in Germany Interrogation of Dr. Butefisch


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 9, 2008)

What are we bombing so as a proper comparison can be made...if it is Torpedo's then the Kate with retractable gear, and able to carry the Vaunted type91 torpedo....
Fighter-bomber...some might argue the Junkers 88, but the Mosquito could carry 4000 lbs of bombs to anywhere in Germany, mark targets, destroy doodlebugs, fly over 400 mph and mounted cannons to partol over air-field hampering night fighters from re-fueling and a second sortie.
Tonnage was the B-29...
Biggest single bomb was the lanc grand slam 22,000
Dive bomber for accuracy was the JU87 or tank busting, as done on the eastern front...lack of speed made them a death trap in the western conflicts..
German overall was the JU88..a dive-glide bomber...night-fighter...daylight fighter over Germany...some say the HE111, but low payload, slow speed left many wishing they where posted to Junkers instead...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 9, 2008)

The oil campaign was by the far the best course of action, I would never disagree; accompany an attack on the oil system with an attack on Germany's power stations and you've crippled the entire war machine. I'm not disputing the effectiveness of the oil campaign; I'm disputing it's importance in the war. 

The German oil production didn't start to drop drastically until after the summer of 1944 (September seems to be the worst month, and it then began to recover during the winter). Germany had reserves to train new pilots but they didn't have the airspace. I don't think that the Luftwaffe could have produced an airforce in a few short months that was in anyway capable of halting the Allied air onslaught. 

The Germans failed to breakthrough in the Ardennes Offensive because they lacked reserves, not fuel. I'm not denying that the German forces suffered from a shortage and many tanks were abandoned, but the German attack lacked the rear echeleons required to achieve any kind of serious threat to the Allied war plans. If the German forces had reached Antwerp they would have stretched their lines too thinly and could have been cut to pieces - all the fuel in the world wouldn't have given them victory.

I do admit that the Allied losses were probably less in the air and on the ground because of Germany's fuel shortage, but I don't believe it was an important part of the war effort. If the Allies began their offensive in late 1943 or even early 1944 then I would be the first to agree, but late 1944... no, not in my opinion. 

The German factories and oil production plants were being overrun in late1944 all the way up 'til May 1945. Ploesti was overrun in August '44 while the Zeiss plant wasn't taken until April '45.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2008)

If Mr Speer says that the destruction of the oil refineries (or damage, disruption, whatever) was a debacle for the German war machine, then I am going to believe him.


----------



## silvertop (Apr 9, 2008)

hey flyboy,
They DID use the b29's over europe 
we hadthem at RAF Marham Norfolk ENGLAND

I worked on them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2008)

silvertop said:


> hey flyboy,
> They DID use the b29's over europe
> we hadthem at RAF Marham Norfolk ENGLAND
> 
> I worked on them



In the late 40s, early 50s - right?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 9, 2008)

Hmmmmm


----------



## parsifal (Apr 9, 2008)

Very roughly, (I am not going to attempt to match you guys in this debate), I think I read somewhere the bombing offensive is estimated to have sucked out about 10% of German production in 1943, rising to about 35-40% in 1944, and climbing to over 50% in 1945. These are very rough figures, and I am not going to die in a ditch if people have better stats.

As the voice in the wilderness, I am going to be the bunny and say I am not so sure that oil was the magic bullet that you all say it is. Sure, it was effective, even vital, but the day in day out attacks on the transport network sure did a lot of harm to both the german military AND the economy. The German rolling stock and loco situation started terribly, and just got worse as the war progressed. And Germany absolutely depended on her rail network

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Apr 9, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Look for it in the USSBS documents or the fischer-tropsch archives.
> 
> *U*nited *S*tates *S*trategic *B*ombing *S*urvey
> 
> ...



Thanks for the links, Syscom.


I would say the main reason the Germans lost was because they were fighting against the rest of the world, losing men they couldn't replace (especially on the eastern front). I agree with PlanD that the Germans already lost before the allies started to bomb the oil factories. I do however believe the bombing of the factories helped shortening the war. Just like the atomic bomb on Japan, it didn't change the outcome, so it wasn't decisive in that sense, but it did make the end come quicker.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2008)

silvertop said:


> hey flyboy,
> They DID use the b29's over europe
> we hadthem at RAF Marham Norfolk ENGLAND
> 
> I worked on them



They were evaluated in England but they never flew combat missions over Europe...

Right???


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 9, 2008)

There were no B29 missions in Europe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2008)

Thankyou sys that is what I was getting at.


----------



## wingnuts (Apr 9, 2008)

The RAF used 70 Boeing B29Ds between 1950 and 1958 as a stopgap until the V bombers came into service such as the Vickers Valiant, Avro Vulcan and HP Victor. The B29s were called Washingtons by the RAF and they were based at Coningsby and Marham.

Article 1


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 14, 2008)

best bomber??? the one that brings you home..


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2008)

I'm going to change my vote from the Lanc to the B17 or B24 although they carried less they had more to do with the demise of the LW then the bomber command types. The fact the USAAF needed a long range fighter to accompany the heavies and hence draw the Luftwaffe into battle was far more important then the highly inaccurate forays that bomber command was able to complete . It's been mentioned about Gee and Oboe made the night mission more accurate well Berlin was out of range for either of these beams because both beams were limited by line of sight . Gee had an CEP an oval 2 x 6 miles and Oboe was better at several hundred yards . H2S was unable to pick Berlin out do to lack of distinguishing features


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2008)

Funny how I was convinced that the B24 was #2 and then switched my vote to the Lanc.

And now you're saying the B24 was better than the Lanc?


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Funny how I was convinced that the B24 was #2 and then switched my vote to the Lanc.
> 
> And now you're saying the B24 was better than the Lanc?


I'm not just looking at the payload I'm looking at the fact if not for the 8th AF performing the daylight missions the Luftwaffe would have been very much stronger . The fact being the USAAF were forced to develop long range escorts which also forced the LW to meet the challenge of attacking bombers with a protective fighter screen which if you follow the bouncing ball caused the LW high losses .

In short the presence of USAAF bombers and fighters in strength over Germany proper in daylight was a far bigger part in the destruction of germany and the LW then night bombing hence the 24 or 17 was more important .


----------



## Old Wizard (May 26, 2008)

Didn't the USAAF get a long range fighter becausr the British ordered a fighter from North American who came up with the Mustang. Add the Merlin engine and the rest is history.


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2008)

The US already had a long range fighter called the P38


----------



## johnbr (May 26, 2008)

I would like to now why on the B29 they did not give it the RR Dart Turbine.I think it would have been a good combo .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2008)

johnbr said:


> I would like to now why on the B29 they did not give it the RR Dart Turbine.I think it would have been a good combo .


2 reasons - B-47 and B-52........


----------



## Waynos (May 27, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I'm not just looking at the payload I'm looking at the fact if not for the 8th AF performing the daylight missions the Luftwaffe would have been very much stronger . The fact being the USAAF were forced to develop long range escorts which also forced the LW to meet the challenge of attacking bombers with a protective fighter screen which if you follow the bouncing ball caused the LW high losses .
> 
> In short the presence of USAAF bombers and fighters in strength over Germany proper in daylight was a far bigger part in the destruction of germany and the LW then night bombing hence the 24 or 17 was more important .



But how is that indicative of the qualities of the bomber itself? That would have applied equally if the USAAF had been flying Wellingtons or B-23's surely? That is a tactical benefit, not proof of the B-24.

Technologically it is certain that the B-29 was the best bomber of WW2, but in terms of what was the best bomber available for operations for most of the war, it has to be the Lancaster for heavies or the Mosquito or Ju-88 for the smaller classes in my view.


----------



## Waynos (May 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 2 reasons - B-47 and B-52........



The RAF never had either of those, so I wonder if the question related to RAF Washingtons?

BEA operated Dart powered Dakotas successfully for several years but the engine wasn't powerful enough for the B-29. The reason we probably didn't bother re-engining our aircraft (with bigger turboprops like the Proteus) was cost and timescale, they were only ever going to be a short term stop gap in the RAF.


----------



## pbfoot (May 27, 2008)

Waynos said:


> But how is that indicative of the qualities of the bomber itself? That would have applied equally if the USAAF had been flying Wellingtons or B-23's surely? That is a tactical benefit, not proof of the B-24.
> 
> Technologically it is certain that the B-29 was the best bomber of WW2, but in terms of what was the best bomber available for operations for most of the war, it has to be the Lancaster for heavies or the Mosquito or Ju-88 for the smaller classes in my view.


Which one was more responsible for the downfall of the Germans certainly the b17/24 combo as they drew the LW fighters to them . With the LW fighters facing a tougher opposition they incurred heavier losses . Now the 8th had bad losses in daylight without the escorts but they in the end did get escorts and this combo wrecked the LW .
The best bomber is the one that caused the most havoc IMHO . Its to bad Portal advised Churchill that long range fighters that would be able to hold their own against the LW fighters was an impossibility


----------



## Waynos (May 27, 2008)

> The best bomber is the one that caused the most havoc IMHO



Yes, I can see where you are coming from with that view. However I would class that as more a case of being 'most effective use of the bomber' rather than which was the most capable aircraft, which is where my opinion differs.

If I understand your definition, if the equipment was reversed and the USAAF flew Lancs and Halifaxes on these raids then they would get your vote?


----------



## pbfoot (May 27, 2008)

Waynos said:


> Yes, I can see where you are coming from with that view. However I would class that as more a case of being 'most effective use of the bomber' rather than which was the most capable aircraft, which is where my opinion differs.
> 
> If I understand your definition, if the equipment was reversed and the USAAF flew Lancs and Halifaxes on these raids then they would get your vote?


I don't think they could fly the same mission as they were woefully underarmed with the 303's and no ventral armament . as it was the the germans could sit back out of range of the 303's and have a free shot. I am not knocking the RAF or RCAF who flew the bulk of these night missions , its with hindsight that I believe that the resources could have been put to better use.


----------



## Waynos (May 27, 2008)

> I am not knocking the RAF or RCAF who flew the bulk of these night missions ,



No, I can see that and I don't disagree with the logic of what you are saying. I just don't think it illustrates which was the best bomber. If you are saying their contribution was to draw up the LW fighters for the USAAF fighters to shoot down, then the bombers own armament doesn't matter does it? Any bomber could have flown those missions. You seem to talking about their usefulness as bait rather than as bombers, unless I have misunderstood you?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2008)

I think what's missing here is the ability to cause the "most havoc" but also have the best survival rate based on the mission at hand. While the efforts of the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster can be recognized, their participation is still over a 3 year period in an environment that was not far from the enemy. the B-29 had a deployment a little over a year and had to fly thousands of miles to bring the fight to the enemy and sometimes the flight there was more dangerous than the actual mission. IMO the B-29 is still out in front.


----------



## Waynos (May 27, 2008)

There is another good way of looking at it. If you had a choice, which bomber would you choose to fly?

For me that would be a Mosquito


----------



## pbfoot (May 27, 2008)

Waynos said:


> No, I can see that and I don't disagree with the logic of what you are saying. I just don't think it illustrates which was the best bomber. If you are saying their contribution was to draw up the LW fighters for the USAAF fighters to shoot down, then the bombers own armament doesn't matter does it? Any bomber could have flown those missions. You seem to talking about their usefulness as bait rather than as bombers, unless I have misunderstood you?


no their contribution was to bomb but at some point you must be able to defend yourself and the Bomber Command heavies were lacking that ability. Although both airforces had the priority of hitting the oil refinerys the USAAF also tacked on the destructiopn of the LW, The Commonwealth in sending 20 or 30 Havocs over France with a fighter cover in the 200's was not going to draw up the LW the USAAF by hitting Germany in daylight sure did .


----------



## Waynos (May 27, 2008)

In terms of actual bombing though can it truly be said that the USAAF was more effective than the RAF/Commonwealth? Surely drawing up the fighters is a side issue?

Was it ever stated that bringing up the LW to fight was an aim of the daylight raids, or was it a side effect? I am not an expert on these matters, I just don't see how 'trying to get intercepted' shows an aptitude for bombing.


----------



## syscom3 (May 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think what's missing here is the ability to cause the "most havoc" but also have the best survival rate based on the mission at hand. While the efforts of the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster can be recognized, their participation is still over a 3 year period in an environment that was not far from the enemy. the B-29 had a deployment a little over a year and had to fly thousands of miles to bring the fight to the enemy and sometimes the flight there was more dangerous than the actual mission. IMO the B-29 is still out in front.




Carrying an atomic bomb 1600 miles from base is also way of saying the B29 was the best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2008)

Waynos said:


> There is another good way of looking at it. If you had a choice, which bomber would you choose to fly?



Depends on the mission....


----------



## pbfoot (May 27, 2008)

Waynos said:


> In terms of actual bombing though can it truly be said that the USAAF was more effective than the RAF/Commonwealth? Surely drawing up the fighters is a side issue?
> 
> Was it ever stated that bringing up the LW to fight was an aim of the daylight raids, or was it a side effect? I am not an expert on these matters, I just don't see how 'trying to get intercepted' shows an aptitude for bombing.


operation Point Blank and here is an excerpt fron that order 
"The ulterior or strategic object of destroying selected segments of German industry was seen to be dependant "upon prior (or simultaneous ) offensive against German fighter strength which was therefor designated as an intermediate objective second to none in priority"


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 27, 2008)

On the armament, the Lancaster and Halifax were capable of decent defensive mountings, though they were .303's. However, it would be fairly simple to switch to .50's, or maybe 20mm or a mix. (probably lfewer guns though, ie 4x .303 turret to 2x .50 turret, or sigle 20 mm, with single gun implacements, ie ventral mount on Lanc, with single .50)

so 2x .50 (or 1x 20 mm)in nose, dorsal, and tail turrets. 1x .50 in ventral mount. On Lanccaster.

Still not as well protected as the B-24 or B-17, (particularly from below) but probably good enough. (possibly a better ventral mount could be developed for the Lanc, was that ever done?)


----------



## syscom3 (May 27, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> On the armament, the Lancaster and Halifax were capable of decent defensive mountings, though they were .303's. However, it would be fairly simple to switch to .50's, or maybe 20mm or a mix. (probably lfewer guns though, ie 4x .303 turret to 2x .50 turret, or sigle 20 mm, with single gun implacements, ie ventral mount on Lanc, with single .50)
> 
> so 2x .50 (or 1x 20 mm)in nose, dorsal, and tail turrets. 1x .50 in ventral mount. On Lanccaster.
> 
> Still not as well protected as the B-24 or B-17, (particularly from below) but probably good enough. (possibly a better ventral mount could be developed for the Lanc, was that ever done?)



Not so simple. The .50's had a higher weight for ammo and mounts. There might not even be place in the fuselauge to mount the necessary turrets.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 27, 2008)

Did they do any testing on alternate armaments?


----------



## syscom3 (May 28, 2008)

I remember somewhere on one of the many thread over this, that .50's were used on occasion, or had been fitted onto the Lancs, with various degree's of success.

But it never had the capacity to carry at a minimum, 10 x .50's like the B24 had.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 28, 2008)

I know, I said it wouldn't be as good as the B-17 or B-24, I was saying it could have been adequate though.

But another thing to think of is the British Bombers were not good at high alt, even compared to the B-24, the Lancaster was the best, but then only with liquid cooled engines. But then we could say if they wanted to focus on high-alt day opperations they could have invested in turbocharger development (or gotten them from the US) or put more development into high-alt supercharged versions of the Hercules engines.

At medium alt though there were two major problems for day opps, vulnerability to flak, and greater vulnerability to enemy fighters: the German fighters (particularly the 190, the 109 had good high alt performance) operated best at medium altitudes, and would reach the bomber altitudes more quickly to intercept. And the allied fighters would not have the same kind of advantages any more. (although if the escort fighters had been optimised for meduim altitudes, that could change too)

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 28, 2008)

Oh, and I was referring to Waynos' and pbfoot's discussion.


----------



## i-kil-you (May 28, 2008)

i say 1 of the best aircraft of ww2 would be the b-25 j mitchel


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 28, 2008)

Coud you explain why?


----------



## Kruska (May 30, 2008)

Hello guys,

B-29 was for sure the best heavy bomber in ww2, right? So can we start a new thread? 

Maybe best defensive armament for bombers in WW2, range, weaponload, engines, ceiling, oh well I guess all that would be a B-29  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

The whole "best" thing in any of these types of threads is what kind of leaves it open ended.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## helmitsmit (Jun 2, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I don't think they could fly the same mission as they were woefully underarmed with the 303's and no ventral armament . as it was the the germans could sit back out of range of the 303's and have a free shot. I am not knocking the RAF or RCAF who flew the bulk of these night missions , its with hindsight that I believe that the resources could have been put to better use.




You have to bear in mind the mission most of Bomber command used. ie night bombing. At night you need loose formation and rely on cloud cover and mobility to avoid trouble. The Lanc and to a degree halifaxes were able to corkscrew and dodge emeny forces. This is a totally different way of fighting then american bomber force who went straight through in tight formation relying on firepower and fighter cover. The night fighter also had to get in much closer to hit their target so 0.303 was better suited due to it's higher rate of fire. The lanc could carry a much better bombload then B17/B24 and it was more manuvourable. Therefore as a fighting aircraft it was better. The B29 came to late in my book and could only carry a similar bombload to the special lancs anyway. However I still believe that a larger number of Mosquito's is more effective then even the lanc.


----------



## helmitsmit (Jun 2, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> I remember somewhere on one of the many thread over this, that .50's were used on occasion, or had been fitted onto the Lancs, with various degree's of success.
> 
> But it never had the capacity to carry at a minimum, 10 x .50's like the B24 had.



To be fair the purpose of a bomber is to bomb first and then survive. I'd prefer speed over anything and delivering a good load. If you want then to stand a better chance to escort them simple. The b24 with 10 guns was still mauld be german fighters so it needed escorting. U could stick 20 guns on then if you want but they'd still get mauld because you have fast moving fighters that come from any angle and the best way to shoot down fighters is to have equally good fighters. and your forgetting about flak! 0.5 are no good against flak!


----------



## helmitsmit (Jun 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I know, I said it wouldn't be as good as the B-17 or B-24, I was saying it could have been adequate though.
> 
> But another thing to think of is the British Bombers were not good at high alt, even compared to the B-24, the Lancaster was the best, but then only with liquid cooled engines. But then we could say if they wanted to focus on high-alt day opperations they could have invested in turbocharger development (or gotten them from the US) or put more development into high-alt supercharged versions of the Hercules engines.
> 
> At medium alt though there were two major problems for day opps, vulnerability to flak, and greater vulnerability to enemy fighters: the German fighters (particularly the 190, the 109 had good high alt performance) operated best at medium altitudes, and would reach the bomber altitudes more quickly to intercept. And the allied fighters would not have the same kind of advantages any more. (although if the escort fighters had been optimised for meduim altitudes, that could change too)




If the RAF wanted the lanc to go heigher they could have put in merlin 61s like the lincon. but they didn't need too for night duty. Turbosupercharging was bulky and complex. The two stage merlin 60 series had one of the best altitude performance of any ww2 aeroengine


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

helmitsmit said:


> The B29 came to late in my book and could only carry a similar bombload to the special lancs anyway.


The B-29 not only carried a greater bomb load than the Lancaster, it was able to do so over a way longer distance - compare the Lancaster's range with it's 20,000 pound bomb load with that of the B-29.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2008)

To be honest the B29 was by far, the best bomber in WW2. all other contenders were prototypes and or maybe entering production, certainly not in squadron service. 

The only real debate is what was the second best bomber.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

Hello Glider,

Please don't forget the Ju86, it had an retractable underbelly "fresh air" full view panorama gunner seat. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> The only real debate is what was the second best bomber.



Can't argue with that!

So what was the second best bomber of WW II?

TO


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2008)

In order
2nd Best - B32 Dominator
3rd - Lincoln
4th - Lanc


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> To be honest the B29 was by far, the best bomber in WW2. all other contenders were prototypes and or maybe entering production, certainly not in squadron service.
> 
> The only real debate is what was the second best bomber.



Aha, but was it? What about the German jet bombers that entered service right at the very end of the war. Dont get me wrong, I am a BIG fan of the superforts. But the AR 234s and such were pretty good as well, at least from a technical standpoint


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2008)

Glider, how did you come up with the B32 as being #2?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Aha, but was it? What about the German jet bombers that entered service right at the very end of the war. Dont get me wrong, I am a BIG fan of the superforts. But the AR 234s and such were pretty good as well, at least from a technical standpoint



The only technical jump the German Jet bombers really had over the B-29 was it’s propulsion system.


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Glider, how did you come up with the B32 as being #2?



Its a personal view I admit, but I believe that the B32 had a number of problems that were not really solved including problems with its pressure system. Plus most of the guns were manual turrets not as sophisticated as the B29 and it was noisy. 
Due to problems at altitude it spent most of its time on low medium missions which defeated the main idea of a high altitude bomber.

I agree that the AR 234 was a remarkable machine but lacked flexibility.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Aha, but was it? What about the German jet bombers that entered service right at the very end of the war. Dont get me wrong, I am a BIG fan of the superforts. But the AR 234s and such were pretty good as well, at least from a technical standpoint



Was the Ar 234 going to carry 10,000lb of bombs and drop them on a target 2000 miles away?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2008)

Glider ... I have to look at some bomb bay drawings of the B32 .... but if it didnt have the big open style that the B29 and Lanc had, then this plane was nothing more than a "B24-improved"


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Was the Ar 234 going to carry 10,000lb of bombs and drop them on a target 2000 miles away?



No, but it was going to enter airspace completely dominated by enemy fighters, carry out its mission, and live to tell the tale. There are not many bombers, including the B-29 that could achieve that


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Glider ... I have to look at some bomb bay drawings of the B32 .... but if it didnt have the big open style that the B29 and Lanc had, then this plane was nothing more than a "B24-improved"



Thats probably a little harsh, but basically true.


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2008)

parsifal said:


> No, but it was going to enter airspace completely dominated by enemy fighters, carry out its mission, and live to tell the tale. There are not many bombers, including the B-29 that could achieve that



Sounds a bit like the Mossie !!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

parsifal said:


> No, but it was going to enter airspace completely dominated by enemy fighters, carry out its mission, and live to tell the tale. There are not many bombers, including the B-29 that could achieve that


And fly 2000 miles across an ocean to do it?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 2, 2008)

i'm not so sure that B-29 is the best bomber, i think it's hard fly a tactical mission over enemy line with a so large plane, i think need a split of problem in best tactical bomber and best strategical bomber, for strategical sure B-29 is best in its times, if talking for all WWII i think need take a bomber with a large timeframe like B-17 or Lancaster


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> i'm not so sure that B-29 is the best bomber, i think it's hard fly a tactical mission over enemy line with a so large plane, i think need a split of problem in best tactical bomber and best strategical bomber, for strategical sure B-29 is best in its times, if talking for all WWII i think need take a bomber with a large timeframe like B-17 or Lancaster



The B-29 was not designed to fly a tactical mission - it was a very heavy strategic bomber. It was the most advanced 4 engine heavy bomber platform that saw action in WW2 and was almost a generation a head of both the B-17 or Lancaster. No other ETO bomber of either side was capable of flying the mission the B-29 accomplished with its bombload.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2008)

Glider said:


> Sounds a bit like the Mossie !!!



My point exactly. there is this whole sub-class of bombers such as the Mosquito, the AR 234, the A-26, and the Tu-2, that pointed the way to the future, relatively small, fast, unarmed (defensively), relying on speed, altitude or similar for defence, and in WWII terms very survivable.

My criticism of the B-29 was that it was "old school", big, frightfully expensive, and in the end following an obsolete philospophy, namely the idea of a heavily armed and armoured, relatively slow moving behemoth, basically a moving target. 

to be fair, the B-29 did have many great qualities. It flew relatively fast, and relatively high, and as the guys point out it carried a bucket load of bombs further than any other aircraft. it was also very accurate and strong. but i cant help wondering if a different concept had been tried, namely an unarmed, very high speed, and very high flying bomber had been tried, if the result would not have been cheaper and even less vulnerable. that was certainly the way of the bomber in the post war era


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

parsifal said:


> My point exactly. there is this whole sub-class of bombers such as the Mosquito, the AR 234, the A-26, and the Tu-2, that pointed the way to the future, relatively small, fast, unarmed (defensively), relying on speed, altitude or similar for defence, and in WWII terms very survivable.


Qualities for a tactical strike aircraft


parsifal said:


> My criticism of the B-29 was that it was "old school", big, frightfully expensive, and in the end following an obsolete philospophy, namely the idea of a heavily armed and armoured, relatively slow moving behemoth, basically a moving target.


And that "old school" way of thinking lasted almost 20 years after WW2 - it ended with ICBMs and even then the big heavy bomber took the low road and was still (and still is) functional in to days world.


parsifal said:


> to be fair, the B-29 did have many great qualities. It flew relatively fast, and relatively high, and as the guys point out it carried a bucket load of bombs further than any other aircraft. it was also very accurate and strong. but i cant help wondering if a different concept had been tried, namely an unarmed, very high speed, and very high flying bomber had been tried, if the result would not have been cheaper and even less vulnerable. that was certainly the way of the bomber in the post war era


You could not have saturated large industrial areas in a cost effective manner with light bombers alone - you would of needed thousands of light bombers to accomplish what you are proposing - even though a war was raging, there were still costs attached in fighting it and the large heavy bomber was cost effective - the B-29 lasted into the 1950s the Mossie, although a great aircraft did not have longevity in the post WW2 period, not only was it overtaken by the jet, it's construction doomed it in the long term unless an operator had the resources to deal with it's constrution.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You could not have saturated large industrial areas in a cost effective manner with light bombers alone - you would of needed thousands of light bombers to accomplish what you are proposing - even though a war was raging, there were still costs attached in fighting it and the large heavy bomber was cost effective - the B-29 lasted into the 1950s the Mossie, although a great aircraft did not have longevity in the post WW2 period, not only was it overtaken by the jet, it's construction doomed it in the long term unless an operator had the resources to deal with it's constrution.



its probably true that it was infeasible to use medium or light bombers in place of a a B-29. The range an payload issues are pretty daunting. 

But consider this...there is a fairly strong argument to say that a Mosquito and a Stirling attacking say Berlin will deliver about the same tonnage of bombs over the target, and the Mosquito will do it much more accurately, and safely (about twice as safe actually) The Mosquito is able to do this, because it can bomb the target, return, reload, and bomb again, and still be back home before the Stirling. As stated above, it will do this with about half the casualties of "heavy" bomber (of the british kind). If you look at crew costs, the savings become even greater. The Germans were amazed that the British did not adopt this strategy


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

parsifal said:


> But consider this...there is a fairly strong argument to say that a Mosquito and a Stirling attacking say Berlin will deliver about the same tonnage of bombs over the target, and the Mosquito will do it much more accurately, and safely (about twice as safe actually)


How, what and when are they bombing? - are we taking out a specific target like a small armory or are we trying to level an aircraft factory? Are we doing this at night or in foul weather? A Stirling could carry about 18,000 pound of bombs in it's short range configuration, a Mosquito could carry 4,000 pounds of bombs and I think could of been overloaded to 6,000 pounds.

Use a Lancaster for this comparison.....




parsifal said:


> The Mosquito is able to do this, because it can bomb the target, return, reload, and bomb again, and still be back home before the Stirling. As stated above, it will do this with about half the casualties of "heavy" bomber (of the british kind). If you look at crew costs, the savings become even greater. The Germans were amazed that the British did not adopt this strategy


Look at the reasons I just gave and you could see why that tactic wasn't adopted - the Germans discarded their strategic bomber concept and they spent most with little effective bomber offensive. It's a lot more complicated than you think and you could see why the allies utilized a strategic heavy bomber. In the end it was one of the reasons why the war was won.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2008)

I do agree that the strategic bomber offensive was a factor in the defeat of the germans. I believe it is a much maligned Allied initiative. In 1944 for example I have read estimates that suggest the germans suffered losses of about 35% productive capacity due to the bombers.

I also concede that the Mosquitoes would have only had any success if the very nature of the RAF Bomber offensive had changed. They could not haul the required tonnage of bombs (notwithstanding my rather flippant comments above), but they could haul enough bombs to be used strategically. But the offensive would have had to change from an area bombing approach, to one of precision bombing. However, the Mosquito apparently excelled at this sought of attack, taking out specific targets rather than bludgeoning entire cities. 

I dont think either a Stirling or a Lanc can take their full bombloads to Berlin, but I do know that the Mosquito could haul a 4000 lb warload that far. Regulalry, Berlin was hit by 800-1000 heavies, with varying success. If production had concentrated on Mosquitoes, rather than Lancs and Halibags, I dont think I would be exaggerating (although I am theorising) to say that thestreams would have been in the 1500-2000 region.

I am aware of the german failure with their medium bombers. But my understanding is that at range the German mediums had to discard a significant proportion of their bombloads. I have heard that to attack the 
midlands, for example, He111s could only carry about 2000 lbs (correct me if I am wrong, because my memory is hazy, and I havent checked like i should)
The late war Mosquitoes were much more efficient than that


Its an alternative strategy at least worth considering in my view


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2008)

And what if the light or medium bomber has to hit its heavily defended target in bad weather?

No avioncs aids and its as good as useless.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 was not designed to fly a tactical mission - it was a very heavy strategic bomber. It was the most advanced 4 engine heavy bomber platform that saw action in WW2 and was almost a generation a head of both the B-17 or Lancaster. No other ETO bomber of either side was capable of flying the mission the B-29 accomplished with its bombload.



I think weare repeating ourselves. The AR234 was not designed for strategic bombing, a the B24 wasn't designed for tactical support. Both were the best in their classes, so voting for both of them is basically right. If the requirement are as you described, the thread should have been "Best strategic bomber".


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> And what if the light or medium bomber has to hit its heavily defended target in bad weather?
> 
> No avioncs aids and its as good as useless.



Syscom

I dont know the avionics fit that goes into a mosquito, but i think its record speaks for itself. It was a precision bomber able to operate at night. That is a pretty self explanatory and high standard of navigation.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Syscom
> 
> I dont know the avionics fit that goes into a mosquito, but i think its record speaks for itself. It was a precision bomber able to operate at night. That is a pretty self explanatory and high standard of navigation.


I don't think it was anymore accurate then any other bomber and the CEP of the avionics gave it a accuracy measured in hundreds of yards


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I do agree that the strategic bomber offensive was a factor in the defeat of the germans. I believe it is a much maligned Allied initiative. In 1944 for example I have read estimates that suggest the germans suffered losses of about 35% productive capacity due to the bombers.
> 
> I also concede that the Mosquitoes would have only had any success if the very nature of the RAF Bomber offensive had changed. They could not haul the required tonnage of bombs (notwithstanding my rather flippant comments above), but they could haul enough bombs to be used strategically. But the offensive would have had to change from an area bombing approach, to one of precision bombing. However, the Mosquito apparently excelled at this sought of attack, taking out specific targets rather than bludgeoning entire cities.
> 
> ...



You've answered your own question but had the B-29 been deployed over Europe, it "would of" been able to carry it's full 22,000 pound bomb load to Berlin. Going back to the original statement - The B-29 hands down was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Syscom
> 
> I dont know the avionics fit that goes into a mosquito, but i think its record speaks for itself. It was a precision bomber able to operate at night. That is a pretty self explanatory and high standard of navigation.


It operated at night in clear weather for the most part. Again it was limited by bomb load and range. Comparing it to any heavy is "apples and oranges."


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 was not designed to fly a tactical mission - it was a very heavy strategic bomber.



this is obvsiously and for this it can't be simply the best bomber


----------



## trackend (Jun 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You've answered your own question but had the B-29 been deployed over Europe, it "would of" been able to carry it's full 22,000 pound bomb load to Berlin. Going back to the original statement - The B-29 hands down was the best heavy bomber of WW2.



Agreed The other bombers Lancs, B17's etc had done most of the work but the B-29 was far more modern and had learned from it's pedecessors what was required for a heavy bomber just as later the B59 used hindsight in its development to its advantage.
I agree many of the wartime aircraft carried on for some years later IE the Mossie lasted till 1955 ending as PR or the DC3 which still flys.
But by the end of WW2 most aircraft designs had had their day the B29 being a late comer was bound to go on for sometime.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> . *Comparing it to any heavy is "apples and oranges."*



Exactly, so how can a conclusion be made about which is best...you prefer apples, and Im partial to oranges. Surely it would depend on which aircraft did its designated task the best, and then you have to work out the measures by which doing the job "best" is measured. all this table thumping and grandstanding gets nowhere fast.

I never said, or implied that the B-29 was a bad, or even a worse aircraft. What i did say, or imply was that it represented perhaps the best of its kind, but that post war, the idea of a relatively slow moving, heavily armed (defensively) was seen by many as a dated concept, and that there was trend toward the smaller faster, more difficult to intercept aircraft. You have not refuted that. But if I can now commit an act of self harm, you could have countered it, very effectively......in the early 30's the trend was precisely what I have advocated, smaller, faster etc. that led to such aircraft as the Blenheim and the early He-111s. Against the early fighter aircraft of the '30s, these types were largely unstoppable, but as fighter performances improved through the late '30s, the speed/altitiude/size formula appeared to become obsolete. The result was the heavily armed and armoured big bombers, that culminated in WWII with the B-29. But then a few designers doubled back and produced improved versions of the small/fast/high flying types that led to the alternative breeds, like the Mosquito, A-26, even the B-26. I'll put it to you that both philosophies have merit, and that the question of "best bomber" is not nearly so clear cut as you would like

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal, if you consider that the B29 carried an atomic bomb, 1600 miles from base.....

I think we can say its payload was 15,000 tons.

Now what other airplane could do that?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Exactly, so how can a conclusion be made about which is best...you prefer apples, and Im partial to oranges. Surely it would depend on which aircraft did its designated task the best, and then you have to work out the measures by which doing the job "best" is measured. all this table thumping and grandstanding gets nowhere fast.
> 
> I never said, or implied that the B-29 was a bad, or even a worse aircraft. What i did say, or imply was that it represented perhaps the best of its kind, but that post war, the idea of a relatively slow moving, heavily armed (defensively) was seen by many as a dated concept, and that there was trend toward the smaller faster, more difficult to intercept aircraft. You have not refuted that. But if I can now commit an act of self harm, you could have countered it, very effectively......in the early 30's the trend was precisely what I have advocated, smaller, faster etc. that led to such aircraft as the Blenheim and the early He-111s. Against the early fighter aircraft of the '30s, these types were largely unstoppable, but as fighter performances improved through the late '30s, the speed/altitiude/size formula appeared to become obsolete. The result was the heavily armed and armoured big bombers, that culminated in WWII with the B-29. But then a few designers doubled back and produced improved versions of the small/fast/high flying types that led to the alternative breeds, like the Mosquito, A-26, even the B-26. I'll put it to you that both philosophies have merit, and that the question of "best bomber" is not nearly so clear cut as you would like



If I may slither back to this debate, both for WWII and beyond.

The speed, altitude, size formula was countered to a large extent by very late war increases in interceptor and radar technologies - but for strategic airpower, range and payload dominated the landscape.

Until mid air refueling, the smaller ships did not have the range despite being able to carry say a small/medium nuc (F-105/A4 comes to mind).. but interceptor ranges had increased to point where mid air refueling near a strategic target was infeasible... so the small, fast ship can't get anywhere close to USSR in cold war.

Tactics and technologies continued to make say, the B-52 relatively unstoppable in a practical sense - first with low altitude - below radar tactics, second via 'stand off' capabilities with either small hard to detect dash nuclear missles - Mach 3 capable with 2-6 MT payloads or Cruise Missles

The key in WWII (and today) is range combined with payload combined with survivability.

Back to WWII. Mossie doesn't work during WWII because of the ranges required.. lancaster does to a degree but in PTO the B-24, then even moreso, the B-29 was the only weapon system capable of taking heavy loads to the Empire. (Yes I know B-32 was capable, but not as capable)

It, then the B-36, became the intermediate threat to USSR until the B-47 and B-52's arrived. The B-36 dominantly because it was the Only beast in the world that could carry the H-bomb for several years. The ultimate stick that weighed more than the medium (conventional) and light bombers of the day.

I agree that in hindsight it might have been interesting for strategic planners in ETO to take a hard look at Mossies in many strategic objectives and achieved great things with it - but destroying Japanese cities and ending the war would not have been one of its achievements, nor would it have been the nuclear deterrent for the next five years after WWII.

I think you have persuasive arguments, but I like my choice for most of the reasons stated.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> this is obvsiously and for this it can't be simply the best bomber



If every air force in the world was posed the question "Which single bomb carrying airplane would you choose for your air force (not navy), which do you choose?"

Your choice depends on your strategic Doctrine but if it is to drop many bombs on targets far away, you narrow the choices down very quickly.

For those that wish to pursue that doctrine, the choice narrows to one, in my opinion.

If your choice is that I want a multi role weapon system capable of fast recon, intermediate range level bombing, low level attack capability, night fighter capability and I don't need long to very range strategic capability to achieve my national objectives then you would not choose the B-29


----------



## Kruska (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I never said, or implied that the B-29 was a bad, or even a worse aircraft. What i did say, or imply was that it represented perhaps the best of its kind, but that post war, the idea of a relatively slow moving, heavily armed (defensively) was seen by many as a dated concept, and that there was trend toward the smaller faster, more difficult to intercept aircraft.......



Hello parsifal,

I would tend to see that differently. For example Vietnam:

You had Ar234's (F-105's and F-4's) and you had a B-29 (B-52). IIRC the only thing that stopped or was capapble to stop the Tet offensive was at the end masses of B-52's pounding the living daylights out of those Vietmin and Vietcong's in order to safe those beleaguered Marines and GI's. 

In the First Gulf war B-52's, B1's and B2's also took over that role in the first wave, then came in the strike aircrafts.

So I would conclude that for smaller - precision strike - targets a Ar.234 or a B-25/A-26 was just the right aircraft but in terms of bombing capability (inflictable mass bombing damage it was the B-29.

The two terms used nowadys are not a (medium bomber, heavy bomber) but a Strike Aircraft and a Bomber. So since the thread is about Best Bomber you would have to choose a bomber IMO not a strike aircraft.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 3, 2008)

there is some trouble here why best bomber is synonymous of best strategical bomber?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> parsifal, if you consider that the B29 carried an atomic bomb, 1600 miles from base.....
> 
> I think we can say its payload was 15,000 tons.
> 
> Now what other airplane could do that?



good point, but perhaps not so good if your own guys are just around the corner


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2008)

Hi Kruska

I guess if you are going to put the mediums into a different category, which kinda does make sense, then the B-29 is head and shoulders in front of the opposition. Heck, the russians even copied it from a coupe that were interned at Valdivostock at the end of the war (I believe they were the TU-4)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> No, but it was going to enter airspace completely dominated by enemy fighters, carry out its mission, and live to tell the tale. There are not many bombers, including the B-29 that could achieve that



Which is going to win the war though?

Dont take me wrong. I am not trying to take anything away from the smaller medium tactical bombers, but the few Ar 234's were not going to win the war for any side.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 3, 2008)

no bomber, like all the others weapons, but ICBM if enemy haven't it, can win a war alone


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> no bomber, like all the others weapons, but ICBM if enemy haven't it, can win a war alone



This is WW2, there are no ICBM's. Stay on topic...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> good point, but perhaps not so good if your own guys are just around the corner


If you call 2,000 miles of Pacific ocean "just around the corner."


----------



## Marcel (Jun 3, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> parsifal, if you consider that the B29 carried an atomic bomb, 1600 miles from base.....
> 
> I think we can say its payload was 15,000 tons.
> 
> Now what other airplane could do that?



You guys keep on repeating that, and it only proves that the B29 was the best *strategic* bomber of WW2. There's no argument about that, but Parcifal is right claiming it's like comparing apples to oranges when you say it's better than a mossie or an ar234.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2008)

Marcel said:


> You guys keep on repeating that, and it only proves that the B29 was the best *strategic* bomber of WW2. There's no argument about that, but Parcifal is right claiming it's like comparing apples to oranges when you say it's better than a mossie or an ar234.


I know this thread should be broken out to best heavy, medium, light etc. - the point here if you rolled it into one based on performance, equipment, innovation and firepower, the B-29 takes it and I think most of us could agree on that.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 3, 2008)

Agreed, B29 certainly was the best heavy.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Which is going to win the war though?
> 
> Dont take me wrong. I am not trying to take anything away from the smaller medium tactical bombers, but the few Ar 234's were not going to win the war for any side.




Adler

I dont think any single plane (or weapon system for that matter) can claim to be a sole war winner. Granted, the few AR 234s made no difference to the course of the war, but what impact would they have had if there were 500 or 1000 of them, with adequate fuel and pilots, and available from a more critical point in the war (say during Kursk)

The B-29 coupled with the A-Bomb had a massive impact on the end of the war, and demonstrated the power that the US possessed in 1945. But there is very strong evidence to suggest that a more significant factor in forcing the Japanese to the peace table was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo. That, and the concerns for the emperors safety (of which the A-Bomb was a big issue)


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2008)

The B29 could also carry two large naval mines, which were liberally employed in the many Japanese coastal choke points.

And that actually turned out to be one of the more effective ways the allies had in stopping the Japanese inter coastal shipping.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> But there is very strong evidence to suggest that a more significant factor in forcing the Japanese to the peace table was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo. That, and the concerns for the emperors safety (of which the A-Bomb was a big issue)


Read David Jablownski's book "Ring of Fire." Japan had about 8,000 aircraft stashed for the invasion and even wanted to engage one final battle "Just to save face." Even though the Japanese had the Soviets on their doorsteps (and they did fear the Russians) they knew they were going to see every one on of their major cities incinerated and they were powerless to do anything about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2008)

Noone has ever provided evidence that the Soviets had the amphib capability to invade Japan proper.

Just like the Germans that were on Britains doorstep in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 4, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Noone has ever provided evidence that the Soviets had the amphib capability to invade Japan proper.
> 
> Just like the Germans that were on Britins doorstep in 1940.



Im not suggesting that. The loss of Manchukuo and the entry of the SU represented the loss of final hope at anegotiated settlement for the Japanese, which is what they were after in 1945. Its a question of which event had the greater impact, the A-Bomb or the Soviet DOW and susequent victory?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2008)

A bomb.....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 4, 2008)

I take it from that reply that you dont give much weight or importance to the deterrence of the Red Army in the immediate post war period, when the Russians didnt have the bomb, and we did. The US must be sure nice people not to have bombed the Soviets back to stone age, right in the middle of the Mcarthyist lobbys and the Berlin blockade. They didnt use the bomb because they (post war US) had a healthy respect for the conventional strength of the Soviet forces.

None of this answers the question of which factor had the greater effect, the bomb, or the army. It just indicates that both forces were viewed with a healthy respect by their opposite numbers. Eventually the SU worked out ways of challenging the Pax Americana in ways that made the use of nuclear weapons impossible...the little wars of the cold war. The Soviets were never beaten by the bomb, they were beaten by the dollar. 

Getting back to the question. The bomb might be impressive to American eyes, but did it have the same effect on the Kwantung army, who were the army faction incharge of Japan at the time, and whose main power base was in China. I personally think the loss of Manchuria had a greater impact on Japans rulers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2008)

It was a factor but I think the biggest impact was the first bomb - I say that because Nagasaki had a lot of military infrastructure there. It would have been the equivalent of bombing a place like Redstone Arsenal here in the states or in your country Canberra where I believe a lot of your wartime headquarters existed.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 4, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

Japan would have and was willing to surrender despite serious disagreements in the war council. If the US would not have dropped the Bomb, Japan would have surrendered but at the same time would have tried to place demands – time consuming – and the Allies would certainly have not agreed to a conditional surrender by Japan.

The Allies maybe especially the US were not interested in month of negotiations so in order to cut things short they dropped the Bombs.
As cruel as a A-Bomb is, especially in regards to long-term resulting it still caused far less dead and wounded on the Japanese part as through a 6-12 month prolonged conventional war on Japan mainland.

The reason for Japan to seriously consider capitulation was the fact that their entire infrastructure, cities and industries was a heap of smoldering metal and disintegrated wood and that there was no way to evacuate the Kwantung Army to Mainland Japan, which would be lost in the event of the Russian advance - not to mention the then entrapped Japanese Army in China.

The weapon that made this possible was the B-29, and it shows very clearly that a country could be forced to submission just by air bombings if the other side had the right bomber. Even a thousand Ar234’s or B-25’s/A-26, B-17 or B24 could not have achieved that mission in the same time.

So the best Bomber was for sure not some medium bomber but very clearly the B-29, the same aircraft could have broken Germany’s backbone sooner or later, but the US did not have enough for both fronts.

IMO it is the overall impact that a weapon causes and not its individual performance.
Even though I like the Fw-190D-10/11 and its performance against a P-51, it had no impact, it was the P-51's that broke the backbone of the LW. Even if one assumes that "if" the LW would have had more Fw, well the USA would still have been able to build more P-51's in a far shorter period, not to mention their pilot resources. 

Sorry for drifting of into fighters.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 4, 2008)

Kruska, you are making the mistake of applying a western way of thinking to a totally unique mindset that the Japanese had.

The Japanese knew they could possibly salvage a victory AND maintain their honor by fighting on as long as one Japanese citizen had the capability too.

To us, its insanity. To them, it was their culture and mindset.

The facts are clear. Without the A-Bomb being dropped, the Japanese were going to resist into the foreseeable future.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 4, 2008)

Hello syscom3,

I wouldn’t overstress the Japanese culture or cause to honor and obedience. Some Germans – SS, lunatic Wehrmacht members, Luftwaffe Rammjaeger, or Hitler himself weren’t that far away.

The Japanese were taught to listen only to their superiors – The Emperor and his war council, and a majority was on the way to decide for surrender – conditional surrender. If the Allies would have been willing to wait for Mainland Japan for maybe 1-2 month, chances to accept even unconditional surrender as long as the Emperor gets to keep his immunity would have been very realistic.

But under the circumstances – The US having been attacked viciously without a declaration of war – The A-bomb was the answer to end things immediately and reduce losses for them. Nowadays we also take into consideration that the A-bomb’s caused less dead Japanese then an ongoing war of 6-12 month. If the Japanese would have been committed so strongly to their codex, well they would have still needed to continue and – what a surprise – the US had no more A-bombs.
No the A-bomb just helped the peace seeking fraction to speed up the recognition of total surrender even forgetting about their holy Emperor.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Marcel (Jun 4, 2008)

Kruska said:


> The Emperor and his war council, and a majority was on the way to decide for surrender – conditional surrender. If the Allies would have been willing to wait for Mainland Japan for maybe 1-2 month, chances to accept even unconditional surrender as long as the Emperor gets to keep his immunity would have been very realistic.


That's not what I read, where did you get this info from?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

Actually the US had one more atomic bomb nearly ready to deploy (another Plutonium bomb iirc). After that it would have been a while before another coud be constructed though.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 4, 2008)

Marcel said:


> That's not what I read, where did you get this info from?



Hello Marcel,

please don't ask me for the Authors names or books, but there is substancial evidence about the Japanese warcouncil taking contact with the US through Russia and forwarding peace proposals. The main reason not to accept unconditional surrender was the fear of the warcouncil that the allies might not respect the immunity of the Emperor.

IIRC, even WIKI has some good articels or cross verifications on this Topic.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 4, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Actually the US had one more atomic bomb nearly ready to deploy (another Plutonium bomb iirc). After that it would have been a while before another coud be constructed though.



Correct. The 3rd bomb was getting readied to be dropped on the Imperial Palace.

After that one, there wouldnt be another bomb available untill some time in 1946.


----------



## Dragonsinger (Jun 29, 2008)

Hi Guys
This is just to throw a good old bugger factor into this discussion. I only found it today and went cross eyed at page 6 so if I repeat anyones points, sorry

Best is impossible to define but I recon the Lanc since it was more extensively modified than any of the other candidates and if the design aint sound that wont happen.
It caused the greatest single raid damage of the war with a PRECISION raid, The "Dambuster Raid". It had the heaviest single bomb, ten ton "Grand Slam". And there were more of them in the air on active missions at any one time than any other bomber.

Personaly I favour the Swordfish.
OH Yeah,
Thats me second from the left back row 1970.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2008)

The Lanc didnt have the payload, range, firepower, versatility, survivability or avioncs that the B29 had.

If you want to argue what was the 2nd best, then we can do that.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 29, 2008)

I would think the B-25 was a great plane ...Do to the fact of all the uses and thing it could do ... Lanc and B-29 were great

The A-bomb had to of shocked the hell out of the Japanese... One plane and a big city is gone .. Big factor in the wars end ... I'm sure it would of done the same for Germany or the US or any country... Time has passed to make use think its commonplace ...But in the time and space of the 40's ..The bomb was shocking...Time changes ones mind set...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2008)

Again folks, looking into an ACTIVE bomber that contributed to the war effort - looking into it's construction, systems, armament, performance, operational impact and longevity, the B-29 takes it by a mile hands down. The closest bomber to the B-29 was the Lancaster but it was a half of generation behind the B-29.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 30, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Again folks, looking into an ACTIVE bomber that contributed to the war effort - looking into it's construction, systems, armament, performance, operational impact and longevity, the B-29 takes it by a mile hands down. The closest bomber to the B-29 was the Lancaster but it was a half of generation behind the B-29.



I have lost track of the number of times that this point has been correctly made.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2008)

Glider said:


> I have lost track of the number of times that this point has been correctly made.


Me too glider - I think I'm going to have to post it about every 2 or 3 pages....


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jun 30, 2008)

The best bomber for me was the DH96 by far. Just think if the "1000 bomber raid" were all Mosquitoes. IMO they're more accurate than the Lancs, 24's and 17's, much faster and they could probably defend themselfs better

edd


----------



## Dragonsinger (Jun 30, 2008)

Hi FBJ

You mean that the other bombers were a generation earlier dont you?
Besides none of them were ever required to do the things the B29 was. It was wartime and the CREWS were unbelievable regardless if they hated the aircraft they were given they flew them to and beyond the ability of the aircraft on paper. 
This is the same for all the competitors. and if, for example, the Feuhrer had ordered a bombing mision to the States then massed Dorniers and Heinkles would have done it somehow. 

Men Not Machines.

Regards
Dragonsinger


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2008)

Dragonsinger said:


> Hi FBJ
> 
> You mean that the other bombers were a generation earlier dont you?


Yes... 



Dragonsinger said:


> Besides none of them were ever required to do the things the B29 was. It was wartime and the CREWS were unbelievable regardless if they hated the aircraft they were given they flew them to and beyond the ability of the aircraft on paper.
> This is the same for all the competitors. and if, for example, the Feuhrer had ordered a bombing mision to the States then massed Dorniers and Heinkles would have done it somehow.
> 
> Men Not Machines.
> ...


Perhaps - my point is if you compare all operational heavy bombers rivet by rivet, wirebundle by wirebundle, avionics, armament and firecontol the B-29 was the most advanxced heavy bomber of WW2.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 30, 2008)

eddie_brunette said:


> The best bomber for me was the DH96 by far. Just think if the "1000 bomber raid" were all Mosquitoes. IMO they're more accurate than the Lancs, 24's and 17's, much faster and they could probably defend themselfs better
> 
> edd




Just think of a single B29 with an atomic bomb.

You could miss your target by a mile and still destroy it.

Could the Mossie do that?


----------



## starling (Jun 30, 2008)

i like the vickers wellington.she served the whole war,and did more jobs as well.she fought through the blitz and dished out some,in retaliatary raids on berlin etc.took part in the 1000 aircraft firestorm raids.coastal command,the lot.had a good bombload.i hope u all agree.yours,starling


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2008)

starling said:


> i like the vickers wellington.she served the whole war,and did more jobs as well.she fought through the blitz and dished out some,in retaliatary raids on berlin etc.took part in the 1000 aircraft firestorm raids.coastal command,the lot.had a good bombload.i hope u all agree.yours,starling



The Wellington did a good job and served well but comparing it to a B-29 would be like comparing a Hawker Fury to a Spitfire.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2008)

Dragonsinger said:


> Hi FBJ
> 
> You mean that the other bombers were a generation earlier dont you?
> Besides none of them were ever required to do the things the B29 was. It was wartime and the CREWS were unbelievable regardless if they hated the aircraft they were given they flew them to and beyond the ability of the aircraft on paper.
> ...



All the pilots and crews in Germany would not have been successful in putting one Dornier or Heinkel over the US or Hitler would have ordered it done - I suspect that if the Ju 390 could have really reached NY with one bomb, Hitler would have ordered it done for propaganda reasons.

Do you have an approach in mind that would have put any German bombers over the US.. bases, refueling approach, range and payload from some nominal base?

Aircrews are crucial but they are just one component of the weapons system and tactics to make it all work.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 30, 2008)

drgondog said:


> All the pilots and crews in Germany would not have been successful in putting one Dornier or Heinkel over the US or Hitler would have ordered it done - I suspect that if the Ju 390 could have really reached NY with one bomb, Hitler would have ordered it done for propaganda reasons.
> 
> Do you have an approach in mind that would have put any German bombers over the US.. bases, refueling approach, range and payload from some nominal base?
> 
> Aircrews are crucial but they are just one component of the weapons system and tactics to make it all work.



And the US could not of put one plane over the ETO if they had to fly from New York..I think he is meaning if they were in Cuba or south of the border of the US..It would be like the US in England... The crews on all sides made there planes work..For stuff that they never were made to do ...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> And the US could not of put one plane over the ETO if they had to fly from New York..I think he is meaning if they were in Cuba or south of the border of the US..It would be like the US in England... The crews on all sides made there planes work..For stuff that they never were made to do ...



No, but we could from Africa (or USSR) as an example - and other places that the Germans would have been hard pressed to defend. 

On the other hand the Germans had no surface fleet to put a footprint Anywhere they could strike the US - or do you have a different POV?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 30, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> And the US could not of put one plane over the ETO if they had to fly from New York..I think he is meaning if they were in Cuba or south of the border of the US..It would be like the US in England... The crews on all sides made there planes work..For stuff that they never were made to do ...



I forgot to mention - the Germans had zero hope of any foothold in South America save Argentina and our ability to blockade Argentina, as well as put bases in Brazil was absolute.


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 30, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I forgot to mention - the Germans had zero hope of any foothold in South America save Argentina and our ability to blockade Argentina, as well as put bases in Brazil was absolute.



I do understand this Mr Drgondog fully...And you are 100% right ...

But my post was a "what if " ..My Friend ...The german crews would of made do as all crews do..And made it work...


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 30, 2008)

drgondog said:


> On the other hand the Germans had no surface fleet to put a footprint Anywhere they could strike the US - or do you have a different POV?



And did not need one in the sort of war they were doing at the time ...But "I feel" if they were in the US's shoes and had to go way over sea's to fight..They would of done much as the US did .. Big fleet and all .. Not many other ways to fight a over sea's war...My point were what "if" and fighting in the other mans boots sort of post.. Army's make do with what they have ...All the planing in the world changes once the fight starts .. You think you have it covered ...But the other guy give you a curve ball to deal with..

You are right on your points...My friend


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 30, 2008)

Surely the B 29 is the best strategic/heavy bomber of last 15 months of war but there is none of strange is some look a bomber with a large timeline in a 6 years war


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jul 1, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Just think of a single B29 with an atomic bomb.
> 
> You could miss your target by a mile and still destroy it.
> 
> Could the Mossie do that?



Just think of 10 000 civilians, you only need to take out a radio station, could the B29 do it  You need a sqaudron to do it, and it probably would miss the target  

I'm all agaisnt killing thousands by carpet bombing. 

Presicion bombing, one or two aircraft.

edd


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 1, 2008)

Taking out a radio station isnt going to win a war.

BTW, could the mossie carry two large naval mines 1600 miles from base?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 1, 2008)

I still say that the title of this thread should be *"The 2nd Best Bomber of WWII*.

Saying that the B-29 wasn't the best bomber of WWII is like saying Babe Ruth was not the greatest baseball player or Wayne Gretsky was not the greatest hockey player of all time.

Some things in this world are absolute, and the B-29's place in WWII history is one of them.

TO

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dragonsinger (Jul 2, 2008)

Haztoys, drgondog

Well the Japanese DID manage to get a couple of bombs on to US soil by launching baloon carried bombs. No it was not a great success but it happened. The RAF got Vulcan bombers over Port Stanley and exactly how far outside the range of a Vulcan is that? NO! Sorry. They did it so thats inside their operational range then.

What I meant was that given the German propensity for making crazy ideas work by assuming that there was a logical solution to an illogical demand they could possibly have come up with something.

Possibly an Arado towing three gliders full of fuel and a very long siphon tube. Drop each tanker as its empty and give the pilot a sailing dingy and water and he could get back to Europe/Africa. Let's face it, it might just be possible to refuel an aircraft in flight.

Admittedly you would need to be desperate to try the above. Were the Germans that desparate? Did the mission take off and fail?
To be honest I wouldn't put anything past people who had designed and tested a flying saucer.











Dragonsinger


----------



## Marcel (Jul 9, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Taking out a radio station isnt going to win a war.
> 
> BTW, could the mossie carry two large naval mines 1600 miles from base?



Strategic bombing in itself neither, if you don't have an army and tactical bombers to conquer some airbases for you.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 9, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Strategic bombing in itself neither, if you don't have an army and tactical bombers to conquer some airbases for you.



Japan was defeated without an invasion. The submarine blockade brought Japan to its knees and the B29's delivered the coup-de-grace.

Now just what did the mossie do that was superior to the Lanc and b29?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 9, 2008)

IMO the Mossie, as fantastic as it was, had some peers that although weren't as good could still perform similar roles... The JU-88 comes to mind..

The B-29 had no peers... nothing else could come close.

.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 9, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Japan was defeated without an invasion. The submarine blockade brought Japan to its knees and the B29's delivered the coup-de-grace.
> 
> Now just what did the mossie do that was superior to the Lanc and b29?


Ah, so you think the whole war in the Pacific wasn't necessary? Just blocking and bombing should have been enough?
And what do you think makes you able to compare Mossies to Lanc's and B29?


----------



## Marcel (Jul 9, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> IMO the Mossie, as fantastic as it was, had some peers that although weren't as good could still perform similar roles... The JU-88 comes to mind..
> 
> The B-29 had no peers... nothing else could come close.
> 
> .



I would think for instance the Lanc could have been adequate enough to perform the same missions.Just the same situation as the Mossie vs the Ju88. Even better, the Lanc, B17, B24 and Halifaxes did that in the ETO, and against a much harder enemy. 
Don't get me wrong, I do see the B29 as the best heavy bomber, but the others weren't bad, either.


----------



## trackend (Jul 9, 2008)

B29 just has to be the best bomber of the war but not the most effective I think there is a big difference, the B29 effectively combined the best traits.
But as it was a relitive late comer to the conflict it had less impact.
I know it dropped the A bombs but it was the bombs not the plane that was significant. The B17 and the Lanc had far more overall impact on the bombing campaign. Pay load goes to the Lancaster, durability to the B17 the B29 achieved both in one aircraft add better and more sofisticated technoledgy therefore this must end up as the best aicraft. 
However as with all the WW2 weaponry it was the mass produced tools that did the greatest amount of work From the Sherman to the Jeep or the Lee Enfield to the M1 Garand. 
In the bombing campiagn it was the Lanc and the B17


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2008)

Why are we comparing the Mossie to the B-29.

Two different kind of aircraft, two different kinds of missions....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 9, 2008)

trackend said:


> B29 just has to be the best bomber of the war but not the most effective I think there is a big difference, the B29 effectively combined the best traits.
> But as it was a relitive late comer to the conflict it had less impact.
> I know it dropped the A bombs but it was the bombs not the plane that was significant. The B17 and the Lanc had far more overall impact on the bombing campaign. Pay load goes to the Lancaster, durability to the B17 the B29 achieved both in one aircraft add better and more sofisticated technoledgy therefore this must end up as the best aicraft.
> However as with all the WW2 weaponry it was the mass produced tools that did the greatest amount of work From the Sherman to the Jeep or the Lee Enfield to the M1 Garand.
> In the bombing campiagn it was the Lanc and the B17



Actually history takes note from various Japanese sources that the night firebombing missions were devasting to Japan. The Japanes concentrated far more of their industry within the city boundaries and the 20th AF literally burned every city above the size of Nashville to the ground. Proportionately the B-29 may have done more damage to Japanese Industrial targets than the US Strategic and RAF Bomber Command combined.. (and it may not have).

I'm a little unclear how one compares the quantitative results between the three bombing campaigns but the Japanes were effectively throttled on sea by US sub fleet and B-29 Inland water mining campaign.

The B-29 simply ran out of large targets on the mainland - all effectively occurring from March 1945 when LeMay figured out that the Japanese were nowhere as formidable as the Germans relative to either Fire departments, fire containment or night fighting capability.

This was a mission that could not even start with Lancs, B-24s or B-17s until Okinawa was consolidated and the job was pretty much done by then.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jul 9, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why are we comparing the Mossie to the B-29.
> 
> Two different kind of aircraft, two different kinds of missions....



My point exactly.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 9, 2008)

Dragonsinger said:


> Haztoys, drgondog
> 
> Well the Japanese DID manage to get a couple of bombs on to US soil by launching baloon carried bombs. No it was not a great success but it happened. The RAF got Vulcan bombers over Port Stanley and exactly how far outside the range of a Vulcan is that? NO! Sorry. They did it so thats inside their operational range then.
> 
> ...



Would you consider that they tried everything in their technical grasp and political will but did not succeed? In other words what Could have happened, in effect, Did happen?

I have no problem with a "Men not Machines" thesis, but point out that bombing Japan with a bomber took place via the USS Hornet early and China/Marianas land bases late... and none at all on US from either Japan or Germany - and how badly do you suppose they would like to have achieved that for propaganda purposes?


----------



## Dragonsinger (Jul 15, 2008)

Drgondog
All I am saying is that because of an unbalanced leader pushing resources and men beyond sensible limits Germany ran out of time to fulfil the promise of some very strange ideas. The Germans made plenty of crazy ideas work and they are all there in the records and many of them read like science fiction projects, ICBMs, cruise missiles, atomic bomb research, stratospheric jet bombers, flying wing aircraft. THEN we go on to the weird stuff! This was the mid 1940s and over half a century on we are still refining these ideas.

The Germans never, as far as I am aware, did launch an attack on the North American continent, but to deny point blank that they would not have been able to is not a tenable position. For example no one seems to have bothered to check up on the German carrier "Graff Zeppelin". Had she taken part in an offensive backed by U-Boats and surface vessels a large area of the North American continent would have been considered within range. 

From a Japanese point of view I need only say Torra! Torra! Torra! If they could achieve that there is no argument about the vulnerability of the West coast of the North American continent. I will accept that like the attack on Pearl Harbour this would have been only a one shot strategy but I would welcome your opinion on it's value as a propaganda or terror tactic, and although I do not particularly like the comparison I would urge you to compare it to the effect achieved by 911.

Regarding Tinker Belle then if Tinker Belle is the idea of in flight refuelling and fairy dust paraffin (kerosene) from a towed tanker, I agree.

As far as sarcasm goes if it illustrates the point then use it. It is a valued tool in debate but be very aware that it can bite the user as well as the recipient.

I will be perfectly happy to continue this debate but should it be on this thread?

Regards
Dragonsinger


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 15, 2008)

Trackend, if the B29's only had a need for a 500 mile range to bomb targets, its payloads would have been immense by the standards of the time.

Its better to compare the Lanc's flying 1600 mile missions (with all the gadgets the B29's carried) and carrying a usefull payload.

If you want to argue which aircraft was the best bomber of the war in Europe, then the Lanc wins hands down.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 28, 2008)

The Piaggio P.108 was the most advanced and importint bomber of world war two because it was instrumental in the pioneering of features that made the super fortress so successful.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 29, 2008)

Could you elaborate on that please?


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

The Piaggio P.108 was the first aircraft that used remote controle guns. I will need some time to find more elaborate details, but many B-29 features were used on the p 108 wich came first.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> The Piaggio P.108 was the first aircraft that used remote controle guns. I will need some time to find more elaborate details, but many B-29 features were used on the p 108 wich came first.


The P.108s remote control turrets were just that - the B-29's system was a computerized fire control system light years a head of the P.108.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> The Piaggio P.108 was the most advanced and importint bomber of world war two because it was instrumental in the pioneering of features that made the super fortress so successful.



Ahhhh, no.........

Although an advanced aircraft, the B-29 was light years a head of the P.108. Again another large taildragger from a by-gone era that was 100 mph slower than the B-29. It had half the range and the B-29 had a service ceiling 6000 feet higher. Although the P.108 first flew in 1939 be assured that it did nothing to "pioneer" anything related to the B-29. Designers at Piaggio were attempting to match the B-17 and they barely were able to do that.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

Well I think your right but the Piaggio P.108 was developed 4 years ahead of the b-29, and until the b-29 started active duty the p 108 was the most technologicly advaned, not nesicarily the best bomber. Compared with other italian bomers it a marvel.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

Giovanni Casiraghi an italian designer who helped lead the p.108 project went to america and picked up info, do you now if he had a part to play in the B-17 ,b-24 or b-29 project.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> Well I think your right but the Piaggio P.108 was developed 4 years ahead of the b-29, and until the b-29 started active duty the p 108 was the most technologicly advaned, not nesicarily the best bomber. Compared with other italian bomers it a marvel.


Later model B-17s (Fs and Gs) were still better in terms of performance, bomb load and reliability. The P.108 had engine reliability problems since day one and that affected it's operational deployment - Mussolini's son was killed in one.

I'd compare it to a B-17 C or D - there was no real technological breakthroughs with this aircraft when compared to US or British 4 engine bomber designs - it did offer good defensive armament but that's about it. The P.133 was supposed to be a vast improvement to the 108 but the program was cancelled.



BIG BIRD said:


> Giovanni Casiraghi an italian designer who helped lead the p.108 project went to America and picked up info, do now if he had a part to play in the B-17 ,b-24 or b-29 project.



Giovanni Casiraghi lived in the US in the 1930s and actually worked for Waco for a short time. He was inspired by the B-17 and actually wanted to build a better aircraft than the B-17. He came close if you want to compare the P.108 to the B-17D but by the time the P.108 was operational, B-17Fs, Gs, and the Lancaster eclipsed it.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

Dive bomber wise the il-2 was probily the best dive bomber. I have heard that 20mm cannon shells somtimes bounced of there hull. Dos anbody have any verification to those claims.


----------



## Marcel (Aug 31, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> Dive bomber wise the il-2 was probily the best dive bomber. I have heard that 20mm cannon shells somtimes bounced of there hull. Dos anbody have any verification to those claims.



I can be wrong, but I think the Il-2 wasn't actually a divebomber.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 31, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I can be wrong, but I think the Il-2 wasn't actually a divebomber.



well it _could_ dive if needed, but of course that doesn't make it a dive bomber


----------



## Marcel (Aug 31, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> well it _could_ dive if needed, but of course that doesn't make it a dive bomber



So can my Aunty, maybe she's a divebomber as well  But seriously, the Il-2 wasn't designed a s divebomber, was it?


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 31, 2008)

Marcel said:


> So can my Aunty, maybe she's a divebomber as well  But seriously, the Il-2 wasn't designed a s divebomber, was it?


as a dive bomber in common sence, certainly not . Dives up to 40 degr were acceptable though.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 31, 2008)

I sort of ment ground attack, but i say that the il-2 was not a dive bomber. I guess i could call it the best single engene bomber bomber of world war two.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 1, 2008)

I don't know there quite a few good single engined bombers.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Sep 1, 2008)

I once saw a show about the top ten bombers on discovery channel. They were using planes such as the b-2 b-52 tu-16 all of those modern aircraft. One of the way they ranked the bombers was fear factor. The germans even called the il-2 the black death I read somewere on another thread that someone said the russians made that up but he didn't give any sources or supporting evidince so do to the fact that most or all history books ar against him a don't know if thats true. There were a lot of other good single engene bombers out there that could give they il-2 a run for there mony. hell diver, avenger and you realy coulden't leave out the il-10. The il-2 was simply the best for the fact that they were used so effectivly against german tanks in away that they gained a uge scyolagile advantige of there opponints. Someone also said that they were rendered usles with out escorts that is true but, One russian factory was producing 20 yak 9s a day and a lot of late war russian fighters were totaly superior to any plane in a low level dogfight, german or allied. So a lack of escort wasn't a problem for the russians. 


But if you desire to include fighter bombers as single engine bomber than than the best bomber would have to be the tiffy, jug or bucher bird


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2008)

Don't believe those Discovery Channel shows - many of the so-called "experts" are idiots and actually know little or nothing about aircraft.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't believe those Discovery Channel shows - many of the so-called "experts" are idiots and actually know little or nothing about aircraft.


I agree they are crap as far as aircraft , can't comment on Tanks etc as I don't know


----------



## BIG BIRD (Sep 1, 2008)

I dont belive in them. They once said that p-61 was onlly purpose bult nightfighter of world war two look at the hienkal he219. They hapen to make a point about fear wich was a good one but 98% of things they say are hideos lies.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> I dont belive in them. They once said that p-61 was onlly purpose bult nightfighter of world war two. They hapen to make a point about fear wich was a good one but 98% of things they say are hideos lies.



Hey I see you're in Broomfield - I fly out of Jeffco (Metro). I live in Lakewood.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Sep 1, 2008)

What kind of planes do you fly?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> What kind of planes do you fly?


Right now, Cessna 172s and Supercubs on occasion.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 2, 2008)

BIG BIRD said:


> I once saw a show about the top ten bombers on discovery channel. They were using planes such as the b-2 b-52 tu-16 all of those modern aircraft. One of the way they ranked the bombers was fear factor. The germans even called the il-2 the black death I read somewere on another thread that someone said the russians made that up but he didn't give any sources or supporting evidince so do to the fact that most or all history books ar against him a don't know if thats true. There were a lot of other good single engene bombers out there that could give they il-2 a run for there mony. hell diver, avenger and you realy coulden't leave out the il-10. The il-2 was simply the best for the fact that they were used so effectivly against german tanks in away that they gained a uge scyolagile advantige of there opponints. Someone also said that they were rendered usles with out escorts that is true but, One russian factory was producing 20 yak 9s a day and a lot of late war russian fighters were totaly superior to any plane in a low level dogfight, german or allied. So a lack of escort wasn't a problem for the russians.
> 
> 
> But if you desire to include fighter bombers as single engine bomber than than the best bomber would have to be the tiffy, jug or bucher bird




Don't you mean the Tu-95 'Bear'?


----------



## BIG BIRD (Sep 2, 2008)

I didn't see it for a while and didn't see the whole thing but that sounds right.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 2, 2008)

lol just wondering


----------



## moomoo2 (Sep 5, 2008)

Mosquito. I don't need to justify it in any way, its record speaks for itself


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2008)

moomoo2 said:


> Mosquito. I don't need to justify it in any way, its record speaks for itself



The Mossie was a great plane - it didn't have a computerized fire control system, could carry a 24,000 pound bomb load over vast areas of the Pacific at 30,000 feet - besides a few months in humidity and the Mossie was firewood - sorry nube, read the earlier posts....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 5, 2008)

> it didn't have a computerized fire control system



What would be the point of having one on an aircraft with no guns?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> What would be the point of having one on an aircraft with no guns?


 True


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Oct 24, 2008)

and here is what the crew back in the olf days thought of their lovable B-24


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 29, 2008)

Would it be unrealistic to assume the crews who flew these A/C in combat conditions may have somthing of an idea about which one they thought was best. If this is any indication most RAF pilots were elated if they were posted to or their squadron was re-fitted with DH 98's. Plenty of station reports and letters home to prove this. There can be only one reason for this; survivability the mosquito's ratio of operations sucessfully pressed home vrs KIA is unsurpassed by any frontline serving A/C again the Stats are easy to check. 
And this was the sharp end of the sword gentelmen for example 139sqdn {I think } first daylight raid into Berlin to name but one ,of a long line of accolades. Or was there another group of A/C operating in the European theatre that were known as the Gestapo Hunters. I have in other posts noted that the Far East squadrons did report that they experienced trouble with mould but this hardly equalls turning to matchwood in months. De Haviland had a vision of a fast high altitude bomber that could outrun the {German}fighters that were sent to intercept it. This it did in spades with i might add, often a 4000lb bomb load all the way to Berlin. Eslsewhere here i read someone claim a B 17 could lift a 17,000lb over a short distance. Bloody short i would immagine if at all. I have to apologize for not being able to produce referenceable material here to support these veiws i don't have my books with me at this point. Not sure why the DH 98 draws so much animosity,envy perhaps ? .

Good Hunting Gents!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2008)

P-Popsie said:


> Not sure why the DH 98 draws so much animosity,envy perhaps ?


Actually neither - the Mossie was a great aircraft in its role as a light tactical bomber and fighter, but it could not fulfill the role the heavy bombers accomplished in any theater, espically the Pacific, and I'm not only talking about the B-17.


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 29, 2008)

I couldn't agree more the DH 98 was in no way a Heavy Bomber, for that we have the Lancaster 22'000lbs to 19'000 ft almost the equasion Barnes Wallis originally envisioned as the ultimate bombing tool to cripple an enemy by incising their capacity to wage war. The Lanc was great because it excceded the expectations of its creators and handlers alike as did the DH 98. But the point raised earlier i think in this thread that if the RAF had DH 98's in greater numbers the USAF may not have needed to expend so many lives against Fortress Europe is valid. But we'll never know but can merely speculate !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2008)

P-Popsie said:


> But the point raised earlier i think in this thread that if the RAF had DH 98's in greater numbers the USAF may not have needed to expend so many lives against Fortress Europe is valid. But we'll never know but can merely speculate !


Perhaps, but the again (speculating) could the same amount of Mossies been built as quickly in the numbers needed to deliver the same amount of bomb tonnage as the B-17? The way strategic bombers were deployed was like having a flying freeway overpass where you could just drop bombs all over your enemy. Much of the effect was a saturation with large number of bombers. I think you would have to factor production capability, bomb carrying capability along with the ability to account for attrition.


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 29, 2008)

All true as for production numbers i think that had the allies seen the potential of the DH 98 they may very well have dedicated more of the effort into production than they did. One of the motivations stated behind the private creation of this A/C was De Havilands realization that there was a large skilled labour pool available from the Carpentry /Furniture industries. As for the idea that area Bombing was the only effective way no nuetralize the German war machine is only acurate in the context of the lack of accurate bombing practices and equipment. Had the RAF taken Barnes Wallis more seriosly at the start of the war and not simply brushed him aside with a pat on the back about the wellington aqnd a suggestion to leave the Bombs to the experts. Experts who at the time still beleived a 500lb bomb was the largest thing you needed in your arsenal as there was no way you could place a single bomb close enough to have any effect. The precision bombing provided by 464 Sqdn {100 Grp } and 617Sqdn proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that accurate pinpoint destruction of the target is much more effective than wiping out the workforces capacity to be effective by area bombing. All wartime decisions however can be looked at with hindsight and faults will always be found. I wonder if this doesnt come down to the question of which form of bombing one feels is more effective at stopping war production. I can only assume that current thinking today is for accuracy otherwise we wouldn't have Smart bombs. Maybr Barnes was onto somthing.Cheers for the Dialogue


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 29, 2008)

The Mossie was alright as was the Lanc but I believe I'd opt for either the 24 or 17 for best bang for the buck after all it wasn't Bomber Command nor 2TAF that caused the destruction of the LW which was far more important then area bombing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2008)

P-Popsie said:


> All true as for production numbers i think that had the allies seen the potential of the DH 98 they may very well have dedicated more of the effort into production than they did. One of the motivations stated behind the private creation of this A/C was De Havilands realization that there was a large skilled labour pool available from the Carpentry /Furniture industries.


 All true to a point except could they have produced the numbers as seen by the B-17 and got them to the squdrons quickly enough? Remember the drawbacks with maintaining wood? The same goes with building wood airplanes. Glues and resins need to cure, production line discrepancies are harder to address and it is a lot easier to actually build an airplane from metal than it is from wood - in fact where you would need skilled labor for building wood aircraft (your furniture makers) it is very easy to train non-skilled folks to drill holes and buck rivets and you could train them in droves.


P-Popsie said:


> As for the idea that area Bombing was the only effective way no nuetralize the German war machine is only acurate in the context of the lack of accurate bombing practices and equipment. Had the RAF taken Barnes Wallis more seriosly at the start of the war and not simply brushed him aside with a pat on the back about the wellington aqnd a suggestion to leave the Bombs to the experts. Experts who at the time still beleived a 500lb bomb was the largest thing you needed in your arsenal as there was no way you could place a single bomb close enough to have any effect. The precision bombing provided by 464 Sqdn {100 Grp } and 617Sqdn proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that accurate pinpoint destruction of the target is much more effective than wiping out the workforces capacity to be effective by area bombing. All wartime decisions however can be looked at with hindsight and faults will always be found. I wonder if this doesnt come down to the question of which form of bombing one feels is more effective at stopping war production. I can only assume that current thinking today is for accuracy otherwise we wouldn't have Smart bombs. Maybr Barnes was onto somthing.


I could agree there - on the other side of the world area bombing was used in conjunction with tactical support. B-24s were used across the pacific to neutralize a target by saturating it. After that fighter bombers, be it land or carrier base would finish the mop up and support invading troops. Kwajalein, Tainan and Saipan are some of the places I know this was employed, I'm sure there were others.


P-Popsie said:


> Cheers for the Dialogue


Likewise...8)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 29, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could agree there - on the other side of the world area bombing was used in conjunction with tactical support. B-24s were used across the pacific to neutralize a target by saturating it. After that fighter bombers, be it land or carrier base would finish the mop up and support invading troops. Kwajalein, Tainan and Saipan are some of the places I know this was employed, I'm sure there were others.
> 
> Likewise...8)



I always thought the process was the other way around....the fast carriers would move into an area, and spend a few days softening up the Japanese land based airpower....then the marines would hit the beach and take one or more of the airfields in the area. This would be rapidly repaired and usually extended and/or expanded, and in would come the heavy bombers, whose purpose it was to keep the surrounding airfields suppressed. B-29s were used differently, they went stright for the Home Islands after Saipan, but at night (in the beginning...mostly). It was a different story in the solomons where land based air WAS the lead element of the assault.

I was not aware that the US Heavies were doing much over Gilberts, the Marshalls or the Marianas before the fast carrier strikes...I always thought the great distances were a problem, even for these great a/c


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2008)

The Mossie was a high performance light bomber with the capabilities of a decent sized medium bomber.

If you want to use the same kind of compact, high performance, unarmmed concept in place of the large (particularly daylight) strategic bombers, you need an aircraft closer in size to a B-25 or B-26.

Eliminate all defensive guns (maybe keep a few fixed in the nose) reduce crew to 3-4 and maximize bomb capacity and range. Powered by 2x turbocharged R-2800's.

Even so, you'd still probably need a bit more to get the same payload on target (probably 3 for every 2 heavies). Escorts would probably still be needed as well. But they'd still be significantly more difficult to intercept.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2008)

Wait...

Weren't we just discussing the same thing over here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/b-17-vs-he-177-vs-lancaster-11308-8.html

Now it's migrated over here.

*P-Popsie*, you might want to check out some of the recent discussion on the Mossie over there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I always thought the process was the other way around....the fast carriers would move into an area, and spend a few days softening up the Japanese land based airpower....then the marines would hit the beach and take one or more of the airfields in the area. This would be rapidly repaired and usually extended and/or expanded, and in would come the heavy bombers, whose purpose it was to keep the surrounding airfields suppressed. B-29s were used differently, they went stright for the Home Islands after Saipan, but at night (in the beginning...mostly). It was a different story in the solomons where land based air WAS the lead element of the assault.
> 
> I was not aware that the US Heavies were doing much over Gilberts, the Marshalls or the Marianas before the fast carrier strikes...I always thought the great distances were a problem, even for these great a/c


Prior to the B-29's arrival, the B-24 was used extensively in the Pacific. Here's the history of the 30th BG.

30th BG History (H)


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 30, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The Mossie was alright as was the Lanc but I believe I'd opt for either the 24 or 17 for best bang for the buck after all it wasn't Bomber Command nor 2TAF that caused the destruction of the LW which was far more important then area bombing




Each to their own as they say i think for me it boiled down to if i was flying into hostile European skys to drop bombs by daylight i'd want the fastest bloody thing i could find under my arse. I know the mossie wasn't the fastest, it'd do me though.

By the way what is the LW; Luftwaffe i'm guessing but just checking


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 30, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All true to a point except could they have produced the numbers as seen by the B-17 and got them to the squdrons quickly enough?



Possibly But certainly not in England but quite possibly from the dominions as i said if High command had realized the prize De Haviland had handed them, the trickle that flowed from canada and the drop that were produced in Australia could of been a flood Transportation is the bottleneck in this idea of course. 



FLYBOYJ Remember the drawbacks with maintaining wood? The same goes with building wood airplanes. Glues and resins need to cure said:


> Absolutely as for the curing and so forth compared to the time spent creating massive production facilities such as the huge Boeing line in Wichita { I know i've spelt that wrong} That in itself is another area of speculation i must add however timber construction does lend itself to de-centralization better than does metal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Mossie was a high performance light bomber with the capabilities of a decent sized medium bomber.
> 
> If you want to use the same kind of compact, high performance, unarmmed concept in place of the large (particularly daylight) strategic bombers, you need an aircraft closer in size to a B-25 or B-26.
> 
> ...



Not sure what the payloads for these A/C B25/26 and not sure what top speed and ceiling but yes your well on your way to how the Aluminium Monocoque Radial engined version of the DH 98 would be put together. 

As a sidebar yes i was aware that there had been previous discussion in another thread its just a bit hard to keep track of who said what where now but that was who i was refering to in one of my posts earlier in this thread. I'm still a hamfist when it comes to navigating around this forum as you can see


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 30, 2008)

P-Popsie said:


> Each to their own as they say i think for me it boiled down to if i was flying into hostile European skys to drop bombs by daylight i'd want the fastest bloody thing i could find under my arse. I know the mossie wasn't the fastest, it'd do me though.
> 
> By the way what is the LW; Luftwaffe i'm guessing but just checking


It was a fine aircraft but as for being a war winner not at all , they could not outrun single seaters of the LW I believe much of the hype that still pervades on the Mossie 
is a carry over from ww2 propaganda


----------



## Marcel (Oct 30, 2008)

When it was introduced it outran both the Spitfire and the Bf109. The 2 fighters had to catch up later, which they did.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 30, 2008)

Afaik i don't think that mosquitoes (1st mission september 1941) outrun the ~contemporary Bf 109F-4


----------



## Marcel (Oct 30, 2008)

Vincenzo said:


> Afaik i don't think that mosquitoes (1st mission september 1941) outrun the ~contemporary Bf 109F-4



maybe not, but the mosquito wasn't much slower either, so the intercepting Bf109 would have a hard time catching up.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2008)

P-Popsie said:


> Not sure what the payloads for these A/C B25/26 and not sure what top speed and ceiling but yes your well on your way to how the Aluminium Monocoque Radial engined version of the DH 98 would be put together.
> 
> As a sidebar yes i was aware that there had been previous discussion in another thread its just a bit hard to keep track of who said what where now but that was who i was refering to in one of my posts earlier in this thread. I'm still a hamfist when it comes to navigating around this forum as you can see



I hadn't even realized it had switched threads at first. 


The closest thing to my proposal was the XB-28, but while a high performance high altitude bomber, it was still designed with full defensive armament, so it can't be properly compared in terms of bomb load. (iirc 4,000 lbs, the B-25 having a 6,000 lb capacity, though I'll have to go check others than wiki to be sure) But in service ceiling and performance at high altitude, with two turbocharged 2,000 hp engines it had excellent altitude capabilities.


----------



## Waynos (Oct 30, 2008)

The thing about the mosquito and its speed wasn't that it was 2mph faster than the equivalent German fighter or whatever. its that if the Mossie is flying 20,000ft above you at near on 400mph, or only slightly less than your own max speed, without having to climb as well, you are not going to make an intercept. When you have spent the last 2 relaxing years shooting down Blenhiems for fun this is going to spoil your day.

The plaudits for the Mosquito are well deserved. Even though my own soft spot is for the fabulous, but less spectacular Beaufighter, which is not actually a bomber, I know.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2008)

So imagine an aircraft cruising at 300+ mph at over 25,000 ft. (with capability to reach nearly 400 mph as well) At granges comparable o a B-17, but with slightly lower payload.


----------



## Waynos (Oct 30, 2008)

Sounds like the Mosquito KK, except for it being slow?

(I actually think the best bomber of WW2 was the B-29, technologically and for its last decisive action, but if I was some theoretical bomber jockey flying throughout the war I would have spent it flying Mosquitoes, if I had a choice, and after surviving 1939-40 flying Wellingtons - the best in that period that would allow the move to Mosquitoes.)


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 30, 2008)

Everything i've read or heard about the Mossie was the actual speed they operated at was about 240-260 , 240 being preferable as it made navigation easier.


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 30, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> It was a fine aircraft but as for being a war winner not at all , they could not outrun single seaters of the LW I believe much of the hype that still pervades on the Mossie
> is a carry over from ww2 propaganda



Granted that by 1944 the A/C being sent against the DH 98 had at least 20KM/hr + speed advantage but as someone else mentioned in this thread they had to catch up. As usual i have none of my reference stuff with me so i cant give you the stats but there arent that many cases of DH 98's being lost in direct air to air combat. Certainly there are famous cases sush as the loss of 464Sqdn commander during the Famous Amiens prison raid. But to be fair he was already right down on the deck at -500ft when he was caught by six FW 190's. Even so he aparently almost got away as he and many others had before and after.

An interesting side bar is that one of the NF squadrons had a few A/C " illegally " fitted with NO2 injection which the pilots claimed to have elevated the top speed of the bird up to 710Km/Hr+ in short bursts. This was used to close with the radar cntacts as fas as possible. Whish i could tell more about this so feel free to add if anyone knows more.

Finally as a point of pride for the DH 98 it was one of the major requirements placed by the Air ministry on De Haviland is that this new High altiude fast bomber of theirs that they were pitching did in fact outrun fighters just as claimed. Again no references {sorry} But the prototype DH 98 W4050 was in fact given an Air trial where it did outpace a PR Spitfire in front of Air ministry and Senior RAF oficers {Geoffery De Haviland Jnr was if i'm remembering correctly the Pilot } Based mostly on the strength of this demonstration the first order for 50 A/C was placed by the Air Ministry.

One more just for luck i dont think the DH 98 had that much of a public profile during the war itself { certyainly it was propodandized } {if thats even a word } After the war however is when i beleive it began to get larger than life due to a couple of interesting events. The one i will mention here is 1952 i think a DH 98 Piloted by H.B. "Mickey" Martin acheived the record for a piston engined A/C on an Atlantic crossing which i beleive still stands today { I would have to check } But you see the point i'm making i'm sure. No not a war winner on its own but then nothing is
Always great to Chew over the fat.


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I hadn't even realized it had switched threads at first.
> 
> 
> The closest thing to my proposal was the XB-28, .



No I unfortunately knew of the parralell threads and in fact there is another on most versitile A/C which is gettin a lot of the same attention. Like i said loose track a bit cause the subjectss are so similar.

Have vaguely heard of the XB-28 sounds interestin. The germans themselves exsperimented with an A/C which mirrored the DH 98 but i cant remember bugger all about it right now

Cheers


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 30, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Everything i've read or heard about the Mossie was the actual speed they operated at was about 240-260 , 240 being preferable as it made navigation easier.



Certainly these speeds would of been prudent for most of the 2TAF oporations as they were navigating from -150ft most of the way. Pathfinder Mossies had a bit more room to play and were conseqently operating at higher speeds. From what i can glean pilots generally Oporated their DH 98's at about 75% capacity more for fuel savings than anything else those merlins get very thirsty once they're opened right up apparently. One of the reasons that drop tanks for these A/C was such a valuable and almost unatainable item in 1943/4.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2008)

Here's an article on the XB-28: North American XB-28 Dragon

(I'm not sure why it lists a bombload of 4,000 lbs max, but then mentioned 6,000 lbs in the description, perhaps 6,000 lbs was with external load as well?)

Note, my earlier comments on the 300 mph cruise and ~400 mph top speed were speculation an an a/c similar to the B-28, but optimized for performance, unarmmed, and reduced crew. (or a turbocharged B-26 with similar configuration)


And I'm not totally sure on the B-25's max bombload (it would depend on the model as well) I think the maximum internal capacity was 4,000 lbs (2x 2,000 lb?) Consolidated B-24 Liberator


And the B-26B could carry up to 8,000 lbs (4x 2,000 lb) internally, though normally 4,000 lbs was the maximum carried.
Martin B-26 Marauder


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 31, 2008)

Cheers Kitty would of been an intersting A/C do any pictures exsist of this beastie


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 31, 2008)

Sure do, you could have checked wikipedia: North American XB-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

But for photographs of US aircraft here's an excellent site: Main Aircraft Page

However, in this case the only picture given is that same one on wikipedia, so a google search is propably the best: XB-28 - Google Image Search


----------



## Graeme (Oct 31, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Here's an article on the XB-28: North American XB-28 Dragon
> (I'm not sure why it lists a bombload of 4,000 lbs max, but then mentioned 6,000 lbs in the description, perhaps 6,000 lbs was with external load as well?)



A typo Chris. If you read Wagner's "American Combat Planes" (which he quotes from), the specification is listed as 2,040 miles with a *600* lb bomb load. 

In 1945 NAA 'improved' the XB-28 to include turboprops, and from there onwards to the all-jet B-45...


----------



## D.H firemoth (Nov 1, 2008)

Well the OHKA kamakazi jet rocket thing? would be good for knocking out ground targets becouse of its tremendous speed and explosive power


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 1, 2008)

THat wasn't even its intended role though, it was used against ships.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Best bomber....again, as with any 'best' thread, the headache of trying to juggle so many important criteria at once...

But my vote, in the end, must go to the B-17. For its impact and the role it played in the strategic thinking of so many postwar air forces.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 5, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Best bomber....again, as with any 'best' thread, the headache of trying to juggle so many important criteria at once...
> 
> But my vote, in the end, must go to the B-17. For its impact and the role it played in the strategic thinking of so many postwar air forces.



Even though it was the B29 that had the most impact on strategic warfare?

What about the B29's superior performance over the B17 in every catagory?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> But my vote, in the end, must go to the B-17. For its impact and the role it played in the strategic thinking of so many postwar air forces.


I think the B-29 had more of an influence....


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Yes, the B-29 had a tremendous influence - which is exactly my point. No B-17, no B-29. The USAAF had a tremendous fight just to get the B-17 funded (No thanks to the US Navy) and most people would agree to the proposition that had the USAAF lost the political and budgetary battle then, the B-29 would never have been built .... at least not by the USA!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Yes, the B-29 had a tremendous influence - which is exactly my point. No B-17, no B-29. The USAAF had a tremendous fight just to get the B-17 funded (No thanks to the US Navy) and most people would agree to the proposition that had the USAAF lost the political and budgetary battle then, the B-29 would never have been built .... at least not by the USA!



While I agree with your points, the fact is the B-29 was the most technically advanced and best heavy bomber of WW2.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 5, 2008)

And besides, the B-24 shared a lot of the work with the B-17, and were used in greater numbers. (each having their advantages over the other)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Yep, the 29 had many technical innovations (you can see the influence of the 29 all the way down to the B-1B!) and yes, the 24's wing was a marvel in its time. 

But war is more than just technical stats. War is politics, money, and also being in the right place at the right time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> But war is more than just technical stats. War is politics, money, and also being in the right place at the right time.


And the B-29 was all of that. Aside from the atomic bombing and its participation in the war, it paved the way for the next generation of bombardment aircraft and it's legacy is still with us today.

It was, by far the best bomber of WW2.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 6, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Yes, the B-29 had a tremendous influence - which is exactly my point. No B-17, no B-29. The USAAF had a tremendous fight just to get the B-17 funded (No thanks to the US Navy) and most people would agree to the proposition that had the USAAF lost the political and budgetary battle then, the B-29 would never have been built .... at least not by the USA!



I tend to agree the importance of the B-17 with respect to American airpower. No B-17 in the late 30's - no real Strategic airpower doctrine in place, probably no B-24 and possibly no B-29 because thye USN would have prevailed and restricted long range Army Air to continental US.

Probably the most important with the B-52 alongside.

That doesn't make the B-17 the 'Best' because of all the reasons advanced on performance as well as impact to the closure of WWII.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 6, 2008)

The B29 also had another innovation that was radical for its day, was the way the US Govt. decided on how to finance and produce it.

This was the first military contract in US history that was financed as "cost plus, fixed fee".

By removing the cost burden off of Boeing, technological advances could be incorporated into the design without Boeing worrying about going bankrupt if it didn't work out.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

....and which also opened the way to the *polite cough* cost 'overuns' abuse we see today...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 6, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> ....and which also opened the way to the *polite cough* cost 'overuns' abuse we see today...



The abuse is quite rare and is almost always that the customer is changing specs or asking for more than what can be delivered.

Without a "cost plus" type of contract, technological innovation would always be incremental and very conservative.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> ....and which also opened the way to the *polite cough* cost 'overuns' abuse we see today...



All leading edge, complex projects, have the potential to overrun - whether IT or anti missle systems or airframe design. 

DoD 7001 and 7002 were developed to start getting a handle on separation of direct and indirect costs, as well as getting a handle on tooling and manufacturing tools pricing between the contractors.

Until 7001 there was no cross footing between WBS and CLI except by prepared reports with no real commonality between contractors. The Defense Contract Audit teams were not only confused regarding contract project status but specifically how to pay the Contractor based on milestone achievement reflecting both target achievement but also incurred cost.

To support Syscom further - writing a contract to match agreed specs with enough specificity that agreement to deliverables is 'uniform' is a whole 'nuther topic. Scope creep comes in two forms. "Gee, that is not what I meant when I agreed to that language - let's negotiate' to "oops, I forgot to ask for this'.

If you ever saw a WBS PERT Chart for an airframe contract you would not have a clue regarding the complexity..


----------



## Sweb (Feb 10, 2009)

P-Popsie said:


> *Would it be unrealistic to assume the crews who flew these A/C in combat conditions may have somthing of an idea about which one they thought was best.* If this is any indication most RAF pilots were elated if they were posted to or their squadron was re-fitted with DH 98's. Plenty of station reports and letters home to prove this. There can be only one reason for this; survivability the mosquito's ratio of operations sucessfully pressed home vrs KIA is unsurpassed by any frontline serving A/C again the Stats are easy to check.
> And this was the sharp end of the sword gentelmen for example 139sqdn {I think } first daylight raid into Berlin to name but one ,of a long line of accolades. Or was there another group of A/C operating in the European theatre that were known as the Gestapo Hunters. I have in other posts noted that the Far East squadrons did report that they experienced trouble with mould but this hardly equalls turning to matchwood in months. De Haviland had a vision of a fast high altitude bomber that could outrun the {German}fighters that were sent to intercept it. This it did in spades with i might add, often a 4000lb bomb load all the way to Berlin. Eslsewhere here i read someone claim a B 17 could lift a 17,000lb over a short distance. Bloody short i would immagine if at all. I have to apologize for not being able to produce referenceable material here to support these veiws i don't have my books with me at this point. Not sure why the DH 98 draws so much animosity,envy perhaps ? .
> 
> Good Hunting Gents!



LOL. I have read many of the posts here - not all - and decided to comment on your question. My Pop was a B-17 driver as his first official front office job in late '44. One day he and I were sitting in the cockpit of a museum B-17 kinda quietly while I got a feel for it. Then it dawned on me about the absence of creature comforts. The mind does that. After scanning all the technical aspects of controls, placements, instruments and such the mind silently searches for something else. So I blurted out the question about where the heating stuff was. He looked at me and quietly sneered: "What heat? We froze our assets off in this blivit!" (Blivit: 2 pounds of excrement in a one pound bag) I had heard this description of various military types from him in the past. Reality check. Then came all the comments about carpet bombing, worthless gunners who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn yet died trying, highly trained bombardiers working with the latest equipment only to miss anyway because Mother Nature still had the last call between their altitude and the ground, nav/radioman given a gun he couldn't use anyway and after all was said and done a fast-attack squadron of low-flying far-ranging fighter-bombers could have done their job much more effectively and far, far more efficiently in one mission. Similar comments came from various other period pilots who flew various types at various annual reunions. 

So, yea, the pilots did have some pretty poignant summaries of their missions, the equipment used to accomplish them, what should have happened and why it didn't. The common reason cited was theatre-specific inter and intra-military politics.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 18, 2009)

Sweb said:


> So, yea, the pilots did have some pretty poignant summaries of their missions, the equipment used to accomplish them, what should have happened and why it didn't. The common reason cited was theatre-specific inter and intra-military politics.



Kind of a broad brush comment isn't it? Any specifics come to mind?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 23, 2009)

Shooter, the Lanc put more bombs on target than the B17 and B24. Plus the heavier bombs dropped by the lanc actually did far more damage than the pint sized 500 and 1000 pounders used by the AAF.

Look through the post war USSBS for the facts.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 23, 2009)

*B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 B-29 *

Did I mention B-29?

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2009)

Shooter8 said:


> QUOTE: And the fact that so many were scrapped so quickly PROVES my earlier statement. The B-24 served well but it was a DUMPTRUCK! Once the war was over, it got turned into Fords!!!! 6000 gone in one year!!! The Lancaster remained around for many years, not because of desperation, because it was an adaptable airframe.
> 
> This is the silliest avoidance of the truth I've ever heard of! The Lanc was retained because the Brits were dead broke and could not possably afford to replace it



Read back a few pages more and that was mentioned as well but the numbers stated in that post was related to the B-24s that served in the USAAF. Despite being broke the Brits did bring on the Lincoln and eventually utilized B-29s.

The Lanc's airframe was a hell of a lot more resilient than the B-24 although it was still early WW2 technology. The B-24 was a dump truck, quickly built to serve a role and it served well but due to high attrition rates and airframes as new as 1300 hours coming apart, it was destined for the scrap bin.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 23, 2009)

The RCAF used the Lanc for a number of years in ASW and Survey work after the war and we were not broke


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2009)

Shooter8 said:


> I guess that you would have to define the word "best" some how to make this a realivant question!
> 
> Let us try by using different criteria;
> 1. B-29. Best bomb load, to the longest range, at the highest speed, from the highest altitude and with the lowest losses! Seems like the top dog to me?
> ...



Shooter - this is a forum where bringing 'fists to a gunfight' has true meaning relative to fact based opinions - expect to be challenged - as we all do. 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2009)

Shooter8 said:


> Or even better compare the number of bombs that actualy landed inside the factory fenceline or target building to the total number of bombs dropped? Given that the RAF itself at the time only claimed that ~50% of the bombs hit their targets, IE the city proper, then at least half of all night time mission tonnage is not effective. But 2% inside the fence still leaves MOST of the other inside the city, so daylight raids get to count 90-95% of their bombs dropped as effective? Just pulling numbers out of this air, so you take your pick, but if you judge mission effectivness by the same criteria for both types of raid, the daylight bombing has to be several times as effective as night time raids. You furnish the numbers.




File:Ussb-1.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Shooter8 said:


> But daylight missions caused the Germans to come up and fight, where they *were shot down by the tens of thousands*.


Now you come up with numbers


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2009)

Shooter8 said:


> QUOTE: And the fact that so many were scrapped so quickly PROVES my earlier statement. The B-24 served well but it was a DUMPTRUCK! Once the war was over, it got turned into Fords!!!! 6000 gone in one year!!! The Lancaster remained around for many years, not because of desperation, because it was an adaptable airframe.
> 
> Rather than compare total loss rates, which is hardly constructive given the different missions and requirements, why not compair daylight mission loss rates before the RAF chose to abandon that mission due to catastrofic losses! Then compare those rates to B-17/24/29 daylight mission loss rates?
> 
> ...



The number for ETO/MTO USAAF might be close to one 'tens of thousands' which was an excellent achievement by itself but hardly 'multiples' of tens of thousands.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2009)

Shooter8 said:


> Only if you count bombs dropped outside the city limmets does the Lanc compare with the B-17 or -24 where we required them to be inside the fenceline to be counted as hits. The RAF declaired that ~50% of the bombs dropped at night landed inside the city limmets, therefore the other 50% were waisted! Reduce all tonnage by that figure! On the other hand, if we count the entire city limmets area as hits then the American bombers did very much better than the Lanc because most of their bombs landed inside the city limmets.


Do you have quantified record of that? 


Shooter8 said:


> If the Lanc was so good after the war, why did the RAF by the Washington?


To Give the RAF a global strike capability that it didn't have at the time - this happening while the fist V bombers were being developed.



Shooter8 said:


> When someone claimed that 6000 B-24s were scrapped in a year, what porportion of the 18,000 built is that and how many survived out of the 7-7,377 Lancs made?


Another 1000 probably scrapped there after. Did you ever stop to think that it does cost money to maintain and operate an aircraft an in many cases operational aircraft were either stored or scrapped all together based on operational costs?


Shooter8 said:


> Exactly what was the strength of the RAF Bomber Comand after the war? IIRC, they only had 3-400 mediums (Lancs) on the roll in 1947 and those included how many Washingtons? That would equal ~96% or more scrapped with in two years of the end of the war?


High time Lancasters were scrapped - the fact remains the aircraft served Bomber Command into the 1950s and served many other nations quite well in secondary roles up to the 1960s.



Shooter8 said:


> You can not go by raw numbers and make an honest argument.
> From page 18 of Stewart's AIRCRAFT OF WW-II,
> Lancaster;
> EEW=41,000 Lbs.
> ...


Errr, what model Lanc are you using????



Shooter8 said:


> Not wishing to embarass you with numbers from the B-24 or B-29 I list from the same source on page 27 the B-17G numbers, 8,680 built or more than 1,000 more than all Lancs combined.



Are you comparing the Lanc to the B-17, B-24 or B-29???? There is no doubt the B-29 was the best heavy bomber if not the best bomber of WW2. The Lancaster is a distant second.

Specifications (Lancaster)

Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each 
Performance

Maximum speed: 240 knots (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m) 
Range: 2,700 NM (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load 
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m) 
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.082 hp/lb (130 W/kg) 
Armament


Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.70 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations 
Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000lbs or *22,000lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay*

BTW you're not embarrassing me with any numbers from a non-technical history book - If I want or need the performance data I'll go to the flight manual.


Shooter8 said:


> B-17G;
> EEW=38,000 Lbs.
> MTO=65,500 Lbs and 72,000 Lbs OLTO.
> Speed with R-1820-97s @1200 HP = 286MPH, 1380HP WEP Ea.= 302MPH @ 25,000'. *Note that the B-17 is faster on less power than the Lanc indicating supirior aerodynamics*.


Can you prove that? Do you have wind tunnel data???



Shooter8 said:


> CRUISING SPD = 160-182 mph. Depending on load. This equates to a much faster TAS because of the differances in altitude. (272-310 MPH TAS @ 25K')
> Range with 4,000 Lbs = 1,800 Miles, = Radius of Action = 810 Miles.
> Range with 9,600 Lbs = 1,080 Miles, = Radius of Action = 486 Miles.
> Service Cieling 35,600'
> ...


The Lancaster as far as bomb load, plain and simple.

You've cited data from a history book - why don't you try to find yourself the Pilot's Notes or Flight Manual from each aircraft and find out what were the listed performance numbers of the aircraft and then compare them to the real operations the aircraft were subjected to.
For example, do you really think a B-17 was operated at 35,000 feet with a full bomb load????


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2009)

Shooter8 said:


> The Germans figured that less that 9,000 of it's fighters were lost to b-17s, less than 5,000 to B-24s and less than 2,000 to all other types. After the war, they pretty much all agreed that daylight bombers shot down between 12-13 thousand fighters, their escorts shot down another 12-13 thousand fighters by every bodies best guess.


Again where are you coming up with this data???The USAAF Heavy Bombers CLAIMED A little over 6000 and in actuality probably brought down more like 3000 if that many and that probably includes medium bombers as well. Here...

Army Air Forces in World War II

And if you REALLY want to lean about German losses, start here...

J A G D G E S C H W A D E R 26 "SCHLAGETER"



Shooter8 said:


> How many night fighters were downed?


By whom, the RAF? Bombers or fighters????

Ever hear of 100 Group?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 23, 2009)

Shooter8 said:


> The Germans figured that less that 9,000 of it's fighters were lost to b-17s, less than 5,000 to B-24s and less than 2,000 to all other types. After the war, they pretty much all agreed that daylight bombers shot down between 12-13 thousand fighters, their escorts shot down another 12-13 thousand fighters by every bodies best guess.
> 
> How many night fighters were downed?


Your proving a little knowledge is a dangerous thing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2009)

Shooter, let me put this out there for you...

_"As the intensity of air combat over Europe grew, the USAAF began to experience a flood of victory claims from its air gunners. This was not surprising, of course. A given formation of bombers might have fifteen to twenty aircraft. Each had five or six people shooting at oncoming enemy fighters. If one enemy aircraft was shot down, dozens of air gunners might claim - in perfectly good faith - that they hit it. However, this led to utterly unrealistic claims of successes, so much so that on some days (as post-war investigations proved), USAAF gunners claimed to have shot down more German aircraft than had actually been in the air! *Royal Air Force intelligence experts advised USAAF staff to divide their gunners' claims by at least six in order to obtain a realistic figure.* *The USAAF refused, somewhat indignantly, and only conceded the point after the war*."_

Bayou Renaissance Man: Weekend Wings #25: Air Gunners

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 24, 2009)

An excellent link giving a very good description of the development of gun turrets. Thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 24, 2009)

Joe thanks for posting those links, they have some good info. We seem to go though this every few months don't we?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Joe thanks for posting those links, they have some good info. We seem to go though this every few months don't we?


Yep!


----------



## renrich (Mar 3, 2009)

I sometimes wonder if the waist gunners in the heavy bombers ever hit anything except by accident. Obviously they could score some hits but when you think about the leads and angles involved it must have been difficult. I had a friend in Colorado who was a fight engineer and top turret gunner on a B26 and at least in his later years a topflight rifle and shotgun shooter. I asked him if he ever thought he hit anything from his turret and he said no because it was very difficult.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 3, 2009)

renrich said:


> I sometimes wonder if the waist gunners in the heavy bombers ever hit anything except by accident. Obviously they could score some hits but when you think about the leads and angles involved it must have been difficult. I had a friend in Colorado who was a fight engineer and top turret gunner on a B26 and at least in his later years a topflight rifle and shotgun shooter. I asked him if he ever thought he hit anything from his turret and he said no because it was very difficult.



Heard the same thing, that's why when I heard "the Germans figured that less that 9,000 of it's fighters were lost to b-17s" well I felt likw buying one of these...

The Universal Bullshit Detector Watch™ - Cool Humorous Gadget Watch


----------



## renrich (Mar 4, 2009)

No way there is any way to discover this but wouldn't it be interesting if one could determine how many hits each gun position on a heavy bomber was responsible for. My bet would be the tail gunner with the most. Another one would be which gunnery runs were most favored by the LW, rear from six o clock, headon, etc. and which ones were the most productive and then of course how many LW fighters were actually shot down by bomber guns and which types were more likely to be shot down.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2009)

renrich said:


> No way there is any way to discover this but wouldn't it be interesting if one could determine how many hits each gun position on a heavy bomber was responsible for. My bet would be the tail gunner with the most. Another one would be which gunnery runs were most favored by the LW, rear from six o clock, headon, etc. and which ones were the most productive and then of course how many LW fighters were actually shot down by bomber guns and which types were more likely to be shot down.



The first thing you would have to do is sort out claim versus 'actual' - I think impossible to do for bombers. Hard enough for fighters with witnesses and gun camera film to back up.


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 26, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The first thing you would have to do is sort out claim versus 'actual' - I think impossible to do for bombers. Hard enough for fighters with witnesses and gun camera film to back up.



Nobody in all this debate has contributed much but dry statistics to fit individual biases. Like debating how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. My great-grandson would say: Grandpa! Get a life!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2009)

flakhappy said:


> Nobody in all this debate has contributed much but dry statistics to fit individual biases. Like debating how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. My great-grandson would say: Grandpa! Get a life!




We alll learn a lot about the bombers with our banter and bias's.


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 26, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> We alll learn a lot about the bombers with our banter and bias's.



You bet, but during WWII, whenever anybody started spouting meaningless statistics some wise old owl told us to stop choosing the wallpaper while the house was on fire.


----------



## RAF Liberators (Jul 1, 2009)

Well the RAF B-24 was way better than the US version, it had to be because my Grandad flew them.... 

An American airman, was told at Briefing to ‘Go in at 30,000 feet and keep out of the flak.”
“If I go in a 20,000 feet, what will happen?’ asked the airman.
“You’ll probably be mentioned in despatches”, answered the officer.
“If I go in at 10,000 feet, what will happen then ?“ he asked.
“In that case you will probably get the Congress Medal”, he was told.
"And if I go in at 5,000 feet?’ he inquired excitedly.
“Don’t be a fool, man”, replied his superior, “you’ll go and bump into the R.A.F. at that height.”

Thought the subject needed to be lightened up a bit, life's too short, don't take it so seriously


----------



## Civettone (Jul 5, 2009)

renrich said:


> I sometimes wonder if the waist gunners in the heavy bombers ever hit anything except by accident. Obviously they could score some hits but when you think about the leads and angles involved it must have been difficult. I had a friend in Colorado who was a fight engineer and top turret gunner on a B26 and at least in his later years a topflight rifle and shotgun shooter. I asked him if he ever thought he hit anything from his turret and he said no because it was very difficult.


Perhaps you're right. But then again, there's also the aspect of simply providing defensive fire even if it's not very accurate...
It also depends on the angle: if the enemy aircraft advances from the side or from the back makes a huge difference. A passing fighter coming from the back seems an extremely difficult target for the waist gunners.


Kris


----------



## river (Jul 12, 2009)

Hi,



FLYBOYJ said:


> There is no doubt the B-29 was the best heavy bomber if not the best bomber of WW2.




Yes there is. I doubt it. 

seeyuzz
river


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Great post. I am sure your credentials mean a lot to this discussion!

Why don't you give some real reasons why you do not think it is the best, instead of spamming a thread with something like that????


----------



## river (Jul 13, 2009)

Hi,

The B29 was a wonderful machine, but it was not used throughout the entire war, and served only in the PTO, where the air defense of Japan was not as robust or as experienced as that of the Germans. 

So, the B29s had a more "easy" time than the bombers that served in the ETO. I am not belittling the B29 or the job it did or the crews who manned her. Far from it, I do think it is a superb bomber.

But, from the perspective of enduring the war and being used on all fronts, I'd say the B17, Lancaster or B24 would be regarded as the best heavy bombers of WW2.

Considering the various types of bombers, each tailored for a speciic task, I don't beleive it is possible to say any single bomber was the "best". Sure, it is possible to discuss with more relevance which bomber was best in it's respective category (ie light, medium and heavy bombers), but I can't see how it is possible to pick a single bomber and say it was the best - at least without defining boundaries of what "best" means.

seeyuzz
river


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 13, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> The B29 was a wonderful machine, but it was not used throughout the entire war, and served only in the PTO, where the air defense of Japan was not as robust or as experienced as that of the Germans.
> 
> ...



How about the B29 incorporated all of the best features of the other three?

Bigger payload, longer ranged, sophisticated (for its day) integration of defensive and offensive avionics, etc.


----------



## river (Jul 13, 2009)

Hi,

If you define best as having the biggest "routine" bombload (as the Lancaster could carry 22,000lbs, but for shorter range and it had to be modified to carry the Grand Slam), plus the incorporation of the best features of the pre-existing bombers, then you could make a case and say the B29 was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

But, if you define the best as to which bombers flew the most missions, endured the longer hardships of war, was produced in greater numbers, and was used in multiple theatres of operation, then I don't think you could include the B29.

If you define the best as which bomber carried the most payload per crew, then perhaps it would be the Mosquito.

river


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 13, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> If you define best as having the biggest "routine" bombload (as the Lancaster could carry 22,000lbs, but for shorter range and it had to be modified to carry the Grand Slam), plus the incorporation of the best features of the pre-existing bombers, then you could make a case and say the B29 was the best heavy bomber of WW2.
> 
> ...



The B29 could easily carry the Grand Slam, and even two of them for shorter ranged missions. It also carried aerial mines, and also an atomic bomb. None of the other three could carry those two weapons.

The Lanc, B17 and B24 did not have the avionics the B29 carried. Nor was the defensive firepower comparable to the B29.

And as events proved in the Pacific, the B17 didnt have the range to make it usable. The B24 and Lanc were on the outer edges of payload vs range. But only the B29 could combine a usefull payload over long ranges.

And the Mossie could have been used in more light bomber roles, but it wasnt.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 14, 2009)

The Lancaster was the only operational bomber of WW2 that could accomnodate the Grand Slam bomb. That was entirely due to its bomb bay design which placed no limitation on the size and shape of the weapon carried (an idea carried over in todays Nimrod) the US practice of having smaller individual bays prevented any American type from doing this without major modification or some sort of separate cradle being developed so I don't know how you get a B-29 'easily' carrying two of these huge weapons syscom? Due to the reasons I said the Lanc could carry anything that any other bomber, B-29 included, could carry. 

Having said that I would readily agree that the B-29 was the best bomber of the war. It was a technological leap forward over all preceding aircraft and the speed, range and altitude at which it could deliver these weapons was unprecedented, Remember the B-29, As the Washington B.1, was a standard bomber type with the RAF until 1957.

Defining best can be a dodgy business, but if you simply take is as being the finest performance and capability for a bomber by 1945 then you have the Mosquito and B-29 above all.

If you want the best 'mainstay' heavy of the war, ie actually operated over a number of years rather than the latest tech, then it would have to be (for me) the Lancaster over everything else, but if you put in proviso's to allow your favourite aircraft to win, it starts to get a bit pointless


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 14, 2009)

Grand Slam on B-29 were external load


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 14, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The Lancaster was the only bomber of WW2 that could accomnodate the Grand Slam bomb. That was entirely due to its bomb bay design which placed no limitation on the size and shape of the weapon carried (an idea carried over in todays Nimrod) the US practice of having smaller individual bays prevented any American type from doing this without major modification or some sort of separate cradle being developed so I don't know how you get a B-29 'easily' carrying two of these huge weapons syscom? Due to the reasons I said the Lanc could carry anything that any other bomber, B-29 included, could carry.



The B29 had two large unpressurized bomb bays that were in similar design to the Lanc, in that there was no fuselauge obstructions like that of the B17/B24.

Go see the B29 thread that provides information of the B29 carrying not one, but two Grand Slams.



> If you want the best 'mainstay' heavy of the war, ie actually operated over a number of years rather than the latest tech, then it would have to be (for me) the Lancaster over everything else, but if you put in proviso's to allow your favourite aircraft to win, it starts to get a bit pointless



The B29 was a magniture better than the other three.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 14, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Grand Slam on B-29 were external load



No they weren't. They were semi recessed, as on the Lancaster, in a modified bomb bay but it was never used operationally (due to the success of the A Bomb raids) and it was still a heavily modified aircraft (more so than the Lancaster) but the B-29 did not need to sacrifice its defensive guns, which was obviously a plus. 

'Easy' would be a standard aircraft bombed up in the normal way to my mind. The fact was that without the Lancaster, none of these bombs would ever have been dropped operationally as the B-29 would have been too late.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 14, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The B29 had two large unpressurized bomb bays that were in similar design to the Lanc, in that there was no fuselauge obstructions like that of the B17/B24.
> 
> Go see the B29 thread that provides information of the B29 carrying not one, but two Grand Slams.






You missed my point, but it was my own fault as I wasn't clear.

in 1945 the B-29 was still only conducting trials with these weapons. It was about 2 weeks away from its first operation when the war ended. The Lancaster was a proven operational type that actually dropped them on the enemy. Thats quite a difference. I actually support the B-29 as the best bomber of the war if you read my post.



> The B29 was a magniture better than the other three.



Yes it was, but how does that contradict what I said?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 14, 2009)

Waynos said:


> You missed my point, but it was my own fault as I wasn't clear.
> 
> in 1945 the B-29 was still only conducting trials with these weapons. It was about 2 weeks away from its first operation when the war ended. The Lancaster was a proven operational type that actually dropped them on the enemy. Thats quite a difference. I actually support the B-29 as the best bomber of the war if you read my post.
> 
> ...



How about the B29 carrying an atomic weapon and the Lanc couldnt?

The B29 also carries the large aerial mines that finally sutdown the japanese inland seaways. The lanc couldnt do that.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 14, 2009)

Waynos said:


> 'Easy' would be a standard aircraft bombed up in the normal way to my mind. The fact was that without the Lancaster, none of these bombs would ever have been dropped operationally as the B-29 would have been too late.



Explain that in more detail. You lost me on it.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 14, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> How about the B29 carrying an atomic weapon and the Lanc couldnt?
> 
> The B29 also carries the large aerial mines that finally sutdown the japanese inland seaways. The lanc couldnt do that.



Why couldn't it? What was the problem? Did the bomb/mine weigh more than 22.000lb?


----------



## Waynos (Jul 14, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Explain that in more detail. You lost me on it.



typed a reply then realised I had lost myself too. You said 'carry', not 'accomodate'. Two different meanings and I was arguing the wrong point syscom.

however I did mean to ask what you meant by this;



> And the Mossie could have been used in more light bomber roles, but it wasnt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> The B29 was a wonderful machine, but it was not used throughout the entire war, and served only in the PTO, where the air defense of Japan was not as robust or as experienced as that of the Germans.
> 
> ...



Much better post, please try to do that more often.

Now on to your post.

1. Was the B-29 not the most advanced bomber built during the war?
2. Was the B-29 not the bomber that could carry the heaviest bomb load over the farthest distance?
3. Did the B-29 have superior performance to the majority of other bombers out there?
4. What bombers were more superior to the B-29?

Answer those questions and you will see that that best heavy bomber built during WW2, was the B-29. Fact is fact, that can not be argued.



river said:


> Hi,
> 
> If you define best as having the biggest "routine" bombload (as the Lancaster could carry 22,000lbs, but for shorter range and it had to be modified to carry the Grand Slam), plus the incorporation of the best features of the pre-existing bombers, then you could make a case and say the B29 was the best heavy bomber of WW2.



The B-29 could carry a heavier bomb load than all other bombers over a longer range. The B-29 could also carry a Grand Slam or 2 Tall Boy bombs.



river said:


> But, if you define the best as to which bombers flew the most missions, endured the longer hardships of war, was produced in greater numbers, and was used in multiple theatres of operation, then I don't think you could include the B29.



Then you should say which was the bomber that contributed the most. Contributing the most, does not necessarily mean the best.



Waynos said:


> The Lancaster was the only bomber of WW2 that could accomnodate the Grand Slam bomb. That was entirely due to its bomb bay design which placed no limitation on the size and shape of the weapon carried (an idea carried over in todays Nimrod) the US practice of having smaller individual bays prevented any American type from doing this without major modification or some sort of separate cradle being developed so I don't know how you get a B-29 'easily' carrying two of these huge weapons syscom? Due to the reasons I said the Lanc could carry anything that any other bomber, B-29 included, could carry.



The B-29 was modified to carry the Grand Slam. The Lancaster had to be modified as well to carry it. 



Waynos said:


> If you want the best 'mainstay' heavy of the war, ie actually operated over a number of years rather than the latest tech, then it would have to be (for me) the Lancaster over everything else, but if you put in proviso's to allow your favourite aircraft to win, it starts to get a bit pointless



I believe the Lancaster was second to the B-29, beating out the 17 and 24 only because of its bomb load.



syscom3 said:


> It also carried aerial mines, and also an atomic bomb. None of the other three could carry those two weapons.
> .



Actually that is false. The Lancaster carried mines on a regular basis. In fact the first operational mission by Lancasters was by RAF Sqaudron No. 44 which was deploying mines on March 3,1942 in the Helgoland Bight.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 14, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The B-29 was modified to carry the Grand Slam. The Lancaster had to be modified as well to carry it.



Yes, that is correct. I merely meant to say (unsuccessfully) that too. I read syscoms post saying the B-29 could carry the Grand Slam easily, as meaning it could be carried as a matter of course. I recognise he did not mean this but instead was referring to lifting capacity (I assume?)





> I believe the Lancaster was second to the B-29, beating out the 17 and 24 only because of its bomb load.



Thats what I meant about proviso's to let your favourite in. The B-29 WAS the best heavy bomber of WW2 by a country mile. To find a way for the Lanc to be best you have to find a category that B-29 can be excluded from (ie mainstream bomber over a period of years during WW2) which just means that the Lancaster was the best.....until the B-29 appeared


----------



## lingo (Jul 14, 2009)

The thread seems to have shifted emphasis from the best bomber of WW II to the best heavy bomber, to suit the posters preference. If we are to give priority to speed, then the Germans win with their Arado jet. If we are to talk about efficiency then the Ju 88 and the Mosquito are both worthy contenders. Load carrying ability at the last year of the war goes to the B-29 and before that to the Lancaster. It's all a movable feast!


----------



## river (Jul 14, 2009)

Hi,



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. Was the B-29 not the most advanced bomber built during the war?
> 2. Was the B-29 not the bomber that could carry the heaviest bomb load over the farthest distance?
> 3. Did the B-29 have superior performance to the majority of other bombers out there?
> 4. What bombers were more superior to the B-29?
> ...



It could be argued the Arado AR234 jet bomber was more advanced than the B29. Maybe not in the weaponry department, but certainly in the power plant area.

Carrying the heaviest bombload the furthest distance is great for long distance missions, like those in the PTO. However, in the ETO there was less emphasis on range. Having said that, I admit that if the B29 was used in the ETO it no doubt could of carried almost double the bombload of the exisiting heavy bombers, when considering the less distances involved.

Basically, if we are focusing purely on performance and outright payload capacity, then yes, the B29 was the best bomber of WW2. But,again, this is one definition of "the best".

Personally, I define the best as to which machine contributed the most, which would puts the emphasis on the Lanc, B17 and B24.

If the best is defined as versatility and enduring the entire war, perhaps it would go to the Ju88 or the Mosquito.

We need a better definition of what the best actually means, or nmore specific questions such as..

1) Best technically
2) Best dispatch/reliability
3) Best contributor
4) Best economically (ie bombload vs crew vs fuel/engines)

I am just throwing the above questions up as basic examples, and each question would probably provide a different answer. 

Perhaps a weighting system, based on numerous factors, and the final result provides an answer. If so, what are the salient factors that are important for a bomber. For example...

1) Bombload
2) Speed
3) Altitude
4) Accuracy
5) Range
6) Defensive ability
7) Crew
) Theartres of operation
9) Reliability

Again, just examples. and to include light and medium bombers, items such as bombload could be done as a percentage of weight of the laden aircraft.

But.. I fear that perhaps I am looking at all of this a tad too seriously and therefore the best comes down to personal choice/favourite with a smattering of selected facts to help support your decision.

river


----------



## Waynos (Jul 14, 2009)

I wouldn't agree that the Ar 234 was a more advanced aircraft. It was basically the same as the Gloster Meteor in that, engines apart, it was exactly the same as all other aircraft in its class. Bolting on jet engines made no difference to its overall advancement, it just gave it a higher performance. De Havilland was developing a Jet Mosquito, but it was not a more advanced plane than the standard one, just faster.

The B-29 was amuch more advanced design technically than either the Ar 234 or the Mosquito - pressurisation, high lift, low drag, high aspect ration wings of extremely advanced section to name two features. Calling a design advanced just because of its engines is a tad superficial.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 14, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually that is false. The Lancaster carried mines on a regular basis. In fact the first operational mission by Lancasters was by RAF Sqaudron No. 44 which was deploying mines on March 3,1942 in the Helgoland Bight.



You are correct. I forgot about those, and the mining of the Danube.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2009)

my further two cents worth. This is going to ruffle feathers, but I need to put in a reality check for you guys, in the same way as the uber panzer guys need to take a reality pill once in a while.

For exactly the same reasons as the Tiger tank cannot be viewed as the "best tank of wwii, the B-29 cannot make that claim either. Oh its a technical marvel alright, head an shoulders above everybody else, but only if you view it from the narrow technological point of view.

So where does the B-29 fail?

I have two criticisms. Firstly, the B-289 could not undertake all functions successfully. Its maritime strike capability was limited, as was its ability to provide ground support to battlefield situations. 

Secondly my opinion is that in the context of WWII, it fails on the grounds of cost. I read that the 3500 B-29s produced cost more to build than the entire 19000 B-24 program. How would 3500 B-29s fare, compared to 19000 B-24s over germany? They would have been cut to pieces, simply because there would not have been enough of them. If we assume similar deployment rates to Germany as was done historically in the PTO, th en ther would have been about 300 by the end of 1944, rising to about 500 by March 1945. At that same time, ther were thousands of B-24s and B-17s battling the Luftwaffe. I doubt that the B-29, despite its higher individual survivability, would have fared better overall, when viewed as agroup. There simply were not enough of them, and that was because they cost so much per unit to produce. 

So while I agree they are the best from a technological point of view, from an operations point of view I see them as having rather limited potential in the WWII context.


----------



## lingo (Jul 15, 2009)

The B-29 didn't have to face the fearsome German Flak so we will never know how it would have fared in European skies.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 15, 2009)

Great post, Parsifal.

My.02 is that taking into consideration ALL aspects of bombers and the missions needed during WWII in almost all theatres, the Ju 88 would win. From mission requirements to bomb load to areas of operation and adaptability, the Ju 88 was mostly effective for the Luftwaffe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can agree with you on the majority of that. You are correct that it is subjective. In all actuality you would have to break them down into types of bombers.


----------



## trackend (Jul 15, 2009)

Said it once but will repeat it again as it was well down this thread, B29.
Techknowlogically far inadvance of its nearest comparison. and opened a new era in stratigic bomber design


----------



## parsifal (Jul 15, 2009)

Njaco said:


> Great post, Parsifal.
> 
> My.02 is that taking into consideration ALL aspects of bombers and the missions needed during WWII in almost all theatres, the Ju 88 would win. From mission requirements to bomb load to areas of operation and adaptability, the Ju 88 was mostly effective for the Luftwaffe.



I'm biased....I love the Mossie, but really, before we can argue "the best", we have to define what we mean by "the best" the best what!!!, the fastest, the cheapest, the most versatile, the best strategic bomber.......waht are the criteria for determining "best"

I would suggest that perhaps the following criteria might serve as a starting point in developing such criteria

1) Survivability......ruggedness of construction
2) Bombload
3) Perfomrance....speed, rate of climb, manouvre, max altitude
4) Range
5) Defensive Armament
6) Multi-role capability
7) Armour protection/self sealing tanks
8 ) Availability...bombers available for the last month of the war are basically useless in my opinion, except as technological curiosities 
9) and of course unit cost

perhaps ther are other criteria. i put about two minutes into that list.......once we have a list that we can agree on, then we have to give a relative weighting to each criteria.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2009)

parsifal said:


> my further two cents worth. This is going to ruffle feathers, but I need to put in a reality check for you guys, in the same way as the uber panzer guys need to take a reality pill once in a while.
> 
> For exactly the same reasons as the Tiger tank cannot be viewed as the "best tank of wwii, the B-29 cannot make that claim either. Oh its a technical marvel alright, head an shoulders above everybody else, but only if you view it from the narrow technological point of view.
> 
> ...



Good post and I agree with that as well. As I said I think it has to be broken down. There were so many different bombers and missions. From a technical standpoint the B-29 was obviously the best, but from an economical or certain mission requirements it may not be.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 15, 2009)

One thing that is also worth noting is that the B-29 was not only a leap ahead technologically over the Lancaster and B-17 24, it was also much more advanced than such as the Vickers Windsor and Avro Lincoln (and B-32?) which were directly comparable in timescale. I always fly the flag for British aircraft out of habit, but if you can't give credit where its due whats the point?

Speaking of which, I can't see how the Ju-88 could be rated above the DH Mosquito. The Mossie was faster, carried more bombs and was equally adaptable to say the least. I think the Ju 88 is certainly one of histories greatest aircraft, just behind the Mosquito  I know, I know, lots of other don't


----------



## Marcel (Jul 16, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In all actuality you would have to break them down into types of bombers.



 We discussed this last year..and the year before that... and the year before that  Last year we even did break it down, don't know where those threads went.
I think we all agree that the question in this thread is actually a silly one, right?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 16, 2009)

Marcel said:


> We discussed this last year..and the year before that... and the year before that  Last year we even did break it down, don't know where those threads went.
> I think we all agree that the question in this thread is actually a silly one, right?



Absolutely!


----------



## Njaco (Jul 16, 2009)

Marcel said:


> We discussed this last year..and the year before that... and the year before that  Last year we even did break it down, don't know where those threads went.
> I think we all agree that the question in this thread is actually a silly one, right?



Yup and I still got sucked into answering it!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 16, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Its maritime strike capability was limited



Why was that? It carried two large aerial mines and used its range and navigational capabilities to use that capacity to great effect in the inland seas of Japan.

And its ability to carry oversize loads, meant that if the Allies had decided to develop glide bombs like the germans had, then it would have been the well positioned to carry them.




> as was its ability to provide ground support to battlefield situations.



I assume you mean it couldnt be used in a tactical situation, which is true, because *IT WAS NEVER* designed for that role. Your line of reasoning also suggests that no four engined "heavy bomber" could be used in that role either.

But then the inverse of your logic is the A20/B25/B26 and Mossie couldnt be used in long range missions either.



> I read that the 3500 B-29s produced cost more to build than the entire 19000 B-24 program. How would 3500 B-29s fare, compared to 19000 B-24s over germany?



One B29 could carry an atomic bomb, with an effective payload of 15,000 tons. How about that?

The B24's were simpler to design and build and were in mass production 2 years before the B29 had any meaningful production. And we know one thing for sure, the B24 could not have bombed Japan from the Mariana's.



> They would have been cut to pieces, simply because there would not have been enough of them. If we assume similar deployment rates to Germany as was done historically in the PTO, th en ther would have been about 300 by the end of 1944, rising to about 500 by March 1945. At that same time, ther were thousands of B-24s and B-17s battling the Luftwaffe. I doubt that the B-29, despite its higher individual survivability, would have fared better overall, when viewed as agroup. There simply were not enough of them, and that was because they cost so much per unit to produce.



Why do you assume they would have been cut to pieces. They were not immune to the LW but they sure would have been less vulnerable to most of the LW fighters. And if they were used as night bombers, they would have even less loses. And dont forget, most B29 loses in the Pacific were due to the plane [damaged] having to fly 1600 miles back to their bases. Now if that range was only a few hundred miles like that in Europe, the B29 loses would be even less.



> So while I agree they are the best from a technological point of view, from an operations point of view I see them as having rather limited potential in the WWII context.



Limited potential? How about burning Japan to the ground. 

How bout bring ECM dedicated aircraft to a new level of capabilities.

How about mining the inland seas and immobilizing the Japanese coastal traffic.

How about dropping two nuclear weapons.

You call that "limited"?

The B29 was the result of the lessons learned from the Lanc, B17 and B24. Each one of those three planes showed what was good and bad about their designs as intended for strategic warfare, and the B29 by design or not, minimized the bad points and integrated the good points (to one degree or another) into a single platform.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2009)

The problem with a lot of these "BEST OF WW II" threads is that they cover too much ground or time. 

The state of aeronautical knowledge and availabe (or projected) engines changed so much from 1935-37 to 1943-44 that trying to compare planes from the start of the war to planes available near the end of the war is useless even if you were comparing planes designed for the "SAME MISSION" which you wouldn't be because the mission requirements changed over time.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2009)

Heres a post war pic of the B29 carrying a grand slam.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 19, 2009)

Excellent, thanks. I had been trying to find one without success. The installation in this case looks the sam as on the Lanc. Semi recessed into the bomb bay. Have you any idea how it carried two ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Excellent, thanks. I had been trying to find one without success. The installation in this case looks the sam as on the Lanc. Semi recessed into the bomb bay. Have you any idea how it carried two ?


Under the wings and they were Tall Boys.

something interesting

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADB972848&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf


----------



## Waynos (Jul 19, 2009)

Thanks very much. That is a fascinating document. I was suprised to see criticism that the reduction in aircraft performance following the release of the bomb was excessive. My initial though would be that divesting of a Tallboy would increase performance! Clearly it was drag uissue concerning ther modified bomb bay doors.

On reflection, two Grand slams would be a 44,000lb bomb load so no, I don't think the B-29 would have done that, but is there any more info on the twin Tallboy installation?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2009)

Been searching but I have seen a photo of a B-29 with a pair of tall boys on inboard wing pylons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Been searching but I have seen a photo of a B-29 with a pair of tall boys on inboard wing pylons.



I have been searching for it as well, since this convo started. I have the pic saved on my computer somewhere.


----------



## river (Jul 21, 2009)

Hi,

I have a picture of it, in flight, with a 22000lb Grand Slam under each wing (on pylons between the fuselage and in-board engines). I can scan it, but it is in the book "B29 Fortress at War", by David A Anderton (page 125).

The actual aircraft was a Wichita built B29-75-BW, serial number 44-70060. It was modifed with wing pylons that could take a Grand Slam, Tallboy or a pair of M56 4000lb light-case bombs, per wing pylon.

In the picture the Grand Slams are filled with sand to test the flying qualities of the aircraft. The picture and this flight took place out of Wichita on the 29th of June 1945.

There is also a picture of the same aircraft carrying the M56 packages.

river


----------



## Civettone (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm reading "the wild blue" at the moment, about B-24s flying from Italy. Also a good part on the B-24 and a comparison with the B-17, making the latter clearly inferior to the B-24.

The B-24 really is a no-nonsense bomber with maximum range and bomb load possible. 

Would a modified B-24 have been able to carry the Bomb to Hiroshima?
Kris


----------



## Waynos (Jul 21, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a picture of it, in flight, with a 22000lb Grand Slam under each wing (on pylons between the fuselage and in-board engines). I can scan it, but it is in the book "B29 Fortress at War", by David A Anderton (page 125).
> 
> ...



River, are you sure that they were not Tallboy's? As I said before two Grand Slams is 44,000lb. I can beleive the B-36 lifting two of them but not the B-29. Unless they were only partially filled with sand to make them light enough of course, but then what would be the point of doing that?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 21, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Would a modified B-24 have been able to carry the Bomb to Hiroshima?
> Kris



No.


----------



## river (Jul 21, 2009)

Hi,



Waynos said:


> River, are you sure that they were not Tallboy's? As I said before two Grand Slams is 44,000lb. I can beleive the B-36 lifting two of them but not the B-29. Unless they were only partially filled with sand to make them light enough of course, but then what would be the point of doing that?



The text says that Grand Slams, Tall Boys and M56 packages were tested on the pylons. The picture says they are Grand Slams, and they did say they were filled with sand. So, perhaps they were lighter in weight than the real Grand Slams, plus the text did say they were used to test the handling qualities of the B29 (maybe they were more concerned about the drag etc of the bombs as opposed to the weight - for initial testing?).

I'll check some images of Grand Slams and Tall Boys and check against the picture to see exactly what it is carrying - in case picture caption is incorrect. I'll try and get it scanned this evening and put the image here in this thread.

river


----------



## Waynos (Jul 21, 2009)

Thanks, that would be great if you could.


----------



## river (Jul 22, 2009)

Hi,

Sorry if the images are too big... but hey, you can never get too big when looking at fine war machinery, can you!
The pics look crappy as they are (below), but if you click on the yellow bar (on top) they'll blow up reall big and nice.

Okay, here is a pic of the B29 carrying the M56 bomb pakage on wing pylons....







And here it is with the Grand Slam (or Tall Boys? you guys may know better than me) under each wing.....







river


----------



## flakhappy (Jul 22, 2009)

I keep running into these statements about the B24 having such a big bomb load, and range, and superior to the B-17, etc., etc. The statements probably are based on manufacturer's promotion, but not on fact. The B-24 had bomb bays (2) that could HOLD 8 tons, but believe somebody who flew in both 17s and 24s 65 years ago: While 17s loaded 3 tons for nearly every mission (except when carrying frags or firebombs), the 24s in Italy cut their loads to 2 1/2 tons so that they could fly to 25,000 feet. In B17s we flew most of our missions several thousand feet higher than that, and I personally flew over nine targets at over 30,000 feet. On top of that, the B-17 was WAY more stable for formation flying. The B-24 was a useful plane in the pacific where tight formations were rarely used. They could fill one bomb bay with fuel and fly all day.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 22, 2009)

Hey Flakhappy, I don't feel I have the right to go against what you said. However, the book The Wild Blue by Stephen E. Ambrose states it flew with heavier loads than that. It's mainly based on veteran's stories. Dunno ...


Kris


----------



## flakhappy (Jul 22, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Hey Flakhappy, I don't feel I have the right to go against what you said. However, the book The Wild Blue by Stephen E. Ambrose states it flew with heavier loads than that. It's mainly based on veteran's stories. Dunno ...
> 
> 
> Kris


I have read Ambrose and don't remember him quoting anybody about carrying 3 tons or more. I do remember them saying they had a hard time lifting off the runway. We could identify B24 fields in Italy by the shattered treetops off the ends of their runways. The B-24 had a Davis, high-speed wing, which when translated, means it wasn't efficient at low speeds, meaning takeoffs and climbing to targets. They wallowed a lot, unstable, in formation unless more power was used, which meant using more fuel than the mission planners wanted to. The nose of a B-24 "hunted," to quote my own pilot, and didn't want to stay on a fixed heading. The trim had to be adjusted every few minutes, and pilots joked about developing a huge left arm from all the wrestling they did with the yoke. When our crew was switched to B17s our pilots were the happiest people you ever saw.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 22, 2009)

Thanks for the excellent pictures, river. I have been trying to scale the bombs (for their external shape is identical) and I am finding it difficult to say for sure which they are yet. Certainly a lot more digging from me required as, although I expressed my doubts earlier, I admit the photo does open up the disctinct possibility that they were both Grand Slams, I just need to accurately scal them when I have a bit more time. thanks again.


----------



## river (Jul 22, 2009)

Waynos,

I wait in eager anticipation for your conclusion.

river


----------



## Civettone (Jul 26, 2009)

flakhappy said:


> I have read Ambrose and don't remember him quoting anybody about carrying 3 tons or more. I do remember them saying they had a hard time lifting off the runway. We could identify B24 fields in Italy by the shattered treetops off the ends of their runways. The B-24 had a Davis, high-speed wing, which when translated, means it wasn't efficient at low speeds, meaning takeoffs and climbing to targets. They wallowed a lot, unstable, in formation unless more power was used, which meant using more fuel than the mission planners wanted to. The nose of a B-24 "hunted," to quote my own pilot, and didn't want to stay on a fixed heading. The trim had to be adjusted every few minutes, and pilots joked about developing a huge left arm from all the wrestling they did with the yoke. When our crew was switched to B17s our pilots were the happiest people you ever saw.


Especially that story about the left arm stuck with me (it's on p 77) 

On p 23 it is stated that the B-24's bombload was 8800 lbs while that of the B-17 was 3 tons. On p. 79 ceiling is 32,000 feet "and a range of 2,850 miles - all exceeding the B-17's capabilities". On the next page: "it had two bomb bays each of which could match the B-17's single bay for capacity" and "...with improvements the payload rose to 12,800 pounds."

On p 175/176 a bombing mission is described where the maximum takeoff weight of 63,000 lbs was exceeded by 7,000 pounds.

But that's just what the book says. It's not always the most unbiased book ever. The glorification of MacGovern becomes irritating as hell after a while... 

Kris


----------



## Hop (Jul 26, 2009)

The problem with US bomb loads is that whilst they could carry more than 10,000 lbs in theory, in practice loads were much lower. On average in the ETO the US heavy bombers averaged 5,200 lbs per sortie. The MTO averaged almost exactly the same, 5,194 lbs.


----------



## flakhappy (Jul 27, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Especially that story about the left arm stuck with me (it's on p 77)
> 
> On p 23 it is stated that the B-24's bombload was 8800 lbs while that of the B-17 was 3 tons. On p. 79 ceiling is 32,000 feet "and a range of 2,850 miles - all exceeding the B-17's capabilities". On the next page: "it had two bomb bays each of which could match the B-17's single bay for capacity" and "...with improvements the payload rose to 12,800 pounds."
> 
> ...


Please remember that this author, sadly now deceased, was the one who in an earliier book called the ball turret a "plastic bubble." Some bubble! Over 1200 pounds and the only plastic was in the author's head. In the earlier book about the war in Europe he went on for many pages about the 8th AF, but presented nary a word about the 12th and 15th AFs. I suspect that a friend of McGovern went to him and suggested that a book like "The Wild Blue" would be a good way to make amends. The author's idea of writing history was to interview 50 or so veterans and take the most sparkling comments for his book. Among historians that technique may sell books, but it's not necessarily the best way to write history. Those who flew in both planes, including me, will tell you that a B-17's stamdard load was 3 tons. When the B-24 groups couldn't achieve their assigned altitudes carrying that weight, they were ordered to carry 2 1/2 tons so they could at least reach 25,000 feet. Variations from the 3 ton and 2 1/2-ton figures are caused by having to load frag clusters or incendiaries, which were more bulky. The B-24s were unstable and hard to trim out, according to my own pilots. When Gen. Doolittle refused to take any more B-24s in the 8th AF, many crews, like mine, were shifted to B-17s. That made everybody in our crew, including the pilots, happy as clams.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 28, 2009)

Yeah, I also share the criticism on that book. I suspect he uses the same methods for all of his books. He just goes for the easy stuff, all very black and white. 
I'm also sure that it's true that the B-24 wouldn't carry its maximum load all the time. Yet ... on missions were high altitude was not necessary, it could carry more bombs, or carry a similar bomb load a greater distance. That too counts for something I suppose.

Thanks for the input Flakhappy 

Kris


----------



## flakhappy (Aug 2, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Yeah, I also share the criticism on that book. I suspect he uses the same methods for all of his books. He just goes for the easy stuff, all very black and white.
> I'm also sure that it's true that the B-24 wouldn't carry its maximum load all the time. Yet ... on missions were high altitude was not necessary, it could carry more bombs, or carry a similar bomb load a greater distance. That too counts for something I suppose.
> 
> Thanks for the input Flakhappy
> ...



Yurwelcome.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 2, 2009)

Say what you may about him, but at least he wrote something interesting about B24's and the 15th AF.


----------



## STARMAN 352ND (Aug 2, 2009)

Great Info about the bombers on here.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

STARMAN 352ND said:


> Great Info about the bombers on here.


You're violating our signature rules. Please be advised that I'm modifying your profile.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 2, 2009)

river said:


> Waynos,
> 
> I wait in eager anticipation for your conclusion.
> 
> river



Sorry for the delay, been away.

By comparing the B-29 and Lancaster and the lancaster loaded with both types of bomb and all their relative sizes I am confident in saying that the picture shows the Tallboy, which was a 12,000lb bomb. Even so, carrying a pair like that is mightily impressive.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 10, 2009)

I like the B-17 it was just iconic throughout the war. It may not of been the best in the sense of bomb load, or range but it did get the job done.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 10, 2009)

Just for you, and any other B-17 fans, you may like this rarity I found out recently. Note the text


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 11, 2009)

Dunno why really , but I do think once it was "fixed" it was a pretty good bomber, quick too


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 11, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> I like the B-17 it was just iconic throughout the war. It may not of been the best in the sense of bomb load, or range but it did get the job done.


Echo this post^^


----------



## flakhappy (Aug 14, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> Echo this post^^



Right. The plane that brought me back to base 52 times.


----------



## r puckett (Dec 31, 2009)

my money is on the b-24.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2009)

Why the B-24? Not saying you are wrong, but tell us why you think so? It might spark up a discussion...


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 31, 2009)

Just to shake things up, I'm going for the Mosquito because it presaged every ground attack/bomber aircraft of the post-war period (B-52 excepted) - make it fast, make it carry a decent bomb-load, and don't weigh it down with additional weight and crew required to operate defensive turret-based weapons. On top of that, it's loss rate was very low compared to "traditional' bomber types (and when you lost one aircraft, you only lost 2 personnel not 8 or 10). 

Now to duck back down behind the parapet in preparation for the inevitable swarm of projectiles that will be hurled in my direction...!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2009)

No projectiles coming from me. I myself do not think the Mossie is the best bomber, but I think that there is a valid arguement for it.


----------



## phatzo (Jan 4, 2010)

No need to duck, The Mossie was an awsome aircraft capable of defending itself in a dogfight (not the glass nose) if need be, a safe aircraft for its crew. Some may dispute the 4 cannon Mossies were attack aircraft and the glass nose was the only true bomber.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 23, 2010)

It depends if you mean "greatest" or "best". "Greatest" takes into account fame, longevity, numbers deployed, success, and intangibles, which are not the same as "best', which is a measure only of simple technical performance Also, how do you fairly compare heavy bombers with small attackers when talking about the best? You can't, which is why I'm dividing my vote into categories:

Heavy Bomber. The "best" is clearly the B-29, based on speed, altitude performance, payload, and modernity. The "greatest" is a tossup between the Lancaster and the B-17.

Medium bomber. "Best" and "greatest" are the same : B-25. 

Light bomber. Again, "best "and "greatest" are the same, but it's close. The Mosquito narrowly wins over the Ju88. Also rans for best include the A-20, A-26, the Pe-2 series, and the Me-410 once the kinks were ironed out. I ignore late war flashes in the pan like the jet Ar234.

Land based ground attacker. Can it be anything other than the Il-2 Sturmovik? Nope, Commies have both the best and greatest in this category.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2010)

How come B-25 is medium bomber, while Mossie Ju-88 are light bombers??


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> How come B-25 is medium bomber, while Mossie Ju-88 are light bombers??



JU-88 is a medium bomber.

The Mosquito weighs loaded less than the the B-25 or JU-88 did empty equipped.


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> How come B-25 is medium bomber, while Mossie Ju-88 are light bombers??



RAF records show the Mossie as a light bomber and the B25/B26 as mediums.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2010)

Me thinks that we should agree about the main issue of a bomber belonging in one or other class: is it the empty/equipped weight, bomb load over distance, or official nomenclature. 

Eg. Germans called 47-ton Panther tank medium, while Americans called 42-ton M-26 heavy, then Italians called 26-ton P-26/40 heavy tank - point being nomenclature is not consistent for all beligernents of the same war.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 24, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> JU-88 is a medium bomber.
> 
> The Mosquito weighs loaded less than the the B-25 or JU-88 did empty equipped.



I classed the Ju88 as a light bomber because it was fairly small, had a fairly small bombload, and often used as a dive bomber and close support roles. Frankly, I put it in the light bomber class in part so I could justify mentioning it as a good also ran. As a "medium bomber" it would not hold a candle to the B-25, and in terms of defensive armament, I would consider it below the Martin B-26.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Me thinks that we should agree about the main issue of a bomber belonging in one or other class: is it the empty/equipped weight, bomb load over distance, or official nomenclature.
> 
> Eg. Germans called 47-ton Panther tank medium, while Americans called 42-ton M-26 heavy, then Italians called 26-ton P-26/40 heavy tank - point being nomenclature is not consistent for all beligernents of the same war.



Good luck getting people to agree, since it is (and maybe should be) somewhat subjective. Personally, I would have trouble with any single criterion, since there are always exceptions. It is a combination of traits, among which is, in my mind, overall size (wingspan/length), number of engines, and crew size/distribution, as well as the factors you suggest. The late war experimental Martin Mixmaster (effectively a single engine planform with only two crew) was more capable as a "heavy bomber" in most performance measures than the classic B-17, but I wouldn't call it a heavy bomber when it was sharing the skies with B-29s and B-32s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2010)

Care to share why B-25 was so vastly better as a bomber then Ju-88 (though I agree it was slightly better).

Re. B-26 vs. Ju-88, the former was bombing it's 1st targets cca 3 years (=half war away) after Ju-88 did, and the only advantage are the better (yet not sufficient) defensive guns. By that time Germans had Do-217 that was better than B-26.

German twin-engined bombers really lacked powerful engines US counterparts had in the same time-frame, for the most part of war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Me thinks that we should agree about the main issue of a bomber belonging in one or other class: is it the empty/equipped weight, bomb load over distance, or official nomenclature.


In the day it was the difference between size and bomb load


tomo pauk said:


> Eg. Germans called 47-ton Panther tank medium, while Americans called 42-ton M-26 heavy, then Italians called 26-ton P-26/40 heavy tank - point being nomenclature is not consistent for all beligernents of the same war.


Using tanks to compare bomber classification is apples and oranges. Different equipment and even those who developed each machine have different education backgrounds...



zoomar said:


> Good luck getting people to agree, since it is (and maybe should be) somewhat subjective. Personally, I would have trouble with any single criterion, since there are always exceptions. It is a combination of traits, among which is, in my mind, overall size (wingspan/length), number of engines, and crew size/distribution, as well as the factors you suggest. The late war experimental Martin Mixmaster (effectively a single engine planform with only two crew) was more capable as a "heavy bomber" in most performance measures than the classic B-17, but I wouldn't call it a heavy bomber when it was sharing the skies with B-29s and B-32s.


I rate the B-29 the best and greatest for several reasons. Not only was it a technical leap as far as heavy bombers, but besides its "nuclear bomber" legacy, it set the benchmark for bomber AND commercial aircraft for the next 30 years. Flying in TWO wars, the Soviets copied it and the Chinese still fly it.

BTW - Martin didn't build the Mixmaster, Douglas did...


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2010)

'My' classification for WW2:
1 engine - light bomber
2/3 engines - medium bomber (called 'heavy' by Japanese  )
4 and more - heavy bomber

...and I stick to that


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> 'My' classification for WW2:
> 1 engine - light bomber
> 2/3 engines - medium bomber (called 'heavy' by Japanese  )
> 4 and more - heavy bomber
> ...



That sounds much better!


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In the day it was the difference between size and bomb load



Then 'my' classification just might hold 



> Using tanks to compare bomber classification is apples and oranges. Different equipment and even those who developed each machine have different education backgrounds...



I've stated tanks to show that nomenclature old 70 years might not be a gospel  The Japs called their 2-engines bombers as heavy, so no apples oranges there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> I've stated tanks to show that nomenclature old 70 years might not be a gospel  The Japs called their 2-engines bombers as heavy, so no apples oranges there.


In the 1920s and 30s twin engine aircraft were the "heavies" of the day as the technology was not fully there for the building of 4 engine heavy bombers. The Boeing Model 299 broke through the cast, but there were many who initially felt that a four engine aircraft were too complicated and not practical.

Look at the development of bomber aircraft through the early 1930s and you can see why twin engine bombers were initially classified as "heavy." Examine their size, speeds and bomb load and it's pretty clear that until we stated seeing B-17s, Lancasters, Sterlings and B-24s being built why there aircraft were considered heavy bombers.

BTW, when the B-36 and later aircraft were introduced in the USAF, the B-29 was re-classified as a "medium" bomber. When the B-29 was first introduced it was classified as a "Very Heavy Bomber."


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2010)

Yep, that's why I've put 'my' nomenclature in WW2 time frame


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Yep, that's why I've put 'my' nomenclature in WW2 time frame



For the British you a the twin Blenheim, a light bomber.
The Hampden, a medium bomber.
The Wellington, a meduim/heavy.
And the Whitley, a heavy bomber.

All twins, All, at least in the original versions, with engines under 1000hp but with bomb loads ranging from 1000lbs to 7000lbs per plane. Wing area varied from 469 sq ft to 1137 sq ft.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> 'My' classification for WW2:
> 1 engine - light bomber
> 2/3 engines - medium bomber (called 'heavy' by Japanese  )
> 4 and more - heavy bomber
> ...



That's as good as any as far as I'm concerned...except for the Mossie, which just isn't a medium bomber.. It also comes somewhat apart when considering planes like the Fw200 ( a "bomber" with 4-engines, but not really a heavy bomber in the classic sense). But it probably reflects the general layman's reality as well as anything. Size matters.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 24, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW - Martin didn't build the Mixmaster, Douglas did...



Oops, stupid me!


----------



## zoomar (Mar 24, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Care to share why B-25 was so vastly better as a bomber then Ju-88 (though I agree it was slightly better).
> 
> Re. B-26 vs. Ju-88, the former was bombing it's 1st targets cca 3 years (=half war away) after Ju-88 did, and the only advantage are the better (yet not sufficient) defensive guns. By that time Germans had Do-217 that was better than B-26.
> 
> German twin-engined bombers really lacked powerful engines US counterparts had in the same time-frame, for the most part of war.



A consistent failing of all operational German medium bombers in comparison with USAAF types was their comparatively weak defensive armament and lack of manned tail positions. Even the more modern types such as the Do-217 suffered in this regard. I also question the logic of putting virtually all the crew in the small glazed cockpit area. I would agree, however, that the B-25 was not "vastly" better than the Ju-88. Exaggeration for effect, that was.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 25, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> For the British you a the twin Blenheim, a light bomber.
> The Hampden, a medium bomber.
> The Wellington, a meduim/heavy.
> And the Whitley, a heavy bomber.
> ...



Blenheim was a light, high-speed transport converted for military use, so it's not really a competitor vs. 'proper' medium bombers, both in bomb load combat range.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 25, 2010)

so too was the He111, the Do 17 and the FW 200 on that criterion


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 25, 2010)

German pre-WW2 propanganda claimed He-111 was passenger plane when it lew 1at time, and Do-17 was 'fast mail plane'. They were not. 
Fw-200 was passenger plane, and it's militarized version was not as able as 'proper' contemporary heavy bomber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Blenheim was a light, high-speed transport converted for military use, so it's not really a competitor vs. 'proper' medium bombers, both in bomb load combat range.



Nope. The Bristol was a bomber. Part of the "conversion" involved moving the wing up in the fuselage to make room for a bomb bay under the wing. 
Evolved from might be a better term.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 25, 2010)

zoomar said:


> A consistent failing of all operational German medium bombers in comparison with USAAF types was their comparatively weak defensive armament and lack of manned tail positions. Even the more modern types such as the Do-217 suffered in this regard. I also question the logic of putting virtually all the crew in the small glazed cockpit area. I would agree, however, that the B-25 was not "vastly" better than the Ju-88. Exaggeration for effect, that was.


As an airframe I'd much rather have the JU88 then the B25 as it was a by far more capable warbird


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> German pre-WW2 propanganda claimed He-111 was passenger plane when it lew 1at time, and Do-17 was 'fast mail plane'. They were not.
> Fw-200 was passenger plane, and it's militarized version was not as able as 'proper' contemporary heavy bomber.



In the early-mid thirties the difference between Civilian and military aircraft wasn't quite so marked as just a few years later and it was only considered prudent to develop a plane with as much potential as possible to perform different roles so as to get the widest sales possible. 

The Do 17 required quite a bit of revision to suit it for a military role.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 25, 2010)

He-111 had one significant advantage over Blenheim Do-17 - it was much larger, more akin to Hampden co. Therefore it was easier to mount stronger engines, more bombs fuel, to make it a better war machine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> He-111 had one significant advantage over Blenheim Do-17 - it was much larger, more akin to Hampden co. Therefore it was easier to mount stronger engines, more bombs fuel, to make it a better war machine.



I wonder if that had anything to with it being designed as a 10 passenger transport instead of a 6 passenger transport?

By the way the JU-86 was designed to the same specification as the HE 111.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 25, 2010)

In any event, its difficult for me to reconcile that whilst the German designs were military designs from the start....the blenheim somehow isnt......doesnt make a lot of sense for me


----------



## zoomar (Mar 26, 2010)

It is inaccurate to say the He111, Do17, and Ju86 were military designs from the start. The He111 and Ju-86 were designed to fulfill both roles and initially presented to the public solely as civil types to get around Versailles restrictions on German military aviation. With the He111, civil requirements were clearly secondary to the plane's military role and few civil versions were built; civil versions of the Ju86 were sold to a number of European airlines as well as South Africa and several South American airlines. The Do-17 was indeed designed solely to meet a Lufthansa high speed mail passenger service requirement and was only later modified to the bomber role, almost by accident. Of all German twin-engined bombers, only the Ju-88 was designed as a bomber from the start - which explains its clear performance superiority to all other German bombers of the early war period.

As others have stated, it was not uncommon for bombers in the mid-late 1930's to be modified from commercial types, and vise versa. Many planes were also designed with the clear expectation they could fulfill both roles. In this regard, Germany's approach was not especially sinister. What made it thus was the fact that the Nazis used it as a cover for the clandestine development of the Luftwaffe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 27, 2010)

On a related note, does anybody have information about fly-away costs of RAF bombers? Mossie, Lanc Halifax are of interest to me, but toss any bomber's price you have.


----------



## vinnye (Mar 27, 2010)

The Blenheim had several design features which hampered its use as a bomber - it had a light frame and so could not take larger engines or payload - also no self sealing gas tanks. Not a good idea when you will be shot at. Should not have been used for anything other than transport or reccon missions in my opinion.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 27, 2010)

+1


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 27, 2010)

vinnye said:


> The Blenheim had several design features which hampered its use as a bomber - it had a light frame and so could not take larger engines or payload - also no self sealing gas tanks. Not a good idea when you will be shot at. Should not have been used for anything other than transport or reccon missions in my opinion.



After moving the wing up to provide for a bomb bay the distance from the wing to the top of the fuselage is too small for a cabin so transport is out. 

It was a victim of it's time. Designed well before the Hercules engine (or the Torus) the only way to get high speed was with a small, light aircraft. When the Civilian parent first flew, 7 months before the first Hurricane, even the Merlin was not available and the Mercury engine was only good for 650HP. There is only so much stretch that can be built into airframe before it becomes too heavy to be useful in it's early models. 
Nobody else had self-sealing gas tanks in their bombers for the first few years of the Blenheim's production either.


----------



## Bullo Loris (Mar 29, 2010)

For me the best bomber (light bomber) was Blenheim, for the big bomber the best was Lancaster


----------



## zoomar (Mar 30, 2010)

Bullo Loris said:


> For me the best bomber (light bomber) was Blenheim, for the big bomber the best was Lancaster



Really? You consider the Blenheim better than the Mosquito, or A-20, or the Ju-88 to name just 3 bombers I think most people would consider much better? How do you define "light bomber"?


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 30, 2010)

Blenheim as best?

You trying to provide some humor?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 30, 2010)

Bullo Loris said:


> For me the best bomber (light bomber) was Blenheim, for the big bomber the best was Lancaster



Have you ever heard of the B-29? 

TO


----------



## parsifal (Mar 31, 2010)

Maybe in 1934...by 1941 it was a death trap, more vulnerable than even a He111


----------



## Waynos (Mar 31, 2010)

Well.....it was the best bomber that Bristol were building before war broke out. Oops no, it wasn't even that, that was the Beaufort.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 31, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Well.....it was the best bomber that Bristol were building before war broke out. Oops no, it wasn't even that, that was the Beaufort.



afaik production of beaufort started after the war broke out


----------



## Waynos (Mar 31, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> afaik production of beaufort started after the war broke out



Well it was a humourous aside, rather than a historical record, but seeing as you brought it up the production contract was signed on 1 July 1939 and the first batch of aircraft were released to the RAF in October of that year.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 31, 2010)

Waynos said:


> the first batch of aircraft were released to the RAF in October of that year.



sorry i don't understand this is that were delivered in october '39?


----------



## Waynos (Mar 31, 2010)

Yes, the first production Beauforts were handed over then.


----------



## looney (Jun 23, 2010)

I'd have to go with the B-29, there is not much i like about it, but it is the newest bomber and thus the most advanced a ckear advantage.

I don't rate the Lanc very high cause most of it's missions where carpet bombing of cities which are very large easy targets. 
Any strategic bomber had lousy accuracy (hit was within 250 m I believe), plus the bombs came out in a row sow only 1 or 2 bombs actually hit it's mark.

P.s. can't we make a table where we put in all contenders and compare several points?
like: Range, Payload, crew (mossi needed 2, Blenheim 3 bout same payload), able to selfdefence, speed, accuracy, adaptability etc etc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2010)

looney said:


> I don't rate the Lanc very high cause most of it's missions where carpet bombing of cities which are very large easy targets.



Tell that to the Lanc crews that had to fly out over Germany at night to bomb those "easy" targets...


----------



## looney (Jun 24, 2010)

I meant that hitting a city is easier than hitting a moving tank. I understand that getting to the target is very much a challenge


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 24, 2010)

alot of dead cows would disagree with that.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 24, 2010)

looney said:


> I'd have to go with the B-29, there is not much i like about it, but it is the newest bomber and thus the most advanced a ckear advantage......



What did you not like about it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2010)

looney said:


> I meant that hitting a city is easier than hitting a moving tank. I understand that getting to the target is very much a challenge



Hitting a moving tank is not the job of a heavy bomber. So why would the Lanc be penalized for that? Using that logic, the B-29, B-27, B-24 are all terrible bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2010)

on that note even most twin engine bombers weren't meant to hit moving tanks with bombs. 

B-25s with 500lb bombs against tanks?

I don't think the British even really tried it. Blenheims against tanks?

Bombing a convoy or moving column maybe but nobody was targeting individual vehicles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> What did you not like about it?



Probably the fact that it bombed cities and not moving targets like tanks...


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 24, 2010)

A B-17 flipped over a Tiger I during Cobra. The plane does it all!


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2010)

IIRC both RAF and USAAF used carpet bombing against moving tanks. The idea originated from insurance mathematics and was based simply on probability, if one hit an area of x sqft of which y sqft was covered by moving tanks with z bombs, there is certain probability that some bombs will hit tanks or hit so close of tanks that they were made inoperatable.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2010)

And Lanc sunk at least Tirpitz and Lützow and dropped a number of bridges, smashed some railway tunnels etc, with highly trained crews it could knock out small targets,also tanks, not necessary moving ones, for ex a a couple Tigers during the opening bombardment of Oper Goodwood in Normandy


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2010)

On the knocking out tank subject, were the bombers aiming at the tanks in question or were the bombers bombing an area the tanks happened to be in and the tanks were unlucky

The ability of low level fighter bombers to hit tanks with bombs was pretty pathetic as it was. The idea of doing it from 6,000 to 20,000ft seems like hitting the lottery.
This isn't like hitting a factory, it is like hitting one particular machine tool in the factory. Or one particular gun mount on a ship.


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2010)

The target was a formation of tanks in a certain area, of which tanks covered a certain, much smaller area. If a formation of light/medium bombers saturated the area with say 350 bombs, there was a certain probability that they succeeded to knock out a certain number of tanks. Were they moving or not didn't make any big difference. They were not aiming at a certain tank but the formation, only the lead bomber aimed others dropped when he dropped. Same system as the IJNAF medium bombers used when they attacked ships as level-bombers-

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2010)

Juha said:


> The target was a formation of tanks in a certain area, of which tanks covered a certain, much smaller area. If a formation of light/medium bombers saturated the area with say 350 bombs, there was a certain probability that they succeeded to knock out a certain number of tanks. Were they moving or not didn't make any big difference. They were not aiming at a certain tank but the formation, only the lead bomber aimed others dropped when he dropped. Same system as the IJNAF medium bombers used when they attacked ships as level-bombers-
> 
> Juha



Very true and the only dispute is the relative sizes involved.
If you put 350 bombs into an area about .7 miles by .7 miles you would have just over one bomb per acre. With an acre being a bit smaller than a football field just how close to the bomb explosion does the tank have to be to be knocked out?
You could put 320 AFV into that area (1 per acre) and how many kills would you get? Granted a number of crews are going to need new underwear and have hearing problems  but how many actual knockouts are you going to get?
Same pattern against a large ship has a much better chance, large ship cover several acres all by itself.

This diversion started when a member said a certain bomber wasn't much good because it had trouble hitting large cities let alone moving tanks. Nobodies large or medium bombers tried to take out tanks one on one. 

It was, as you suggest, much more of a shotgun blast aimed at a flock birds rather than one bird. With luck and statistics (and a lot of shotgun ammo) you will bring down some birds. But it doesn't have much to do with skill or ability or the worth of one shotgun (airplane) over another.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2010)

The Lancaster was not an innaccurate bomber. With all of the navaids and specialist training added to its repoitoirem, it proved itself one of the best heavy bombers at hitting pinpoint targets, day or night. The only other aircraft with a demonstrated capability for precision attacks at medium to high altitudes, in day or night, without regard to cloud cover was the Mosquito.

Whilst the flying qualities of these aircraft may have had some marginal effect on their bombing accuracy, it was principally due to the crew training and after market equipment additions and navaids that made them accurate in all weather conditions. Other aircraft could have done that as well, but as a rough rule, they didnt. Tough luck for them....they dont get the guernsey for most accurate bomber.


----------



## looney (Jun 25, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> What did you not like about it?


Probably cause it served in PTO only and is less known, the B-17 is much more sexy. I'm from Europa and that is probablythe reason I'm biased to the ETO and Atlantic. 

If I have to choose a favorite bomber I'd have to go with the B-17, there where a few lanc squadrons wich did remarkable things with it, but overall it was a non combatant killer. Understandably why they got such missions but I don't like it. 
The B-29 has similar problems and dropped a nuke, killing even more non combatants. 

P.s. I like the hypocrisy of the US disallowing a nuke to any nation (except Israel, Pakistan and other frienly states who allready have em), by stating they will use it. When all things considered the US is the only country who used them in War.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hitting a moving tank is not the job of a heavy bomber. So why would the Lanc be penalized for that? Using that logic, the B-29, B-27, B-24 are all terrible bombers.



I know but couldn't think of a propper small target for a heavy. I meant to say that any heavy is a terrible weapon (any meaning you like). Due to the carpet bombing with several planes, your bombs will hit a large area. You will need a lot more bombs to do the job. 
That is why the F117 only caries 2 bombs they hit their mark!

To bad no1 reacts to my idea of trying to get the emotion out of the discussion. The table and assigning points for each bomber.


----------



## Juha (Jun 25, 2010)

Hello Shortround6
yes, the system was an answer to a difficult problem, how to use bombers against small, hard targets when there was not more suitable planes to handle that urgent problem. Again, IIRC RAF Blenheim crews first tried to make individual attacks on individual tanks but results were very poor even if best crews succeeded, or at least thought that they have succeeded, disable a tank now and then. Then some insurance mathematicians analysed the results and concluded that carpet bombing should produce better results, even if predicted results were not anything spectaculiar. And yes, it was a bit like individual shots vs one shotgun shot against a flock of birds. Or a bit like how we were trained to use our assault rifles against fighter bombers,probably copied from Vietnamise tactics. Even mine-laying patterns were based on probability analyze.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2010)

looney said:


> I know but couldn't think of a propper small target for a heavy. I meant to say that any heavy is a terrible weapon (any meaning you like). Due to the carpet bombing with several planes, your bombs will hit a large area. You will need a lot more bombs to do the job.
> That is why the F117 only caries 2 bombs they hit their mark!



Rather different technology don't you think?


looney said:


> To bad no1 reacts to my idea of trying to get the emotion out of the discussion. The table and assigning points for each bomber.



OK, try to explain how the assigning points would work please?

How do you assign points for crew? 
1 point for each man? or, since I assume we are working for a point total in which the most points means the best bomber, reverse it so that the bomber with the biggest crew gets the least points and the bomber with the smallest crew gets the most? Now do we use a sliding scale for crew size or do we stick with one man= 1point? from a humanitarian view each man should count the same but in real life not every air crewman could be trained to be a pilot, or even a navigator/bombardier, so you can't take one B-17 crew and make 4- 5 Mosquito crews out of it. It also leaves out the cost/time it took to train a pilot vs training an air gunner. 

How do you assign points for defensive weapons? 
How many points for a .30/8mm MG gun? How many for a 12.7mm MG?
What is the difference between a hand-held gun (free swinging) and a gun in a power turret? 
What is the difference in field of fire? 
THE 2 .50s in the top turret of a B-17 were more than twice as effective as the .50 cal poking out through the roof of the radio compartment. 
What about planes that had more than one gun position per gunner? 
Early JU-88s doubled their firepower, going from 3 guns to 6, but 4 of the guns were 'crewed' by one man so only one of the four could fire at any one time. It did considerable expand the field of fire though.

How do you assign points for range?
1 point per 100 miles? 
Carrying what bomb load?
a 2000 mile range carrying 8,000lbs is more useful than a 2000 mile range carrying 4,000lbs but is it worth exactly double?

And how does it relate back to crew points?
Is 200 miles of range with bomb load XXXX worth 1 crewman point or two crewman points?

I think there would be more than enough emotion in assigning the points


----------



## Glider (Jun 25, 2010)

looney said:


> Probably cause it served in PTO only and is less known, the B-17 is much more sexy. I'm from Europa and that is probablythe reason I'm biased to the ETO and Atlantic.



Before I start I should add that I am also from Europe and the best bomber without question was the B29. As for Sexy, whatever turns you on.



> If I have to choose a favorite bomber I'd have to go with the B-17, there where a few lanc squadrons wich did remarkable things with it, but overall it was a non combatant killer. Understandably why they got such missions but I don't like it.
> The B-29 has similar problems and dropped a nuke, killing even more non combatants.



Ouch. The crews did the job that they were assigned to do, they didn't choose the missions. To imply that the Lanc with the B29 was mainly non combatant killer and the B17 wasn't, is crap. Its worth reminding you that the most infamous Dresden raid was a combined raid with the Lancs bombing at night and the B17's by day.


----------



## looney (Jun 25, 2010)

My point about the 117 was that it only needs to have 2 bombs to complete it's mission. The Ju-87 delivered 80% of the time it's payload on target. Thus it did not need a lot of bombs to destroy it (granted it suffered a lot in other fields). A heavie needs more bobs and aircraft to do the same, but it's much more defendable and will get the job done more easy!

Basic comparison imho between bombers. 4 bombers 4 points to spend. 

Example: Mossie vs Blenheim. (2 points to spend (1 and 0)) 
Crew: mossie vs blenheim (same amount of bombs (1000lbs normally), mossie 2 crew Blenheim 3. Point for mossie. 
Speed: Mossie was much faster thus a clear win noted to the mossie.
Defence is a hard one: Mossie no rear defence gun (it did not need one due to speed) but the 1 peashooter for the Blenheim still gives it a win. 

So in above little example Mossie vs Blenheim: 2-1 win for the mossie.

I only had 2 aircraft and 3 points to devide but we can increase the number of aircraft and points to infinity.

This way we at least can make a better judgment than simply saying: Plane X is best.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Shortround6
> yes, the system was an answer to a difficult problem, how to use bombers against small, hard targets when there was not more suitable planes to handle that urgent problem. Again, IIRC RAF Blenheim crews first tried to make individual attacks on individual tanks but results were very poor even if best crews succeeded, or at least thought that they have succeeded, disable a tank now and then. Then some insurance mathematicians analysed the results and concluded that carpet bombing should produce better results, even if predicted results were not anything spectaculiar. And yes, it was a bit like individual shots vs one shotgun shot against a flock of birds. Or a bit like how we were trained to use our assault rifles against fighter bombers,probably copied from Vietnamise tactics. Even mine-laying patterns were based on probability analyze.
> 
> Juha



Hello Juha.

I understand what you are saying and I understand how it works.
I may be wrong but I think the carpet bombing in Normandy was against German positions in general and not against tanks specifically. Tanks were certainly in the area. I am sure they were hoping to knock out a fair number ( just as enough artillery can break up a tank attack, while single artillery pieces or even single battery's are almost useless against tanks at long range). taking out accompanying infantry, soft vehicles (fuel trucks?), supporting artillery and anti-tank guns were just as much targets as the tanks.

I think the whole idea of firing rifles against fighter bombers was a much to help the morale of the infantry (give them the idea/hope of fighting back vs hiding in a ditch and taking it) as it was with actually damaging/bringing down an attacker. Given one estimate of the Americans needing 50,000 rounds of .50 cal ammo to bring down one German aircraft in the last year of the war (on average) the statistical chances of assault rifle fire bring down planes must be rather small


----------



## Glider (Jun 25, 2010)

looney said:


> My point about the 117 was that it only needs to have 2 bombs to complete it's mission. The Ju-87 delivered 80% of the time it's payload on target. Thus it did not need a lot of bombs to destroy it (granted it suffered a lot in other fields). A heavie needs more bobs and aircraft to do the same, but it's much more defendable and will get the job done more easy!
> 
> Basic comparison imho between bombers. 4 bombers 4 points to spend. Crew: mossie vs blenheim (same amount of bombs (1000lbs normally),


Mossie normal bomb load of 1,000lb?



> mossie 2 crew Blenheim 3. Point for mossie. Speed same.


Speed the same?



> Defence is a hard one: Mossie no rear defence gun (it did not need one due to speed) but the 1 peashooter for the Blenheim still gives it a win.


Blenheim a win?

Someone needs to check their facts


----------



## looney (Jun 25, 2010)

Glider said:


> Before I start I should add that I am also from Europe and the best bomber without question was the B29. As for Sexy, whatever turns you on.
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch. The crews did the job that they were assigned to do, they didn't choose the missions. To imply that the Lanc with the B29 was mainly non combatant killer and the B17 wasn't, is crap. Its worth reminding you that the most infamous Dresden raid was a combined raid with the Lancs bombing at night and the B17's by day.



I said in a earlier post: I also think the B-29 was the best bomber. It's just not my favorite.

If I remember correctly the US tried to target factories etc etc (ballbearings at Schweinfurt etc etc). While the brits simply tried to destroy the enemy morale, thus destroying cities at night (exceptions noted like dambusting raid). And night bombardements can't hope to achieve the same accuracy as daylight bombing. 

I understand why they made that decision, and I know the crew did exceptional feats of bravery. There is however enough controversy to at least make the case that it had the impression of being warcrimes (hindsight I know).

P.s. I know the Lanc is a great bomber, but I find it hard to see it not as a city leveler. Same with the B-29. The B-17 and B24 did level cities also but they at least try to hit a factory. 

Addendum on last post by glider (before this one)
I'm at work and I noted the payloads for both aircraft from memory. I thought standard bombload for both was 2x 250kg bombs (roughly 1000lbs).

I clearified the post on the speed in my excample. 
Blenheim could defend itself by means of it's peashooter on the back, the mossie couldn't. So yes the Blenheim was better in that reflect. If we get a bigger table the advantages of the Mossie will soon show itself, just as my small excample showed on 3 points.


----------



## Juha (Jun 25, 2010)

Hello Shortround
IIRC the carpet bombing against tanks was initiated during North Africa Campaign, there need to do something to panzers was acute and the open terrain made the finding them, especially the moving ones, much easier for bombers.

On the assault rifle stuff, instructions were, never try to bring down fighter-bomber attacking on your squad, the difference of fire-power was much too great, idea was to try to disrupt attacks on neighbouring troops and maybe with luck hit some planes. Idea came from analysis on Korean and Vietnam wars were infantry fire bought down fairly big number of planes, saying nothing on helicopters. It was group firing on the command of squad/platoon leader. Of course the chances to bring down an individual plane wasn’t high, the idea was to produce attrition on long run and hopefully force the attacking planes higher. Typical poor man’s tactics, at that time we didn’t have man-portable AA missiles, our army got first of those a couple years after my service was over.


----------



## Juha (Jun 25, 2010)

Hello Looney
Lanc vs B-17 the difference was partly based on tactics. Lacs of 617 Sqn many times carried only one, but big, bomb and their success rate was fairly good against ships, bridges and tunnels. The sqn had highly trained crews, but so were the crews of succesfull divebomber sqns. Dive bombing was inheritedly more accurate than level bombing but with good crews with sophisticated bomb sight could bomb fairly accurately.

And against what sized of target Stukas got 80% accuracy? Against defended small target, for ex a bridge, accuracy wasn't nearly that good during WWII.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Jun 25, 2010)

looney said:


> I said in a earlier post: I also think the B-29 was the best bomber. It's just not my favorite.
> 
> If I remember correctly the US tried to target factories etc etc (ballbearings at Schweinfurt etc etc). While the brits simply tried to destroy the enemy morale, thus destroying cities at night (exceptions noted like dambusting raid). And night bombardements can't hope to achieve the same accuracy as daylight bombing.


I wouldn't be quite so fast on that statement. Peenemünde is but one example. A main force raid that did huge damage to a specific fairly small target. The many raids on flying bomb sites including one on this day in 1944. 28th June raids on the rail yards at Blainville and Metz. the Raid on the 30 June at Villers Bocage stopping a major German attack. The raids on the towns got the news and publicity but its a major mistake to think that they were the only raids that happened.
18/19th August is a good example 
288 bombers hit Bremen. The German official report 10 pages long didn't list the damaged industrial buildings, simply stating that to do so would be impossible as the list would be endless. It did say that the port was devastated, 61 vessels being seriously damaged and 18 sunk.
234 bombers hit a synthetic oil refinary at Sterkade and the reports were that the plant was seriously damaged.
144 bombers hit a railway station and sidings at Connantre in France, again the reports stated that much damage had been done
108 bombers hit oil storage tanks at Ertvelde Rieme and the reports stated that severe damage was done. 

Clearly there were days when the targets were not as well hit as this but that applies to any airforce. The point is to emphasise that a lot more was done against military targets than you seem to realise, as these targets were all hit on one night.



> P.s. I know the Lanc is a great bomber, but I find it hard to see it not as a city leveler. Same with the B-29. The B-17 and B24 did level cities also but they at least try to hit a factory.


Normally, not every time I do grant you but normally the industrial areas of the cities were targeted. 


> Addendum on last post by glider (before this one)
> I'm at work and I noted the payloads for both aircraft from memory. I thought standard bombload for both was 2x 250kg bombs (roughly 1000lbs).


Mosquito normally carried 4 x 500lb bombs internally with another 2 x 500lb on wing racks. Those with the bulged bomb bay carried 1 x 4,000lb bomb internally or 6 x 500lb bombs intrnally and 2 x 500lb bombs on wing racks.
_Note If you wanted to do lasting damage to a heavy enginering plant then you needed the lrger boms, bombs the B17 couldn't carry. _


> I clearified the post on the speed in my excample.
> Blenheim could defend itself by means of it's peashooter on the back, the mossie couldn't. So yes the Blenheim was better in that reflect. If we get a bigger table the advantages of the Mossie will soon show itself, just as my small excample showed on 3 points .



If you prefer the 2 x LMG in the turret (not 1) over the extra 130mph speed and ability to run from nearly all the German front line fighters you can keep the LMGs, and I will take the speed.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2010)

Mosquito also had a higher effective ceiling and was far more manouverable than the blenheim. The strength of its airframe was legendary, despite its wooden construction. The laminar construction technique gave it an exceptionally good damage resistance. 

And if you are really wanting to take defensive weaponary with you, because you dont believe in superior speed, armour protection (and yes mossies did carry armour, whereas all but a few unsuccessful Blenheim subtypes did not) hull strength altitude, and horizontal manouverability then you could take along a far heavier forward firing armament just for a laugh, as the Fighter bomber variants carrying the 1500-2000 lb warloads did all the time. 

Mosquitoes were a much feared opponent over the continent.....whereas the blenheims were not ever described as dangerous or deadly that I can recall


----------



## looney (Jun 25, 2010)

@Glider and Parsifal: You miss my point.

Of course I rather fly the Mossie. And I know it didn't really needed the rear gun. Fact remains that Blenheim could defend it's rear, the Mossie couldn't. So the point goes to the Mossie. That is probably the only point it would get against a Mossie. And if we would compare all points the Mossie is way better only in that 1 point not.

In my table you want to look only at the point you need to examine. You got plane X and plane Y, only difference between X and Y is 1 has 1 gun facing rearward for self defence the other not. SO if you're in it, in which you rather be getting attacked by an enemy fighter. Forget all other stuff you know about the plane.

I want to something similar to this: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm on that page the different guns are compared. As objectively as possible.
As a reply to all the technical stuff:
I stand corrected, however they didn't matter much for my example. I only compared 3 points. And the number of LMG in the Blenheim depends on which mark we talking about.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2010)

looney said:


> My point about the 117 was that it only needs to have 2 bombs to complete it's mission. The Ju-87 delivered 80% of the time it's payload on target. Thus it did not need a lot of bombs to destroy it (granted it suffered a lot in other fields). A heavie needs more bobs and aircraft to do the same, but it's much more defendable and will get the job done more easy!




You are comparing apples and oranges. These aircraft all were built for different roles and missions. 

Read up on:

*Tactical Bombing* and *Strategic Bombing*


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2010)

"_Of course I rather fly the Mossie. And I know it didn't really needed the rear gun. Fact remains that Blenheim could defend it's rear, the Mossie couldn't. So the point goes to the Mossie. That is probably the only point it would get against a Mossie. And if we would compare all points the Mossie is way better only in that 1 point not_".

I think the only person here missing the point here is yourself. The Mossie protected its rear by means other than having a rear gunner. If it had a rear gunner it would have had its primary defences - its speed agility and forward armament- reduced and in this way have become a vulnerbale death trap like so many other bombers, including the Blenheim. 


_In my table you want to look only at the point you need to examine. You got plane X and plane Y, only difference between X and Y is 1 has 1 gun facing rearward for self defence the other not. SO if you're in it, in which you rather be getting attacked by an enemy fighter. Forget all other stuff you know about the plane_.

Your table is simplistic and misleading, to the point of being downright wrong. What you are failing to appreciate is that putting a rear mounted gun on an aircraft puts penalties on that aircraft in all sorts of ways. Putting inadequate defensive armament on a light bomber was a bad idea, that added nothing to its defensive capabilities, and actually increased its vulnerbaility. Your table does not take that performance issue into account, deliberately I believe.


----------



## looney (Jun 26, 2010)

Cause I think the penalties will show in other points. What I'm trying to do is to get a clear and practical means of making a decision.


----------



## Glider (Jun 26, 2010)

looney said:


> @Glider and Parsifal: You miss my point.



Nope I don't. My concern wasn't your points system which does have the merit of an idea but is way too simplistic.

My beef was the Stereotyping of the Lanc and B29 as only being city crushers which is both wildly inaccurate, and unfair on the crews who risked and often lost so much.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2010)

Glider said:


> Nope I don't. My concern wasn't your points system which does have the merit of an idea but is way too simplistic.
> 
> My beef was the Stereotyping of the Lanc and B29 as only being city crushers which is both wildly inaccurate, and unfair on the crews who risked and often lost so much.



Looney, the B29 had the most accurate and destructive weapons system in the world at that time.

One bomb destroying one city.

What other bomber had that distinction?


----------



## looney (Jun 26, 2010)

Glider said:


> Nope I don't. My concern wasn't your points system which does have the merit of an idea but is way too simplistic.
> 
> My beef was the Stereotyping of the Lanc and B29 as only being city crushers which is both wildly inaccurate, and unfair on the crews who risked and often lost so much.



Why? the Brits knew they couldn't hit their target in daylight so they resorted in carpet bombing at night. That was the whole point of Bomber Command (RAF Bomber Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia check the casualties bit), and the land was their primary bomber. I have the utmost respect for the men doing their job, but in my opinion there is to much "collateral damage". 

I don't know how many sorties where tactical (like on Peenemünde, or dam busting raids). Fact is most sorties where made to break the morale of the German people (carpet bombing of cities) which it failed to do, just like similar bombardments on Rotterdam, Coventry etc. failed to do. 

I have the luxury to think about history and put my morals on top, this is a luxury NO soldier can afford. I am very grateful for the sacrifice they made for my freedom. I do however not agree with the means and strategies they used to achieve that. I find weapons extremely interesting, but I wish they weren't around any more.





syscom3 said:


> Looney, the B29 had the most accurate and destructive weapons system in the world at that time.
> 
> One bomb destroying one city.
> 
> What other bomber had that distinction?



I already agreed that the B-29 was the best. And no1 knows how accurate it was, it (nuke) could have been miles of target.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 26, 2010)

The B-29 is undoubtedly the best bomber of the war, although I would argue that syscom's '1 bomb 1 city' argument is entirely spurious, as any a/c capable of carrying a nuke could have achieved the same distinction, and accuracy was not really an issue with that type of weapon - as long as it was dropped in the correct postcode, the entire city would be flattened. Hardly precision bombing is it?

I'm not sure why the Mossie vs Blenheim argument rumbles on, the Blenheim was highly vulnerable and suffered heavy losses, while the Mossie was the opposite in both respects on the same types of mission. Martin Bowman's _Reich Intruders_ is a great place to start to get an airman's perspective of the difference between the two types.


----------



## looney (Jun 26, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> I'm not sure why the Mossie vs Blenheim argument rumbles on, the Blenheim was highly vulnerable and suffered heavy losses, while the Mossie was the opposite in both respects on the same types of mission. Martin Bowman's _Reich Intruders_ is a great place to start to get an airman's perspective of the difference between the two types.



I used them as an example. It's not about the 2 planes but if my way of making an unbiased decision is doable.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 26, 2010)

I see. But I would suggest that you system is, as Glider suggested earlier, too simplistic. A simple point scoring system would surely make the Avro Manchester, for example a good bomber, as it would have all the plus point of the Lancaster with just one minus for the rubbish engines. This masks the fact that the problem was so severe that the Manchester was a bad aircraft full stop.

Likewise, the B-17 would be a good bomber on points, but this fails to explain why it was so abysmal in RAF day bomber service - this comes down to poor crew training and faulty operational tactics, which your system doesn't seem to take into account.


----------



## Glider (Jun 26, 2010)

looney said:


> Why? the Brits knew they couldn't hit their target in daylight so they resorted in carpet bombing at night. That was the whole point of Bomber Command (RAF Bomber Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia check the casualties bit), and the land was their primary bomber. I have the utmost respect for the men doing their job, but in my opinion there is to much "collateral damage".


I suggest you read that again, in detail and understand what it says.. For instance where in that entire piece does it say that the RAF couldn't hit their targets in daylight and thats why they switched to night bombing. It doesn't, it does point out that losses were high and thats why they switched, but not that they couldn't hit the target. 



> I don't know how many sorties where tactical (like on Peenemünde, or dam busting raids). Fact is most sorties where made to break the morale of the German people (carpet bombing of cities) which it failed to do, just like similar bombardments on Rotterdam, Coventry etc. failed to do.


You have an obvious contradiction here. You say you don't know how many sorties were tactical, but you know that most were to break the morale of Germany. How can you know one without the other? a reply to that question would be appreciated.
Navigation was the problem and the best way of hitting a target was to aim at the centre of the city. As navigation improved ot was possible to aim at the industrial areas of the city and more precise targets such as oil refinaries. A small matter which I supported with evidence ond one you have chosen to ignore.
I also suggested that you look into the Dresden raid which was a combined RAf/USAAF operation, something else that you have conveniently ignored. In fact if you do look into that you might be interested to see that nearly all the RAF bombers found their target at night, wheras a good chunk of the B17's managed to bomb the wrong city by day. Which begs the question, who couldn't hit the target?


> I have the luxury to think about history and put my morals on top, this is a luxury NO soldier can afford. I am very grateful for the sacrifice they made for my freedom. I do however not agree with the means and strategies they used to achieve that. I find weapons extremely interesting, but I wish they weren't around any more.


You are right when you say that you have the luxury about history. The tragedy is that you have wasted that priceless chance and stuck to stereotypes.

You might be interested to learn that during the war more B17/B24 sorties were launched against Hamberg, Munich, Leipzig and Dresden than were launched by the RAF. The difference was that RAF Lancasters and Halifax's carried on average at least 50% more payload, so the RAF dropped more tonnage.

So do not stereotype the Lancaster as a city buster and the b17 as a more focused bomber. Your wrong, all Heavy bombers could and did do both types of mission. The crews that flew the aircraft did what they were told.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2010)

I object to the notion or suggestion that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime. I know its argued by many on the basis of its destructiveness. Its also wrong to suggest that the RAF were used mostly for area attacks. The facts are that the RAF had the specialist capability to do both. Their dambuster attacks, the attacks on the Tirpitz and the U-Boat pens are just examples of that capability. 

The RAF also developed city busting techniques and technologies, and this happened earlier than the precision attacks that developed from 1942 onward. This was forced on the RAF because of the relative strength of the German daylight defences, the relative weakness of the RAF bombers, both in terms of numbers and in their defensive arrangements (a prime example being the Blenheims). In the short term the switch to night bombing reduced RAF loss rates to the point that skill and force levels could be expanded at a reasonable rate. At the beginning of 1941, Bomber Command numbered no more than 250 effective aircraft, by April 1942, they had about 750 front line aircraft and a further 350 or so in training units, hence the significance of the 1000 bomber raids. More importantly there had been a trasformation in techniques, and aircraft. the light bomber types like the Blenheim with inneffective defences and bombloads were being replaced with two main types, the heavy bombers centred around the Lancs and the halibags, and the Light bombers centred around the mosquito. At that stage the Mosquito was mostly employed in precision nuisance raids and recons, but as the need for pathfinders was realized, it increasingly fell to the Mosquito groups to undertake that function. The development of navaids is well understood and documented, to the point that with the adoption of OBOE the RAF in 1943 was probably better trained for accurate precision attacks than the US (US adopted similar technologies in 1944). Aids like OBOE enabled the drop point of the aircraft to be controlled remotely from the delivery system, which greatly increased the accuracy of the bomb run. OBOE equipped pathfinders enabled large formations of bombers to be guided onto a target with little difficulty.

But this was not the only area that the RAF had developed in that 1940-43 period. They had also developed very advanced techniques in ordinance, mixing heavy incendiary bombs with HE explosives, and organizing the raids in such a way as to cause maximum damage and casualties. In the Pre-nuclear age, the RAF became the most destructive city busting force on the planet....why restrict oneself to a developing field (precision pinpoint targets) when the technology and technique already existed to go out and level whole cities???? This was why the RAF continued with area based attacks. They had developed a weapon with high destructive capability in this field, and set out to use it. I disagree with the notion that as a technique area bombing was a failure. Proof of its effectiveness can be found in the raids over the Ruhr and Hamburg. There can be no greater endorsement of their effectiveness than from the comments of the people in the best position to know....the germans themselves. according to Speer, two or three more raids like Hamburg would have brought the German economy to its knees, and this sentiment was echoed in comments by Goring and other senior LW men, as well as some of the statements by Hitler himself. I fail to see how these raids, given their potency and effect on the enemy can now be dismissed as inneffective. They were undertaken at a time that preceded the daylight raids on Schweinfurt, which when they did come, proved to be a more of a failure than the RAF campaign. It was only when Harris decided he wanted the prize - Berlin- that the RAF started to run astray. 

Having developed an effective technique with which to prosecute the strategic air war, the RAF proceeded to exploit that. The horrendous loss rates that you read about occurred, in part because of the choice of targets. But that is not relevant to the point here anyway. The RAF proceeded down the path of area attacks (whilst also developing significant precision bombing cability as well) from 1942 to the end of the war. They set their terms to the germans as to what was required to end such attacks. These terms followed Germanys insistence in 1939 to start a war of overt agression, and then proceed with their own policies of exploitation enslavement and murder against defenceless victims. That is a point often forgotten in debates about Dresden. Knowing the Allied terms for surrender, and with the germans refusing to acknowledge the one sided results that were occuring in the war, the Allies had no choice but to continue with their attacks, and that included the bombing campaign. Bombing the cr*p out of German cities in 1945 was an element in the path to victory. Dresden was a part of a country that continued to choose resistance over surrender, the AA guns over Dresden continued to fire at Allied bombers rather than disobey the illegal and murderous orders of the regime they served.

The German people were made to pay a horrendous cost for the war, not because of the actions of the Allies, but because of the decisions made by their leaders. They chose not to surrender, when the obvious thing was to do just that. So who was responsible for Dresden....Adolf Hitler in my opinion


----------



## Milosh (Jun 26, 2010)

looney, what do you really know about the bombing of Dresden?

Did you know the Americans were scheduled to be the first to drop bombs on Dresden on that February day. It was canceled because of bad weather but the second American did drop bombs.

I also suggest you do some research on American bomber formations and the weather conditions they flew in. It is hard to be precise when the targets is mostly covered by cloud.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2010)

Lets keep this on topic. This thread is not for a discussion on whether bombing of cities was correct or not. It is about the aircraft that flew the mission. Lets keep it that way.


----------



## looney (Jun 27, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> I see. But I would suggest that you system is, as Glider suggested earlier, too simplistic. A simple point scoring system would surely make the Avro Manchester, for example a good bomber, as it would have all the plus point of the Lancaster with just one minus for the rubbish engines. This masks the fact that the problem was so severe that the Manchester was a bad aircraft full stop.
> 
> Likewise, the B-17 would be a good bomber on points, but this fails to explain why it was so abysmal in RAF day bomber service - this comes down to poor crew training and faulty operational tactics, which your system doesn't seem to take into account.



I'm only going to comment on the quoted stated, cause like I said before all stuff about the city bombing is completely biased (usually based on Hollywood, comic books and of course victors history writing) by me. 

I know that it's a simplification, that is it's greatest strong point and weakness. I've done this before and sometimes with strange results. Which showed to us they made very strange mistakes in the past. Usually based on politics and propaganda. 

I do not know much about the Manchester (other than it was the bases of the Lancaster) but if it was only hampered by it's engines, it probably would have a lower speed, cruising altitude and other drawbacks. But it could be that the aircraft itself was a good one, only hindered by it's engines.

The table can be expanded as much as we like. 

I'm an engineer and I'm thought to make my decision process as little based on emotion as possible and the table is the best way (I was thought). For example we could give extra weight to some key points (multiply it's score with the weight given). If we find pay load more important than max altitude we could multiply it's score by a factor of say 2 (or higher).

Problem with assigning weight on some key point is emotion, Germans where nuts about accuracy and as a result favoured dive bombing for even the biggest aircraft. As a result they never built a real heavy. Other pre-war bombers where designed about max top speed (... (can't find the example ATM) unkillable in Spanish war, but got slaughtered in WW2), so they got soon outrun by single engined fighters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2010)

looney said:


> The table can be expanded as much as we like.
> 
> I'm an engineer and I'm thought to make my decision process as little based on emotion as possible and the table is the best way (I was thought). For example we could give extra weight to some key points (multiply it's score with the weight given). If we find pay load more important than max altitude we could multiply it's score by a factor of say 2 (or higher).
> 
> Problem with assigning weight on some key point is emotion, Germans where nuts about accuracy and as a result favoured dive bombing for even the biggest aircraft. As a result they never built a real heavy. Other pre-war bombers where designed about max top speed (... (can't find the example ATM) unkillable in Spanish war, but got slaughtered in WW2), so they got soon outrun by single engined fighters.



Go back and read my post #807 in this thread.

Can you answer some of those questions?

As far as the German "dive bombers" go they were so obsessed with dive bombing they did make it a requirement of their 4 engine heavy bomber and even some of their twin engined medium/heavy bombers (Do-217). British even tried putting it into requirements for a short period of time until sanity took over. What requiring dive bomber capability did on big planes was increase structural weight to the point that payload and range both suffered, and speed, and ceiling and.....

As an engineer you should know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## looney (Jun 28, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Rather different technology don't you think?
> 
> 
> OK, try to explain how the assigning points would work please?
> ...



I'd asign points equal to the number of aircraft. So if we get a table of 10 planes we can assign 0-9 points. so we compare each aircraft with another. That way the 1 man using 4 guns (like JU-88) will score less than a Lanc (having 3 gun positions (nose, top and tail), only example I could think of).
And use that system for all points. Perhaps give bonus points to 1 aircraft if it was exeptionaly good at 1 point.



P.s. yes I know about the stupidness of letting a heavie do dive bombing. Lucky the Germans didn't want to know.


----------



## looney (Jun 28, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Rather different technology don't you think?
> 
> 
> OK, try to explain how the assigning points would work please?
> ...



I'd asign points equal to the number of aircraft. So if we get a table of 10 planes we can assign 0-9 points. so we compare each aircraft with another. That way the 1 man using 4 guns (like JU-88 ) will score less than a Lanc (having 3 gun positions (nose, top and tail), only example I could think of).
And use that system for all points. Perhaps give bonus points to 1 aircraft if it was exeptionaly good at 1 point.

P.s. yes I know about the stupidness of letting a heavie do dive bombing. Lucky the Germans didn't want to know.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2010)

Can I suggest that you compare say the B17, B24, Lancaster, He177 and Betty using a points system. Then we can see what you are thinking of?


----------



## looney (Jun 28, 2010)

I will give it a try. I hope I got it ready tonight. I'm fairly busy

P.s. I'm thinking about accuracy, imho it all depends on the Bomb sight and bombs used. Where can I find info on accuracy achieved? 

According to wiki the german used a copy of an early Norden, so I'm gonna rate it a bit below the Norden. I don't know how the british Mk XIVcompared to the Norden, and the Japanese is even harder to find.

Found me another problem, the sturdiness of each plane. I know the B24 was weaker than the B17, but I don't know how the He-177 and Lanc compare. I'd say B17, b24, Lanc, He177 and last G4m.


1st draft list done:






We need to assign weight to different fields. Cause an He-177 can't be better than a B17 

Oh please check for errors also, I took the data from wiki.


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 28, 2010)

looney said:


> Why? the Brits knew they couldn't hit their target in daylight so they resorted in carpet bombing at night.



It wasn't about hitting the target. It was about the risk to the bombers. Early BC experiences flying unescorted daylight raids against dedicated fighter opposition led to heavy casualties which resulted in the switch to night bombing. Precision targeting was not possible at night of course but by that time the UK had begun loosening it's restrictions on bombing non-military targets. I would not equate Area Bombing with "Carpet Bombing."


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2010)

This might be of interest BC - Major Bomb Sights


----------



## Marcel (Jun 28, 2010)

As I said before, this discussion about "best bomber" is utterly useless. It's like voting for a lorry being the best engine driven vehicle, because it can carry more stuff than a car.
Any way, the idea about points for having for instance guns is also useless, since it doesn't say about the effectiveness of the guns. Having guns, but placed ineffectively probably does more harm then good, but it will get the points for that. This means the Fokker T.V will get points for carrying a 20mm, even though it was a single-shot weapon and virtually useless in battle, only adding drag to the a/c's other bad points. 

Anyway, so if you want the point system to work, you'll have to dig much deeper than that, taking everything into account and how everything effects each other. This would assure a good simulation (yes, I'm an engineer, too), but on something so complex as an a/c, I would deem this about impossible.

Last point, the way an aircraft was used is not a way to measure how good an aircraft is. Saying the Lanc was bad because it was used for area bombing doesn't say that it wasn't capable to do something else better. A knife is terrible if you use it as scissors, still it can be a perfectly good knife.


----------



## looney (Jun 28, 2010)

But we need to get training and strategy out of the equation, cause they don't say a thing about the aircraft.

I do think we should find some way to differentiate the most important qualities for a bomber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2010)

looney said:


> But we need to get training and strategy out of the equation, cause they don't say a thing about the aircraft.
> 
> I do think we should find some way to differentiate the most important qualities for a bomber.



Which qualities are you talking about?

A bomber is basically a bomb truck. It is supposed to haul XXX amount of bombs YYY distance. 

After that comes survivability (guns or speed or altitude or a combination).

It should have good stability for accuracy. 

Trying to rate an airplane on it's bomb sight (which may change several times over it's service life) or it's navigation aids which can be mounted in any bomber of a particular air force (within reason) doesn't help us decide which airframe/engine combination was better. Trying to add those to a chart would turn from comparing a few dozen bombers to hundreds. 

Even trying to chart defensive armament would lead to hundreds of variations.

For an idea of the difficulties try charting 4 British bombers. The Blenheim, the Hampden , the Whitley and the Wellington. Then try to add 3 German bombers, the DO-17, The He 111 (which version?) and the Ju 88.
any good chart or system should allow the easy addition of new types. 
Pick the summer of 1940.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2010)

Consider the bomber as being a "system" in which the best combination of all offensive and defensive systems combine to make a superior bomber, or a flop. Assigning points for each bomber considering the following:

Payload per range
Radial engines vs inline
Offensive electronics
Defensive electronics
MG vs cannon (for the enviornment it was used)
Turrets vs hand held
Centralized fire control
Bomb bay volume (determines types of bombs)
Airframe room for growth
Engine room for growth
Time to manufacture
Number of support personel needed
Potential sortie rates
Ability to absorb damage
Ability to avoid damage (ceiling and speed)
One pilot or two (and three for the b29 as the flight engineer being critical)
Flying characteristics in a formation

I'm sure you can find others to list.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2010)

along with the more traditional aspects of aircraft performance...speed, manouverability rate of climb. If a type has performance characteristics, its forward firing armement is relatively more important than if the type is slower or less in its performance. If the mosquito had a lesser performance arc, its lack of rearward firing guns would have been important, but because it could outfly most of its opponents, this was relatively insigificant as a drawback. By comparison, a B-17, with relatively weak forward firing armement was less handicapped by this, because it flew well in formation, and could rely more on the types generally good all round defences. So a single rating system is not going to work in every case. The performance of the type determines the importance of other design aspects.


----------



## looney (Jun 29, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Which qualities are you talking about?
> 
> A bomber is basically a bomb truck. It is supposed to haul XXX amount of bombs YYY distance.
> 
> ...



so multiply the values for range and pay load by 3; survivability (defence, speed etc etc) by 2; and the rest by 1.



syscom3 said:


> Consider the bomber as being a "system" in which the best combination of all offensive and defensive systems combine to make a superior bomber, or a flop. Assing points for each bomber considering the following:
> 
> Payload per range
> Radial engines vs inline
> ...



Cause we compare airframes to eachother we can simply state that the defensive guns on a B29 where better than the turrets on a B17 which where better than the handaimed HE177. (I would put the ECM and stuf in this catagory also)
Same with flying characteristics (alt, speed stability) bunch it together.



parsifal said:


> along with the more traditional aspects of aircraft performance...speed, manouverability rate of climb. If a type has performance characteristics, its forward firing armement is relatively more important than if the type is slower or less in its performance. If the mosquito had a lesser performance arc, its lack of rearward firing guns would have been important, but because it could outfly most of its opponents, this was relatively insigificant as a drawback. By comparison, a B-17, with relatively weak forward firing armement was less handicapped by this, because it flew well in formation, and could rely more on the types generally good all round defences. So a single rating system is not going to work in every case. The performance of the type determines the importance of other design aspects.



The Mossies ( I mean the bomber variant) only defence was it's speed and end war it got overtaken by He-219 (rubbish overall but could kill the Mossie or it claimed it could) and Me-262 (which flew 1st in april 1941!) And as such was cannonfodder, if the Germans where in a better situation. The Mossie was a great airplane which found a gap in German defence.

My point being: Speed is not a substitude for defence. It can only hope to be so for a relative short time. After that the plane get obsolete very fast. All Japanese bombers where designed around high speed and long range. They got slaughtered when fighter speed caught up. And due to the speed being important design aspect they couldn't upgrade the aircraft with self sealing tanks and more armor etc.


P.s. I like the last few post much more than all the other ones. This is the way how one chooses then best. 
1st Find key features
2nd assign values to each choice
3th find the best.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2010)

_The Mossies ( I mean the bomber variant) only defence was it's speed and end war it got overtaken by He-219 (rubbish overall but could kill the Mossie or it claimed it could) and Me-262 (which flew 1st in april 1941!) And as such was cannonfodder, if the Germans where in a better situation. The Mossie was a great airplane which found a gap in German defence.

My point being: Speed is not a substitude for defence. It can only hope to be so for a relative short time. After that the plane get obsolete very fast. All Japanese bombers where designed around high speed and long range. They got slaughtered when fighter speed caught up. And due to the speed being important design aspect they couldn't upgrade the aircraft with self sealing tanks and more armor etc._

This does not explain why the Mosquito had the lowest attrition rate of any RAF bomber during the war, despite easily undertaking the most hazardous missions, or that the Mosquito remained a viable bomber, the last not being retired until aboput 1960 as I recall.


And only a proportion of the Mosquitoes were unarmed. The majority packed a heavy nose armament, whilst also carrying a respectable offensive warload.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2010)

looney said:


> so multiply the values for range and pay load by 3; survivability (defence, speed etc etc) by 2; and the rest by 1.



You need actual values. relative ones will not work. Try using the bombers I suggested. The Blenheim carries 1000lb of bombs vs 7000lbs for the Whitley and 4500lbs for the Wellington and 4000lbs for the Hampden. For "points" of either 1,4,3 and 2 for your original proposal or 3,12,9 and 8. Hardly reflective of their actual capabilities relative to each other and if you add in the German bombers the results go crazy with the multiplication system, with 7 bombers on the chart the the Whitley would jump to 21 points for bomb load while the Blenheim stayed at 3. Whitley was also more likely to carry 4,000lbs on actual missions. 




looney said:


> Cause we compare airframes to eachother we can simply state that the defensive guns on a B29 where better than the turrets on a B17 which where better than the handaimed HE177. (I would put the ECM and stuf in this catagory also)



Again, going back to the 4 British bombers you have 5 guns on the later Blenheims, 5 guns on the Whitley. 4-6 on the Hampdens and 6-8 on the Wellington?. Except on the Blenheim you have one fixed forward gun, 2 in a manually operated (i think) blister under the nose firing rearward using a periscope ( a system that never worked well no matter who used it) and a 2 gun power turret on top. Whitley used a single gun power turret in the nose and a 4 gun power turret in the tail. Early Hamdens had one fixed gun and 3 flexible with the dorsal and ventral positions upgraded to twin mounts. Flexible guns were feed by drums rather than the long belts of the power turret guns. So who gets what for points?
Add in the German bombers (all with just about the same caliber guns) and it turns into a real mess. 


looney said:


> Same with flying characteristics (alt, speed stability) bunch it together.



Are you now suggesting that these attributes get the same multiplier or that all these attributes get lumped together and only get one number for all flying characteristics? 

Rather degrades the speed and ceiling attributes doesn't it? Both of which would help limit exposure to flak. 



looney said:


> The Mossies ( I mean the bomber variant) only defence was it's speed and end war it got overtaken by He-219 (rubbish overall but could kill the Mossie or it claimed it could) and Me-262 (which flew 1st in april 1941!) And as such was cannonfodder, if the Germans where in a better situation. The Mossie was a great airplane which found a gap in German defence.
> 
> My point being: Speed is not a substitude for defence. It can only hope to be so for a relative short time. After that the plane get obsolete very fast. All Japanese bombers where designed around high speed and long range. They got slaughtered when fighter speed caught up. And due to the speed being important design aspect they couldn't upgrade the aircraft with self sealing tanks and more armor etc.



The Mossies speed was still useful at the end of the war. Intercepting aircraft had to positioned just right to affect an interception. Even the jets with their margin of speed might be in for a stern chase of 4-6 minutes from a distance of 10-12 miles. With their limited endurance this would certainly influence the number of interceptions they could undertake in one flight. Air combat in a strategic sense was never one on one. Going back to the flak thing, the Mossies exposure to flak was whole order of magnitude below that of the 4 engine heavies. 

I think you are misrepresenting the Japanese aircraft. They had several problems, one was that they were designed for great range, not necessarily speed. This meant a high payload to empty weight ratio which meant a light structure. Their engine development also lagged behind the West. Without more powerful engines the addition of armor and self sealing tanks could only come at the expense of range since max weight was governed by available power. Even with more power the light structure would need an almost total redesign to accommodate the extra power combined with the heavier structure to support the heavier engines, the extra fuel they would burn and the self sealing material and armor. The Japanese had learned in China and against the Russians that speed was not protection for unescorted bombers.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 30, 2010)

parsifal said:


> This does not explain why the Mosquito had the lowest attrition rate of any RAF bomber during the war,



It depends on the situation - the Mosquito had the highest loss rate of all RAF bombers (about double that of the conventional bombers) when it was first introduced, and was facing German _day fighters_ over France. Those could fairly easily catch a Mosquito, and as was the case with every 'fast' bomber of the day, they become vulnerable overnight as newer, faster fighters appeared, as their only defense was speed.

In other words, it proved to be just as, if not more vulnerable to enemy fighter than the existing RAF bomber types which were escorted.



> despite easily undertaking the most hazardous missions,



Hardly "the most hazardous"... they operated mostly at night, when the enemy fighter opposition was slow twin engined fighters, amongst far more numerous, slow and low flying heavy bomber streams which were the primary target of enemy night fighters; or as high flying nuisance bombers during the night.

I can hardly think of less hazardous missions, actually.



> or that the Mosquito remained a viable bomber, the last not being retired until aboput 1960 as I recall.



I guess for the same reason most airforces kept prop jobs for bomber roles - no serious enemy air defense, range and consumption issues with jet engines for bomber roles, lack of founding for conventional weapons when everyone was going for the A-bomb.



> And only a proportion of the Mosquitoes were unarmed. The majority packed a heavy nose armament, whilst also carrying a respectable offensive warload.



Fat chances against a day fighter, a heavy, loaded twin engine laden with bombs.. (BTW, what's particularly respectable in_ 900 kg_ of bombload...? Thats pretty avarage for a light bomber of the time, hell even some of the single engines could carry that much, see P-47, Fw 190 etc.)


----------



## looney (Jun 30, 2010)

@Shortround6 You won me over, we need to find a scale of the different points. Is a short range heavy bomber better than a long range light bomber etc etc. 

1st item on the agenda is to make a list of important "points" (can't think of a better english word for it)
2nd find a way to make different points more important than others, without 1 point dominating the table
3th make a selection of bombers to compare
4th apply the above


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 30, 2010)

looney said:


> But we need to get training and strategy out of the equation, cause they don't say a thing about the aircraft.
> 
> I do think we should find some way to differentiate the most important qualities for a bomber.



You can't get training and strategy out of the equation - these bombers were all useless piles of scrap without crews. And a Lanc crewed by a bad crew would be less effective than a Betty crewed by veterans, for example. Crew skill plays a huge role in ensuring that the payload actually hits the target.

Furthermore, how do you objectively define 'sturdiness'? Sure, the B-17 could take a beating - but so could the Wellington. The B-24 was notoriously vulnerable to hits in it's wing root. But how did it fare with damage in other areas?

I am starting to believe that an objective, tabular assessment of performance is nigh on impossible for any weapons system, especially as performance may vary wildly depending on circumstances. For instance, the performance of the B-17 with Bomber Command, or over Schweinfurt, was very poor, mainly due to the strategy that you wish to exclude from the equation. However, if you were to focus on operations later in the war, with more experienced crews and long-range escorts, you suddenly have a much 'better' bomber.

Finally, how are you planning to distinguish between different marks of the same aircraft? The B-17 C,E,F an G were not the same aircraft, although they were all used in the same role. And how do you distinguish between the performance of different engines used on various types of Halifax, Lancaster or Wellington?

I'm not trying to ruip up your work here - I think the project you are setting out on is commendable. But I do think you have too many variables to deal with unless you have a substantial research grant, a team of researchers, and much deeper sources than Wikipedia.

Cheers

BT


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> It depends on the situation - the Mosquito had the highest loss rate of all RAF bombers (about double that of the conventional bombers) when it was first introduced, and was facing German _day fighters_ over France. Those could fairly easily catch a Mosquito, and as was the case with every 'fast' bomber of the day, they become vulnerable overnight as newer, faster fighters appeared, as their only defense was speed.
> 
> In other words, it proved to be just as, if not more vulnerable to enemy fighter than the existing RAF bomber types which were escorted.
> 
> ...



I will give a more detailed reply later but in the meantime Kurfurst can I ask for any examples of Mossie bombers being easily caught by German day fighters in any numbers.

I say this as I do have the breakdown of losses by No 2 Group for their daylight losses for 1944. 

No of Sorties 1732
Losses to Flak 17 
Losses to Fighters 1
Accidents 2
Unknown 9

Even if all the unknown are due to Fighters ( a big assumption) you have a loss rate of less than 0.6%. Not too shabby for missions that included daylight raids over Berlin without escort many hndreds of miles behind the German front line.


----------



## looney (Jul 1, 2010)

@BT 

1st: I want to take out training and strategy, because allthough they are very important to the results of a bombardement they do however say nothing about the aircraft. 
And we are trying to find the best airframe, thus it is vital we take training and strategy out of the equation.

Perhaps we find a "rubbish" plane which cause of training and strategy still got a large credit (finnish fighters), or the other way around (Zero, Saburo Sakai (On June 24, 1944, Sakai approached a formation of 15 U.S. Navy Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters which he mistakenly assumed were friendly Japanese aircraft. In a chase that has become legendary, Sakai demonstrated his skill and experience. Despite his loss of one eye and facing superior enemy aircraft, Sakai eluded attacks by the Hellcats for more than 20 minutes, returning to his airfield untouched.) Sabur? Sakai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

2nd: I know sturdiness is a hard one to judge, cause it depends a lot on theatre of operations and enemy capabilities. We could use this one to note how hard it was to shoot 1 down (ie training and strategy ish). 

I would compare most produced variant, for the B17 it's the G version.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 1, 2010)

Glider said:


> I will give a more detailed reply later but in the meantime Kurfurst can I ask for any examples of Mossie bombers being easily caught by German day fighters in any numbers.
> 
> I say this as I do have the breakdown of losses by No 2 Group for their daylight losses for 1944.
> 
> ...



You might add that the Mosquito is believed to have shot down approximately 600 german SE day fighters, whilst suffering neglible losses themselves. The bombload stated i Kurfursts post is average, unless you factor in the other aspect of tat capacity, namely that the Mosquito could carry that weight of bombs all the way to Berlin, and at very high speeds.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 1, 2010)

parsifal said:


> You might add that the Mosquito is believed to have shot down approximately 600 german SE day fighters, whilst suffering neglible losses themselves.



 Sorry but is that claim even remotely serious..? 

In any case, the figures Glider posted (who had yet failed to apologize for his past behavaviour and until he will do so, will be not adressed directly) are strawman arguments, as my original statement was: 

"the Mosquito had the highest loss rate of all RAF bombers (about double that of the conventional bombers) when it was first introduced"

That means, in 1942 to my best knowledge, when it had about 8% loss rate per sortie compared to conventional RAF escorted bombers in comparable missions with 4% loss rate or thereabouts

I fail to see the reasoning why then Glider posts figures for 1944, when the circumstances were entirely different - the Germans were busy intercepting US heavies and escorts over Germany and so on, circumstances that must be so painfully obvious to everyone here. 

The daylight loss rate for 1944 No 2 Group Mosquitos is only worth of consideration in context - under the same time period, but not neccessarily the same circumstances, was it more survivable than comparable light bomber types? The answer, I am afraid, is not. 

For example, the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest of World War II provides a vast array of statistics to play with. In the European Theatre of Operations for example, during 210,544,* US heavy bombers* flew 210,544 sorties, and lost 3,497 aircraft in total (loss rate of 1,6%), of which 1,516 they attributed to enemy fighter defenses (0,7%). And they were, by far, the most targeted by German fighter defences.

*US medium and light bombers* flew 79,461 sorties, and lost 487 aircraft in total (loss rate of only 0,62%), but only 93 were attributed to enemy fighters (0.11% ), with the vast majority felling to Flak.

Now, in 1944,* No 2 Group's Mosquitoes* operated (as per Glider's figures) with 1.6% loss rate per sortie, US B-17s/B-24s over West/Norther Europe operated at the same loss rate at 1.6%, and US B-25s/B-26s at much lower loss rate at 0.62%. 

To put it into further context, there are also some figures for the German Air Force on the Eastern front at http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm 
According to these, German combat aircraft operated, in 1944, at a loss rate of 0.703 % per sortie.

There you go, statistics. Either the B-25 and B-26 etc. were more survivable than B-17s, B-24s (which is quite unlikely, having about the same speed, and less armament, airframe etc.), and also vastly better in this respect than Mosquitoes, and about as good as any German combat type on the Eastern Front, ie. that the operational loss rates being defined by technical aspects such as speed etc., or we can conclude that operational circumstances are the definitive factor. 

Simply the Germans concentrated US/Brit heavies, smartly, as they did by FAR the most damage to them, and when possible, ignored US/Brit light bombers and fighter bombers, which could operate at inpunity - at the expense of the heavy bomber streams. Its not particularly hard to evade enemy interception, when nobody is trying to intercept you in the first place.. something similiar was happening on the Eastern Front, German (and Soviet) aircraft could operate with relative inpunity, save for the AAA: the operational area was vast, fighters were thinly spread and coordination of the fighter defenses was relatively primitive compared to Western Europe and Germany, a much smaller area, with much higher fighter concentrations.

It can be stated, however, given these loss rate figures, that there appears to be no visible advantage at all in favour of the light, fast bomber (ie. Mosquito) vs a conventional light/medium bomber._* In fact, it appears that the same thing was happening as in 1942, ie. that Mosquito units were operating with 2 to 3 times the loss rate than conventional lights and mediums (1.62 % vs. 0.62%), in the same period (1944). *_



> The bombload stated i Kurfursts post is average, unless you factor in the other aspect of tat capacity, namely that the Mosquito could carry that weight of bombs all the way to Berlin, something worth noting and quite rare.



Do you have range/payload tables for the Mosquito perhaps, that we can other comparable twin engined designs? Because until some presents some hard and digestable figures, we are left with the somewhat dubious notion that this was 'quite rare'.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 1, 2010)

from BC - Statistics

*Mosquito*
39,795 sorties, 254 losses > 0.64% loss per sortie

*Stirling*
18,440 sorties, 606 losses > 3.29% loss per sortie

*Halifax*
82,773 sorties, 1,833 losses > 2.21% loss per sortie

*Lancaster*
156,192 sorties, 3,345 losses > 2.14% loss per sortie


Table 159 of the AAFSD

has 815 losses of light and medium bombers of which 131 were due to enemy a/c > 16% lost to enemy a/c.

For the heavies it is 5,548 losses of which 2,452 were due to enemy a/c > 44.2% lost to enemy a/c.

Table 119

Sorties flown by medium and light bombers > 131,051 (96,523 effective) > 0.62% (0.84%)
Sorties flown by heavy bombers > 332,904 (274,921 effective) > 1.67% (2.02%)


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> In any case, the figures Glider posted (who had yet failed to apologize for his past behavaviour and until he will do so, will be not adressed directly) are strawman arguments,



* If ever I have behaved in less than a 100% honest manner on any topic I will apologise 100% in as public a manner as the original statement was made. *

I cannot be fairer than that. *All I ask is that you give examples. * I suggest that you use a different thread to stop gumming this one up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2010)

Do not let this topic get out of hand!

Kurfurst you just cant let **** go can you!? You can't resist taking pot shots can you?!


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 1, 2010)

Getting back on track, loss rate will not be of any use in the comparison looney is trying to make. Loss rates are are influenced by the tactical circumstances in which aircraft were deployed, as well as the skill of the aircrews involved - both factors which looney wants to keep out of the equation.


----------



## looney (Jul 1, 2010)

Indeed BT. I believe that, specially end war when the Axis couldn't put up a good fight (sometimes only 2 fighters from a squadron at a time) against the 1000 bomber raids, loss rate does not tell very much about the airframe. 

Losses depends to much in my opinion on usage of the aircraft (night vs day, strategic vs tactical, bombing vs convoy duty etc etc).


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2010)

As promised a more detailed reply.


Kurfürst said:


> It depends on the situation - the Mosquito had the highest loss rate of all RAF bombers (about double that of the conventional bombers) when it was first introduced, and was facing German _day fighters_ over France. Those could fairly easily catch a Mosquito, and as was the case with every 'fast' bomber of the day, they become vulnerable overnight as newer, faster fighters appeared, as their only defense was speed.


To a degree accurate but very misleading. It is true to say that in 1942 the Mossie had a loss rate roughly double that of the other medium bomber types in No 2 group. Actual figures are
Blenhiem 577 with 25 losses (taken out of service by August)
Boston 1,238 with 33 losses
Mosquito 357 with 27 losses
Ventura 81 with 12 losses

However to then say that the German fighters could easily catch the Mosquito is totally wrong. Very few of the losses were caused by fighters and there are a number of examples of Moquitos just leaving them behind. For example on 1st July 109 and 190's intercepted some Mosquitos one of which was shot dhown, the others evaded the first pass and pulling boost the others drew away from the fighters. On the same mission later on a Mosquito was hit in the fusualage and its speed drew it away from danger. There are a number of other examples.
I do not have a break down of losses between fighters, Flak and Accidents but I do know that up until August the vast majority are caused by Flak only 2 by fighters. The most losses happened in October when 6 mosquitos were lost and it looks as if two Mosquito's were shot down by fighters. What is interesting is that on 9th October a decision was made that Mosquitos should concentrate on Industrial Targets in towns within Germany by daylight. Apart from whatever damage was done which was likely to be limited the fact that the German population would see RAF planes bombing targets would be detrimental to their morale. There are a number of examples of Mosquito's being intercepted by German fighters and getting away so the Germans were obviously trying to stop these raids. One in particular stood out, when one Mosquito was intercepted by two Fw 190 who were within 900 yards when spotted. They chased the Mosquito for 15 minutes before the Mosquito escaped.



> In other words, it proved to be just as, if not more vulnerable to enemy fighter than the existing RAF bomber types which were escorted.



And the evidence behind this statement is?



> Fat chances against a day fighter, a heavy, loaded twin engine laden with bombs..


I do agree with Kurfurst here but not the language. As a fighter in a dogfight the lighter 109 and 190 had all the aces. I do know of one Mosquito 109 combat where the 109's sufferred but nothing should be drawn from it. The Mosquitos had the advantage and the 109's didn't see them. The Mosquito's had the bounce made the most of it and kept going in a straight line to get away. By the time the 109 pilots had sorted themselves out the Mosquito's were long gone.



> (BTW, what's particularly respectable in_ 900 kg_ of bombload...? Thats pretty avarage for a light bomber of the time, hell even some of the single engines could carry that much, see P-47, Fw 190 etc.)


Again a true but misleading statement. The question is How many could carry 900KG all the way to Berlin in daylight and suffer lower than average losses.

It should be noted that all the details in my posting are included in 2 Group RAF by Michael Bowyer a book I would recommend to anyone.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 2, 2010)

Glider said:


> As promised a more detailed reply.
> 
> To a degree accurate but very misleading. It is true to say that in 1942 the Mossie had a loss rate roughly double that of the other medium bomber types in No 2 group. Actual figures are
> Blenhiem 577 with 25 losses (taken out of service by August)
> ...



May I ask the source of the figures?

_Known_ OKL Fighter Claims for 1942, for aircraft identified as "Mosquito". I marked with bold the ones which I believe were confirmed, too. From http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

1489	20.06.42	Fw. Heinrich Nöcker: 3	3./JG 1	Mosquito	 westl. Helgoland	13.54	Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
*1643	02.07.42	Uffz. Almenröder aka. Nocker	3./JG 1	Mosquito	 7587: 28 km. S.W. Helgoland: 5 m.	13.54	Film	C. 2031/II	Anerk: Nr. 56	* 
1646	02.07.42	Fw. Heinrich Nöcker: 3	3./JG 1	Mosquito	westl. Helgoland	13.54	Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
1679	11.07.42	Uffz. Herbert Biermann: 3	2./JG 1	Mosquito	 Flensburg	19.09	Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
1683	12.07.42	Ofw. Erwin Leibold: 11►	3./JG 26	Mosquito	 Licques (Pas-de-Calais)	14.35	Film	C. 2036/II Nr.104207/43 
2581	14.09.42	Fw. Anton-Rudolf Piffer: 1	11./JG 1	Mosquito	 Osnabrück: 8.500m.	14.41	Reference: 1 JG 1 Lists f. 630 
*2662	19.09.42	Fw. Rudolf Piffer: 1►	11./JG 1	Mosquito	 7349D9: 6.000 m. (Osnabrück)	14.41	Film	C. 2035/II	Anerk: Nr.1	* 
*1799	28.07.42	Uffz. Karl Bugaj	11./JG 1	Mosquito	 6238/ 05 Ost: 5.800 m. North Sea	19.50	Film	C. 2031/II	Anerk: Nr.9	* 
*1809	29.07.42	Oblt. Reinhold Knacke	1./NJG 1	Mosquito	 5243: 8.000 m.	01.10	Film	C. 2031/II	Anerk: Nr.53 *
1939	01.08.42	Uffz. Karl Bugaj: 2►	11./JG 1	Mosquito	 nördlich Langeoog	13.18	Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
2023	15.08.42	Uffz. Max Kolschek: 1 ►	6./JG 1	Mosquito	 5 km. N.W. Ghent	14.20	Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
*2202	19.08.42	Ltn. Gerd Steiger	2./JG 1	Mosquito	 10 km. N.E. Scharmbeck: 8.800 m.	15.48	Film	C. 2031/II	Anerk: Nr.45 * 
2205	19.08.42	n.n. (6 abschuss)	2./JG 1	Mosquito	 Bremerhaven	16.15	Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
2375	29.08.42	Ofw. Wilhelm Philipp: 22 ►	4./JG 26	Mosquito	 15-20 km. S.E. Hastings: tiefflug	12.53	Film	C. 2031/II	Anerk: Nr. - 
2379	29.08.42	Ofw. Philipp	4./JG 26	Mosquito IV	 Sea: S.E. Hastings: No. 105 Sqn.	12.53	22.	Reference JG 26 List 
2391	29.08.42	Ofw. Philipp	4./JG 26	Mosquito IV	 Sea: S.E. Hastings: No. 105 Sqn.	12.53	22.	Reference JG 26 List 
*2448	06.09.42	Fw. Roden: 1 ►	12./JG 1	Mosquito	 41/2/8 F7: 9.000 m.	18.30	-Film	C 2035/II	Anerk: Nr. 1 *
2464	Night Phase: 6-7. September 194206.09.42	Fw. Roden	12./JG 1	Mosquito	 4128F7: 9.000 m.	18.30	-	C2036/I	Nr. 
*2501	08.09.42	Ltn. Strohal	12./JG 1	Mosquito	 622 8D3: 9.200 m.	19.03	-Film	C. 2035/II	Anerk: Nr. 2* *
2506	08.09.42	Ltn.Strohal: 1	12./JG 1	Mosquito	 -	19.03	-Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
*2822	09.10.42	Fw. Fritz Timm: 1►	12./JG 1	Mosquito	 -	08.05	Film	C. 2035/II	Anerk: Nr.3* 
2841	11.10.42	Uffz. Günther Kirchner: 3	5./JG 1	Mosquito	 2 km. westl. Utrecht	18.32	Reference: JG 1 List f. 631 
2842	11.10.42	Uffz. Max Kolschek: 2	4./JG 1	Mosquito	 westl. Hoek-van-Holland	19.05	Reference: JG 1 List f. 631 
3012	06.11.42	Ltn. Heinz Knoke: 2	2./JG 1	Mosquito	 50 km. nordl. Helgoland: 50 m.	14.55	Reference: JG 1 List f. 631 
*3400	22.12.42	Flak: 2. lei.Abt. 847 I-III. Zug	2./847	Mosquito	£ E. Axel: 50 m. (Zeeland)	16.47	Film	C. 2027/I	Anerk: Nr. -	-	C.2027/I*

The British reported 27 Mosquitoes lost to all causes in 1942, German fighters made claims for 25 Mosquitoes. Even with the possible ratio of overclaim, it seems quite certain that German fighters could, in almost all cases when the British reported losses, catch up with the Mossies and open fire effectively to them. Even if I allow for 2 times overclaim, it would still mean that roughly 50% of them were shot down by fighters, which at least is very much in line with the loss cause for other bombers (ie. flak/fighters).

As for what the British reported for cause, I guess it can be largely inaccurate. Flak seldom killed aircraft outright, and there could be witnesses to the cause from other aircraft in the formation - in other words, they knew what took them down. On the other hand, lone Mossies recorded as "did not return" or ones that suffered the same fate after fighter attack dispersed a formation.. I would risk that these were likely the victims of fighters they never saw coming and no opportunity to report it.



> And the evidence behind this statement is?



Above.



> The question is How many could carry 900KG all the way to Berlin in daylight and suffer lower than average losses.



Exactly - so, can you answer your own question and at the same time, Parsifal's?


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2010)

As for sources then you obviously didn't read the following that was in my previous posting.

_It should be noted that all the details in my posting are included in 2 Group RAF by Michael Bowyer a book I would recommend to anyone_. 

As to replying this question
_The question is How many could carry 900KG all the way to Berlin in daylight and suffer lower than average losses_. 

The reply is none, no other aircraft could do this.

As for the German claims I can match up some operations to these dates. 
The 2nd July claims match the mission where one Mossquito was shot down in the first pass and the others escaped.
The 11th July there was a mission to Flensburg but all the Mosquitos returned and the record bore the comment that Fighters were absent.
No record of a mission on the 12th or 14th July.
The 19th July was a Boston Mission where one was shot down by a fighter
No missions on the 28th and 29th July but there were Boston missions. Suggest that there seems to be a problem in identification.

Breaking it down by Month comparing the claims to the losses.

May 1 lost - 0 claimed
June 1 lost - 1 claimed
July 4 lost - 8 claimed
August 5 lost - 7 claimed 
September 3 lost - 4 claimed
October 6 lost - 4 claimed
November 3 lost - 1 claimed
December 4 lost - 1 claimed

Remembering that these losses are for all types Accident, AA and Fighters there seems to be a problem with the Luftwaffe records. At the end of the day the RAF counted them out and counted them back.

Looking at the August figures, some seem to match up. Most of the missions were high level against Hanover, Bremen, Cologne, Wiesbaden, Hamburg, Wilhelmshaven, Stuttgart, Mannheim and Munster. The book simply states that three planes were lost on these missions but no dates. These three certainly could have been lost due to fighters as a number of iterceptions were reported from which the Mosquito's escaped. The other two losses were a low level attack on the Pont a Vendin power station by two bombers who found themselves head on to 12 Fw190 fighters who had a height advantage. Both were hit hard and one crashed into the sea and the other made it home badly damaged but was written off, which seems to match up to the claims for the 29th August.

October was the other big month. Here the book only gives details of four losses although six were lost. Of these four three were lost on attacks on industrial targets in Essen, Bremen, Trier, Frankfurt, Hanover and Ruhr. The fourth loss was due to AA fire when on a shipping strike against a blockade runner the Elsa Essberger.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 2, 2010)

> The 19th July was a Boston Mission where one was shot down by a fighter
> No missions on the 28th and 29th July but there were Boston missions. Suggest that there seems to be a problem in identification.



Or, if they had been Hurricanes, 'Spitfire Envy'. Both the Spit and the Mossie had quite the reputation with the Lw and a 'kill' of one these a/c carried some status. If one was shot up, or even down, it was always claimed to be by a Spit. Even Knoch (sp?) in his book goes into detail about chasing a shooting down a what he claimed was a Mossie. The location is no where near where any Mossie was operating.

Glider, when was the Mossie mission to Berlin flying undetected till the bombs were exploding? Interrupted some Nazi functions, iirc.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 2, 2010)

Just remember, this is a guy that believes the germans won the Battle of Britain, or at least did not lose. He has told me that he believes they achieved all they set out to do, and then moved onto to bigger and better things.

Hard to have a serious objective conversation with someone who has those beliefs.....


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2010)

Parsifal. Can I ask that you keep calm, lets see what Kurfurst reply is. At the end of the day its clear that the Mosquito bombers' were roaming over large chunks of Germany in 1942 and the Germans were unable to stop them.

In August the Mosquito bombers raided nine major German cities in daylight and only lost three aircraft. Not a great advert for the defence however they were lost be it AA, Fighters, accidents or mechanical failure.


----------



## Nikademus (Jul 2, 2010)

If nothing else....it provides another amusing proof that raw statistics can be interpreted in different ways to support most any argument.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Just remember, this is a guy that believes the germans won the Battle of Britain, or at least did not lose. He has told me that he believes they achieved all they set out to do, and then moved onto to bigger and better things.
> 
> Hard to have a serious objective conversation with someone who has those beliefs.....



I have already asked a few posts above to keep this thread on topic and in order!

That goes for you as well, do not ignore that. Sometimes I feel we are speaking to ourselves.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 2, 2010)

looney said:


> I will give it a try. I hope I got it ready tonight. I'm fairly busy
> 
> P.s. I'm thinking about accuracy, imho it all depends on the Bomb sight and bombs used. Where can I find info on accuracy achieved?
> 
> ...



It is important to specify the amount of fuel which is offset by the bomb load for distance as an example the different versions of the he177 with a comparison of range vs fuel/bombload


----------



## krieghund (Jul 2, 2010)

Also don't forget the first bomber to put bombs on Berlin....The Pe.8


The Piaggio P.108 had 12000 liters of fuel and could deliver 1000kg to 3600km or 3500kg to 2500km.

The B-17F could deliver 2720kg to 4828km on 11022 liters

The Lancaster B.1 had 9791 liters to deliver 6350 kg to 2671KM or 5443kg to 2784KM

and the G8N1 with 14000 liters could deliver 4000kg to 6482KM

more to come....


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2010)

looney said:


> I will give it a try. I hope I got it ready tonight. I'm fairly busy
> 
> P.s. I'm thinking about accuracy, imho it all depends on the Bomb sight and bombs used. Where can I find info on accuracy achieved?
> 
> ...



A good first pass. Initial comments are 
i) The rating for the payload between the B17 and B24 should be similar if not the same as the B24 had a slightly longer range with a certain payload.
ii) I admit I don't understand the crew figure
iii) I would drop accuracy as a factor as most if not all (I don't know about the Japanese) had sophisticated bomb sights by the middle/end of the war.


----------



## Nikademus (Jul 2, 2010)

is type of bomb being factored in? From what i've read, the British heavies had a distinct edge here vs. the US heavies. (B-17/24)


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2010)

Good point, one that I forgot to mention.

Krieghund I think you forgot the Wellington which was the first bomber to hit Berlin. There was a well known story about the Germans who were still at peace with Russia, having a meeting with Russian officials. The meeting was distrupted by an air raid and they went to the shelters. The Germans started telling the Russians that the British were finished and would soon be after peace terms. The Russian Minister turned to the Germans and asked if thats the case, why am I in a bomb shelter and not the British.

It was a hell of a question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2010)

krieghund said:


> Also don't forget the first bomber to put bombs on Berlin....The Pe.8



Well, no wonder Hitler wanted to invade Russia so badly. 

If the Russian were bombing Berlin in the Spring/summer of 1940 It is a wonder the Germans waited as long as they did.

French claim to have put one bomber over Berlin in June of 1940. Farman NC 223.4

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 2, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have already asked a few posts above to keep this thread on topic and in order!
> 
> That goes for you as well, do not ignore that. Sometimes I feel we are speaking to ourselves.



I understand, and will back off . The point i was making goes to objectivity. People can have a helluva lot of knowledge and still argue 1+1=3


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2010)

I will mention again, the USSBS that provided some unarguable truths;

The Lanc had more bombs upon target, and the size of the bombs often had a direct correlation with target destruction and target damaged.

In the end analysis; The Lanc takes #2 in the best bomber of WW2. The B29 of course was #1.

Forget about the He-177 and Mossie. They were non factors. And The B17 and B24 got a lot of press but didnt do as much as what the Lanc accomplished.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 3, 2010)

Just a question but are we looking at the aircraft from the technical angle or from the employment angle of these aircraft. Depending on this criteria can change the outcome of your quest.

You can have the best car and driver in F1 but if your ground crew sucks there you go!!

If the B-29 had the same apathy that was bestowed to the He177 where would we be? For the B-29 suffered its share of engine fires in its beginning and continuing throughout its service life.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2010)

krieghund said:


> If the B-29 had the same apathy that was bestowed to the He177 where would we be? For the B-29 suffered its share of engine fires in its beginning and continuing throughout its service life.


No doubt the B-29 had its share of teething pains during its early development but the USAAF placed the B-29 in an extremely high position of strategic importance, especially when the aircraft got connected to the Manhattan project. The Luftwaffe never placed that emphasis on the He177 and there was still a lot of hostility within the Luftwaffe ranks to the aircraft and its development.


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2010)

krieghund said:


> Just a question but are we looking at the aircraft from the technical angle or from the employment angle of these aircraft. Depending on this criteria can change the outcome of your quest.
> 
> You can have the best car and driver in F1 but if your ground crew sucks there you go!!
> 
> If the B-29 had the same apathy that was bestowed to the He177 where would we be? For the B-29 suffered its share of engine fires in its beginning and continuing throughout its service life.



FJ is correct when he says the B29 was given the highest priority and as a result the bugs were worked out of the system. Its worth reminding ourselves that the same happened to the Lancaster which was a significant development of the Manchester which was a failure. 
It would have been a very easy and understandable decision to drop the Manchester, concentrate on the Halifax as the core of the bombing campaign and use the development resources of Avro on something else such as a long range convoy escort covering the air gap in the Atlantic. 
As it was Avro was given the priority to fix the Manchester.

At the end of the day it was about priorities and available resources. It is a major mistake to blame the ground crew who I am confident moved heaven and earth to make the 177 as good as they could get it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2010)

krieghund said:


> .....For the B-29 suffered its share of engine fires in its beginning and continuing throughout its service life.



The B29 engine fires became far less frequent as engine mods were introduced. As it was, even at its worst, the engines were reliable enough to still allow the plane to go 12 hour missions.


----------



## krieghund (Jul 3, 2010)

Oops bad analogy didn't mean the knuckle draggers (I are one) were the fault of the he177 debacle but I was trying to show if one main component (or support) of a system falters it can bring down even a good design.

I have been reading "Boeing B-29 Superfortress - The ultimate Look: from drawing board to VJ day" W. Wolf 2005 and "He-177 Grief - Heinkel's Strategic Bomber" Smith Creek 2008 of late.

Both provide insight of the pivotal points for the success of one and the failure of the other. because of the R-3350 issues the B-29 almost went to V-3420.

The He177 failure was the poor integration of a successful engine into the aircraft (No Firewall!!!,etc)

The B-29 problem, "they used magnesium where on the engine?"

The RLM took one He177A-5 from the line and researched 57 fixes into it. It flew many hours with no problems however it was too late to incorporate the changes into the assembly line so only a few were accomplished at the bases by maintenance. Reliability did improve greatly but was too late thank god.
Just think if the same political pressure for the B-29 was applied to the he177......fortunately I like sauerkraut and bratwurst washed down with a bitte ein Bit or Konigsbacher.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2010)

Just to complete this part of the thread I have cross referenced the claims with the details as listed in the Bomber Command War Diary.
Before I go any further, I don’t want anyone to think that I am knocking the pilots who made the claims. I am confident that these were made with the best possible intentions and the firm belief that they were true. Accurate claims were always difficult to achieve and aircraft identification in the heat of battle is tricky. All countries had similar problems.

1489 20.06.42 Fw. Heinrich Nöcker: 3 3./JG 1 Mosquito  westl. Helgoland 13.54 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630
_No Mosquito’s flew any combat missions this day_

1643 02.07.42 Uffz. Almenröder aka. Nocker 3./JG 1 Mosquito  7587: 28 km. S.W. Helgoland: 5 m. 13.54 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. 56 
1646 02.07.42 Fw. Heinrich Nöcker: 3 3./JG 1 Mosquito westl. Helgoland 13.54 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630
_2 Mosquito’s were lost one to fighters and one to AA fire. The AA casualty crash landed in Germany and the crew were POW_.

1679 11.07.42 Uffz. Herbert Biermann: 3 2./JG 1 Mosquito  Flensburg 19.09 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
_1 Mosquito was lost in this area, it was thought due to flying into the ground but certainly could be to fighters. Note one Mosquito hit a chimney and came home with part on the chimney in the co pilots lap._

1683 12.07.42 Ofw. Erwin Leibold: 11► 3./JG 26 Mosquito  Licques (Pas-de-Calais) 14.35 Film C. 2036/II Nr.104207/43 
_No Mosquito’s flew any combat missions this day_

2581 14.09.42 Fw. Anton-Rudolf Piffer: 1 11./JG 1 Mosquito  Osnabrück: 8.500m. 14.41 Reference: 1 JG 1 Lists f. 630 
_Mosquito’s did fly combat missions but without loss_

2662 19.09.42 Fw. Rudolf Piffer: 1► 11./JG 1 Mosquito  7349D9: 6.000 m. (Osnabrück) 14.41 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr.1 
_1 Mosquito was lost to a fighter_

1799 28.07.42 Uffz. Karl Bugaj 11./JG 1 Mosquito  6238/ 05 Ost: 5.800 m. North Sea 19.50 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.9 
_1 Mosquito was lost_

1809 29.07.42 Oblt. Reinhold Knacke 1./NJG 1 Mosquito  5243: 8.000 m. 01.10 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.53 
_Mosquito’s did fly combat missions but without loss_

1939 01.08.42 Uffz. Karl Bugaj: 2► 11./JG 1 Mosquito  nördlich Langeoog 13.18 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
_1 Mosquito was lost_

2023 15.08.42 Uffz. Max Kolschek: 1 ► 6./JG 1 Mosquito  5 km. N.W. Ghent 14.20 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
_1 Mosquito was lost_

2202 19.08.42 Ltn. Gerd Steiger 2./JG 1 Mosquito  10 km. N.E. Scharmbeck: 8.800 m. 15.48 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr.45 
2205 19.08.42 n.n. (6 abschuss) 2./JG 1 Mosquito  Bremerhaven 16.15 Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
_1 Mosquito was lost this day on a mission to Bremen_

2375 29.08.42 Ofw. Wilhelm Philipp: 22 ► 4./JG 26 Mosquito  15-20 km. S.E. Hastings: tiefflug 12.53 Film C. 2031/II Anerk: Nr. - 
2379 29.08.42 Ofw. Philipp 4./JG 26 Mosquito IV  Sea: S.E. Hastings: No. 105 Sqn. 12.53 22. Reference JG 26 List 
2391 29.08.42 Ofw. Philipp 4./JG 26 Mosquito IV  Sea: S.E. Hastings: No. 105 Sqn. 12.53 22. Reference JG 26 List 
_1 Mosquito was lost this day, another force landed at base _

2448 06.09.42 Fw. Roden: 1 ► 12./JG 1 Mosquito  41/2/8 F7: 9.000 m. 18.30 -Film C 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 1 
_1 Mosquito was lost_

2464 Night Phase: 6-7. September 194206.09.42 Fw. Roden 12./JG 1 Mosquito  4128F7: 9.000 m. 18.30 - C2036/I Nr. 
_No Mosquito’s flew any combat missions this night_

2501 08.09.42 Ltn. Strohal 12./JG 1 Mosquito  622 8D3: 9.200 m. 19.03 -Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr. 2* 
2506 08.09.42 Ltn.Strohal: 1 12./JG 1 Mosquito  - 19.03 -Reference: JG 1 Lists f. 630 
_No Mosquito’s flew any combat missions this day_

2822 09.10.42 Fw. Fritz Timm: 1► 12./JG 1 Mosquito  - 08.05 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr.3 
_1 Mosquito was lost_

2841 11.10.42 Uffz. Günther Kirchner: 3 5./JG 1 Mosquito  2 km. westl. Utrecht 18.32 Reference: JG 1 List f. 631 
2842 11.10.42 Uffz. Max Kolschek: 2 4./JG 1 Mosquito  westl. Hoek-van-Holland 19.05 Reference: JG 1 List f. 631 
_1 Mosquito was lost this day_

3012 06.11.42 Ltn. Heinz Knoke: 2 2./JG 1 Mosquito  50 km. nordl. Helgoland: 50 m. 14.55 Reference: JG 1 List f. 631 
_No Mosquito’s flew any combat missions this day. Interesting note. 14 Wellingtons and 5 Lancaster’s did daylight raids on Essen, Osnabruck and Wilhelmshaven, while 12 Bostons bombed an airfield at Caen and 10 Venturas carried out raids to Holland. The only casualties were three Venturas_.

3400 22.12.42 Flak: 2. lei.Abt. 847 I-III. Zug 2./847 Mosquito £ E. Axel: 50 m. (Zeeland) 16.47 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr. - - C.2027/I
_1 Mosquito was lost this day_

So to sum up we seem to have 12 losses that match claims


----------



## looney (Jul 4, 2010)

tnx for repliing to my scoring table at the end of page 58. 

Crew I was mentioning to put efficiency in effect. The number or crew aboard a plane is in direct relation to the ergonomics of the aircraft. For instance the Mossie had a crew of 2 while a B17 had a crew of 10. Thus you could outfit 5 Mossies with the same crew. And thus deliver more bombs. However more crew means also better protection (in theory at least). 

I rather discus if crew is a viable factor in how good an airframe is compared to other points. I think we can compare number built as a vable way of how liked the airframe is, only by looking at the other bombers from the same airforce (US and Russia built more bombers than the Japs).

Lets talk about what our dream bomber would look like and then match the ww2 era bombers to it.

P.s. I'm not going to advocate for any1 bomber, simply cause I do not know enough of each.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2010)

looney said:


> Crew I was mentioning to put efficiency in effect. The number or crew aboard a plane is in direct relation to the ergonomics of the aircraft. For instance the Mossie had a crew of 2 while a B17 had a crew of 10. Thus you could outfit 5 Mossies with the same crew. And thus deliver more bombs. However more crew means also better protection (in theory at least).



No. you cannot crew 5 mossies with the 10 men from a B-17. Pilots and Navigator/bombardiers require much more training than air gunners and not every airman can qualify for pilot. In fact in the US service many navigators and bombardiers were men who had "washed out" of flight school to be pilots. Some ground crewmen were aircrew 'wanna be's' (in a good sense) who found that they got violently air sick in some of the confined backwards facing crew positions in some of these bombers. 

You cannot supply 3-5 times the number of pilots without a massive change in the whole training program. Including building many more multi engined trainers. 


looney said:


> I rather discus if crew is a viable factor in how good an airframe is compared to other points. I think we can compare number built as a vable way of how liked the airframe is, only by looking at the other bombers from the same airforce (US and Russia built more bombers than the Japs).


[/QUOTE]

Number built is subject to emotion and interpretation. While we know haw many were built we don't always know why.
Was a B-24 easier to build than a B-17? or cheaper?
Did it promise better performance? 
Remember that the planning and contracts for many planes had to done/signed several years before the planes could really prove themselves in combat. It could also take months to change a factory over from one type to another (and in the case of the B-24/B-17 you also have to change the engine factories over as they used different engines or try to design a version of which ever plan you choose to other engine). If the Americans had discovered in late 1943/early 1944 that the B-17 was markedly better than the B-24 how much choice did they have in changing factories/contracts to alter production totals by thousands of bombers by the end of the war?


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2010)

Some good points here. I would suggest that Pilots and Navigators need the same level of training and the others a third or a half. Its rough and ready but you have to start somewhere. I would ignore cost as it depended on so many factors such as production runs and development costs plus the money available to the country involved. The USA could afford almost anything but the British and Germans couldn't. Also the labour Russian and German labour would be much cheaper than British or US.


----------



## renrich (Jul 4, 2010)

Just any bomber could not deliever the A bomb unless it was a suicide mission. The bomber needed to be fast enough and high flying enough to escape the blast effect of the bomb, not to mention big enough to carry it.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2010)

Glider said:


> 3400 22.12.42 Flak: 2. lei.Abt. 847 I-III. Zug 2./847 Mosquito £ E. Axel: 50 m. (Zeeland) 16.47 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr. - - C.2027/I
> _1 Mosquito was lost this day_



Isn't this an AAA 'kill'?

So German fighters only 'killed' 11 of the 25 they claimed (44% accurate) they made for Mossies in 1942.


----------



## skeeter (Jul 5, 2010)

Hands down, the best bomber of WW2 has to be the B-29 Superfortress. Can there be ANY dispute about that? If so, you climb into your favorite WW2 bomber if other than a 29 and let's go on a bombing mission. Try to keep up and join up at altitude. Try not to run out of fuel if you don't have the range for the given mission profile and bomb load. Crew comfort was also much improved with pressurization. The Japanese had a heck of a time intercepting it at altitude if one is to believe what Saburo Sakai wrote, although it did happen. Yes, the Superfort had it's share of problems, engines and otherwise, but it was a major weapons system with advanced technology for the time being brought online under war time circumstances. The Germans are just lucky that the war ended when it did or Der Furerher (yeah I misspelled it big deal) would have had more egg on his goose stepping face.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2010)

Good thing you edited your post, because Nimitz Class Carriers, B-2 Stealth Bombers and Obama have nothing to do with the best bomber of WW2...


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Isn't this an AAA 'kill'?
> 
> So German fighters only 'killed' 11 of the 25 they claimed (44% accurate) they made for Mossies in 1942.



It looks like an AA kill but don't know for sure so left it in. Kurfurst may be able to help but he seems to have gone quiet.


----------



## looney (Jul 5, 2010)

What difference would have the B-29 made in the ETO? after 1943 the Germans couldn't keep enought fighhters in the air to stop any bombardement. Or are you talking about the NUKE? All german cities already where bombed to crap. Heck even in the PTO it is disputable if a NUKE was more deadly compared to simple incendairy bombes. 

P.s. I reckon 75% at least thinks the B29 is the best bomber. I just want to see what the B29 biggest assets are compared to it's rivals.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 5, 2010)

I actually think pushing the b-29 into the ETO may have had some definite negatives. Sure it was an advnaced design, but it was also a phenomally expensive aircraft to put into the air. It would NOT have been invulnerable in Europe, although its loss rates compared to the B-17/B-24 mix would have been much lower, But when your unit costs are ten or twenty times those of the aircraft you are replacing, which is roughly what they cost, and the bomber offensive was all about numbers and tonnages, I dont think a force of 500 or so B-29s could hope to have the same effect as 3 or 4000 B-17s/B-24. And though their loss rates might be lower, they are not going to be ten or twenty times lower. They might be half or even a quarter as vulnerable, but would still lose out.

And one other thing....B-29s were not effective as conventional bombers operating at high altitude. they either had to carry a nuke, or incendiary bomb at low altitude. This meant they had to bomb at night, and develop night bombing techniques, something that was not really within the grasp of the US until late in the war. 

I dont like Allied propagandists any more than I do German ones......


----------



## looney (Jul 6, 2010)

I heared that the B29 was relative vulnarable also in the PTO until they could be escorted by P38 and P51. After that the Japs had the same problem as the Germans, not enough bomber killers in the air. And the ones you do have are being killed slowly, rookies faster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2010)

looney said:


> I heared that the B29 was relative vulnarable also in the PTO until they could be escorted by P38 and P51. After that the Japs had the same problem as the Germans, not enough bomber killers in the air. And the ones you do have are being killed slowly, rookies faster.



I think only the P-51 escorted B-29s.

As far as being vulnerable - not nearly in the same terms as bombers over Europe. I think B-29 crews would worry more about flak and the weather than being intercepted by fighters, especially at high altitude and at night.

Please don't use the term "Jap."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think only the P-51 escorted B-29s.



Several P-47N units were based on Ie Shima and Okinawa.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Several P-47N units were based on Ie Shima and Okinawa.



Yep - you are correct


----------



## renrich (Jul 6, 2010)

I am under the impression that the B29 raids from high altitude over Japan were relatively ineffective because the high velocity of the winds aloft made accurate bombing very difficult. IMO, the B29 would have been at least as effective at high altitude precision bombing as the other Allied bombers were.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2010)

renrich said:


> I am under the impression that the B29 raids from high altitude over Japan were relatively ineffective because the high velocity of the winds aloft made accurate bombing very difficult.


True


renrich said:


> IMO, the B29 would have been at least as effective at high altitude precision bombing as the other Allied bombers were.


Again true, but they were bringing up to 3 times the bomb load at twice the range with a very effective fire control system. Bomb run speeds were a bit faster as well.


----------



## renrich (Jul 6, 2010)

I was trying to be conservative in my statements about the B29 but frankly, I believe that the B29, if used in Europe in 1945 for conventional bombing would have many times more lethal than the B17s, B24s and Lancs.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2010)

Parsifal, youre correct.

The B29's were not available in huge quantity untill Jan/Feb 1945. By that time the war in Europe had been decided.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2010)

renrich said:


> I was trying to be conservative in my statements about the B29 but frankly, I believe that the B29, if used in Europe in 1945 for conventional bombing would have many times more lethal than the B17s, B24s and Lancs.



Agree...


syscom3 said:


> Parsifal, youre correct.
> 
> The B29's were not available in huge quantity untill Jan/Feb 1945. By that time the war in Europe had been decided.


and agree...


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 6, 2010)

Just for the record; triple digit production was not reached untill Sept 1944, and that was with only 122 (Boeing-Omaha only built 10 in the whole month).

It wasn't until Jan 1945 that monthly production reached 221.


----------



## looney (Jul 7, 2010)

renrich said:


> I was trying to be conservative in my statements about the B29 but frankly, I believe that the B29, if used in Europe in 1945 for conventional bombing would have many times more lethal than the B17s, B24s and Lancs.



But there weren't any B29 to send to Europe. To be effective you need a lot of planes (harder to stop). I think that if they sent 50 B29's to Europa they would get slaughtered. 
There is savety in numbers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2010)

looney said:


> But there weren't any B29 to send to Europe. To be effective you need a lot of planes (harder to stop). I think that if they sent 50 B29's to Europa they would get slaughtered.
> There is savety in numbers.



Not if you are going to drop one bomb.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 7, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I actually think pushing the b-29 into the ETO may have had some definite negatives. Sure it was an advnaced design, but it was also a phenomally expensive aircraft to put into the air. It would NOT have been invulnerable in Europe, although its loss rates compared to the B-17/B-24 mix would have been much lower, But *when your unit costs are ten or twenty times those of the aircraft you are replacing*, which is roughly what they cost, and the bomber offensive was all about numbers and tonnages, I dont think a force of 500 or so B-29s could hope to have the same effect as 3 or 4000 B-17s/B-24. And though their loss rates might be lower, they are not going to be ten or twenty times lower. They might be half or even a quarter as vulnerable, but would still lose out.



Average Unit Cost of Airplanes

B-17 $ 204,370
B-24 $ 215,516
B-29 $ 605,360

Just thought that people so much in love with maths might find it interesting. 8)


----------



## Milosh (Jul 7, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Average Unit Cost of Airplanes
> 
> B-17 $ 204,370
> B-24 $ 215,516
> ...



Those are 1944 costs.

Average Unit Cost of Airplanes Authorized, By Principal Model: Fiscal Years 1939 to 1945
Army Air Forces in World War II


----------



## looney (Jul 12, 2010)

Thus we should add cost price into the equation?


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 12, 2010)

looney said:


> Thus we should add cost price into the equation?



I would say not. The price is subject a number of external factors, such as availability of materials, cost of labour, size of orders placed etc, which are affected by the circumstances of the war itself. The cost price does not have any effectiveness of the airframe itself, and an aircraft that is good value for money at a given point in time may not be at another point, due to the factors mentioned.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2010)

Cost would be one or more threads all on it's own.

Granted cost should be a factor in a planes effectiveness but measuring cost from country to country is almost impossible, you not only have the different currencies but different cost accounting and cost breakdowns. 

Even something as simple as a British 4 engine bomber with different engines, while the airframe was about the same cost, what is the cost of a Merlin engine vs the cost of a Hercules? does the cost of the Merlin include the radiators?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2010)

have to consider fully burdened cost of deploying B-29 - unit cost of production version including overhead, spares cost, trainining cost, daily maintenance and overhaul, etc in comparison with B-17 and B-24.

It starts to matter less if the mission may be performed only by the B-29.. otherwise it better have at least same efficiency of bombs on target and about 80% (or fewer) losses per sortie - mission effectiveness equal. Europe was not a battleground where that kind of performance/mission superiority could be achieved for the B-29 in comparison with B-17 and B-24.

On the other hand the B-17 and B-24 could not perform the B-29 mission from the Marianas or carry the nuclear weapon to Japan.


----------



## skeeter (Aug 7, 2010)

I understand the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden was one of the most able of Japanese fighters when it came to intercepting the B-29. Ironically, Le May said bomb low, pickle those bombs at low altitude so as not to worry about crosswinds taking the bombs off target. During the fire raids on Tokyo and elsewhere, that seemed to be the way to do it. As I write this, it is still August 6th where I am at, the anniversary of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I've never understood the handwringing over why the United States did it. People seem to want to re-write history an they want apologies. My father was in the Navy at the time and had been for over three years. He probably would have been involved in an invasion, and I'm supposed to feel bad that he wasn't? No apologies from me. No sir. Now somebody made a wise crack about my earlier post and my having edited it. I don't know where that came from, but it was a cheap shot.


----------



## paul61 (Sep 13, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> I will mention again, the USSBS that provided some unarguable truths;
> 
> The Lanc had more bombs upon target, and the size of the bombs often had a direct correlation with target destruction and target damaged.
> 
> ...



I fully agree with your 1st 2nd choice although I'm biased towards the Lanc as my Father, uncle, cousin flew them. 
The Superfort couldn't lift the Tallboy-Large @ 22,500lbs.

However, I don't agree with your statement re. Mosquitoes:

How do you dismiss an a/c which would make 2 (yes, TWO!) trips to Berlin, with 2 men + a 4,000 lb. bomb load, in the same 8 hour span that a B17 or B24 would take to deliver 1/2 the total bomb load...... with 10 men, @ half the speed???????????????????????????? 
I didn't even mention the tragic difference in loss ratio!
Cheers.
Paul


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 13, 2010)

It seems there are a lot of iffs and buts

I dont think an airoplane can take the credit for the bomb it dropped the B29 dropped the nuclear bomb but that wasnt its role when designed. It started life as a design in 1939 but wasnt really sorted until 1944/45 and had its role changed from daylight high altitude bomber to nightime low altitude due to numerous problems. It was the most technically advanced bomber of WW2 but if it was the only bomber then the war would be over in Eurpe and Pacific before it got itself sorted.

My vote goes for the mosquito. Designed and flown in a year despite opposition to the concept. Fast light with a two man crew able to use electronic guidance to make precision raids by day or night dropping a bomb load almost the same as heavy bombers on long raids without escort. Also made of a composite laminate material that pointed the way in the future.

If all the merlins used on Lancs halifaxes were put into mosquitos the war would have been different. Without an escort it could carry a bomb load almost equal to a B17 over Berlin and what was it used for? It was used to mark targets while its fighter variant was used to protect the defensively armed bombers who dropped bombs on the fire.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 13, 2010)

plan_D said:


> The Lancaster is not a tactical bomber, syscom. It is not in the same catergory as the Ar 234. The Ar 234 performed tactical missions where nine planes each carrying 1,100 lbs of bombs is very useful.




I know its an old post but destroying battleships, tunnels, viaducts and concrete reinforced installations like sub pens and v3 rocket installations is tactical to me, credit for that goes to the bomb and the only plane at the time that could carry it.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2010)

paul61 said:


> The Superfort couldn't lift the Tallboy-Large @ 22,500lbs.



They did carry them. There's pictures of them doing that somewhere in this forum.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> My vote goes for the mosquito. Designed and flown in a year despite opposition to the concept. Fast light with a two man crew able to use electronic guidance to make precision raids by day or night dropping a bomb load almost the same as heavy bombers on long raids without escort. Also made of a composite laminate material that pointed the way in the future.



The mossie couldnt carry a nuclear weapon 1600 miles away from base, carrying on board bombing radar and nav aids.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 14, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> The mossie couldnt carry a nuclear weapon 1600 miles away from base, carrying on board bombing radar and nav aids.



Sys i agree, that the B-29 was technologically in a league of its own, and was the best bomber of the war. But there is a degree of illogicality in the position you are taking. The B-29 had limits on what it could do as well, like it could not land on a carrier, or undertake U-Boat attacks (during the war at least) or attack shipping all that effectively, or undertake raids unescorted, or hit precision targets as efficiently etc. That does not disqualify it (the B-29) from being considered as the best bomber. Facts are the b-29 could act as a heavy bomber better than anything else that flew. The Mossie was not a heavy bomber, it was a strategic bomber (among a lot of other things that it could do) but that versatility does not make it the best bomber…it makes it a very adaptable aircraft, and perhaps the best allround aircraft of the war, but not the best pure bomber. 

A few points for correction as well. Its true that the mossie could not carry the A-Bomb, but it is not true that it did not carry radar and other very advanced nav aids that made it an extremely accurate bomber. The aids fitted to the Mossie, combined with the inherent stability of the airframe and its relative survivability, are the reasons why it was the main equipment of the pathfinder groups. It had the ability to undertake precision strikes, at night, or in poor visibility, using blind bombing techniques, with a very high probability of hitting the target.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 14, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> The mossie couldnt carry a nuclear weapon 1600 miles away from base, carrying on board bombing radar and nav aids.



I dont disagree that the B29 was the most advanced four engined heavy bomber in WWII. but by the time it was introduced and sorted Japan was already beaten. If for example Japan had sufficient aircraft capable of intercepting it would the USA have risked a nuclear attack? The B29 was the pinnacle of the 4 piston engined bomber but by the time it was introduced we were in the jet and rocket age. However despite its philosophy being the vogue and Boing having all the experience of the B17 it took 5 years to get sorted and then it was problematic. The mosquito made it into service in a year and excelled in many roles despite resistance and negativity to its concept. For years in Europe four engined heavies bombed fields and already bombed areas suffering huge losses mainly because of a dogma.

The mosquito with a pilot and navigator/weapons technician flying using speed and technology for offense and defense was the most popular and practical method of bombing in years to come with Nuclear strikes being handled by missiles. I am surprised the RAF didnt ask for a 4 engined mosquito in WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 14, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I dont disagree that the B29 was the most advanced four engined heavy bomber in WWII. but by the time it was introduced and sorted Japan was already beaten. If for example Japan had sufficient aircraft capable of intercepting it would the USA have risked a nuclear attack? The B29 was the pinnacle of the 4 piston engined bomber but by the time it was introduced we were in the jet and rocket age. However despite its philosophy being the vogue and Boing having all the experience of the B17 it took 5 years to get sorted and then it was problematic. The mosquito made it into service in a year and excelled in many roles despite resistance and negativity to its concept. For years in Europe four engined heavies bombed fields and already bombed areas suffering huge losses mainly because of a dogma.
> 
> The mosquito with a pilot and navigator/weapons technician flying using speed and technology for offense and defense was the most popular and practical method of bombing in years to come with Nuclear strikes being handled by missiles. I am surprised the RAF didnt ask for a 4 engined mosquito in WW2.



Best bomber means what is says. Systems, operations, longevity, etc. Just flying to Japan to bomb it was a hazard in itself, and when B-29 began bombing Japan she was far from beaten.

Wood airplanes don't last long and are hard to repair as discussed. A twin engine tail dragger is not a prime aircraft for freshly minted pilots and although the mosquito had a good safety record, it was a design not destined to advance beyond its operational era.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 14, 2010)

parsifal said:


> The Mossie was not a heavy bomber, it was a strategic bomber (among a lot of other things that it could do) but that versatility does not make it the best bomber…it makes it a very adaptable aircraft, and perhaps the best allround aircraft of the war, but not the best pure bomber.



To a point I agree - the best all round "combat" aircraft. Best all round aircraft of WW2 was the C-47.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2010)

A couple of points.

1. The electronic aids the Mosquito used were not entirely carried on board. The Oboe system required ground transmitters and receivers. The later GEE_H system also required ground stations. 

2. While the jet and rocket age was dawning it wasn't here yet and it would be a number of years further down the road before jet bombers had the payload and range to equal piston engine bombers. Rocket bombers (ICBMS) took a lot longer.

3. With the advent of atomic bombs the interception got a lot more difficult. Getting 10% or even 25% of the incoming bombers wasn't going to be good enough. The defense was going to have to get 100% (or close to it) of the attackers. An extra 150-200mph in speed for the interceptors wasn't going to assure 100% destruction of the attackers. Rocket interceptors (anti-aircraft missiles) that actually worked a fair amount of the time were so far down the road that the worlds bomber forces had been able to convert to jets by the time they were ready.


----------



## zoomar (Sep 14, 2010)

I have a hard time finding fault with anyone who argues the B-29 was the "best" bomber in WW2. From from the sheer performance perspective it was a generation advanced beyond any other level bomber in the war.

However, one might wonder if it could ever have been the most useful or effective bomber, if forced to be the main heavy bomber in the USAAF inventory. The plane had more early teething troubles that either the B-24 or B-17 E-G, and I've read that it was not as resistant to battle damage as the B-17. Although some B-29s were lost to flak and fighters, Japan lacked the well organized and effective system of air defense the Germany could employ in Europe. Few Japanese fighters had the ceiling (or even speed) to intercept B-29s at altitude, and when the USAAF switched to low level night bombing, organized Japanese night defense was nearly nonexistant. Compare this with the massive in-depth air defense system Germany had in place by mid-1944. There is also money to consider. As noted in other posts, the cost per unit for B-29s was far higher than for other heavy bombers, RAF or USAAF. Given the cost of B-29s, together with the near certainty they would experience far higher rate of attrition in the ETO, one wonders if the USAAF could have sustained its bombing campaign against Germany with just B-29s, especially if the war had extended longer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2010)

paul61 said:


> The Superfort couldn't lift the Tallboy-Large @ 22,500lbs.



Not true. 

The B-29 could carry 2 Tallboys that weighted in at 12,000 lbs each. The B-29 was also tested with the 22,000 lbs Grand Slam. The B-29 never used any of these bombs in combat, but it was tested and was able to carry them.

The B-29 was also tested carrying two 22,000 lbs Grand Slam Bombs (one under each wing).

Also on March 5, 1948 a B-29 was modified by Boeing and carried and dropped a 44,000 lb T-12 Bomb.

The Extra-Super Blockbuster 

There are pictures here on this forum somewhere of the B-29 with Tall Boy and Grand Slam bombs. I am sure someone remembers where on the forum.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Best bomber means what is says. Systems, operations, longevity, etc. Just flying to Japan to bomb it was a hazard in itself, and when B-29 began bombing Japan she was far from beaten.
> 
> Wood airplanes don't last long and are hard to repair as discussed. A twin engine tail dragger is not a prime aircraft for freshly minted pilots and although the mosquito had a good safety record, it was a design not destined to advance beyond its operational era.



Flyboy I was just having a discussion. When the B29 was conceived America was looking at the possibility of bombing Europe. True the Mosquito was made of wood but laminated wood, now everyone is looking at advanced laminates. That is not to say that De havilland actually forsaw this development just that it is a point of comparison. While the mosquito didnt advance beyond its era apart from the hornet, which was a long range fighter bomber, the concept did. One avenue is a bigger heavier nuclear option the other is smaller faster and precise. After Nagasaki no nuclear weapons have been dropped but many smaller and increasingly smart bombs have. Some bombs are too big to drop not because of weight but consequences.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 14, 2010)

Hi FB

_Wood airplanes don't last long and are hard to repair as discussed. A twin engine tail dragger is not a prime aircraft for freshly minted pilots and although the mosquito had a good safety record, it was a design not destined to advance beyond its operational era._

Wooden construction has not progressed in military aviation, but in civil aviation, it is going very well, I understand. Plus don’t forget, the Mosquito was laminar construction which made it one of the stronger applications of wood as a structural material.

I agree that wood is not as durable as metal, but neither is it a true representation that it is essentially a short term material. Many Mosquitoes produced during the war were still being used operationally nearly twenty years later. I understand the RAAFs Mossies were not retired until 1962. That’s not a bad serviceability record in anybodies book. With regard to repair of battle damage, as you know, I am not an aircraft mechanic however I have repaired so many wooden boat hulls its not funny. I would say that provided you have the skills to work the materials its no more difficult to repair a wooden structure than it is to repair a metal one. If the material has changing malleability issues, or is not well worked by heat, I would think wood is actually easier to work. But the big if is having the skills to work the material, and there may not be too many carpenters working in the aero industry today….

With regard to general concept in military aircraft, I would argue that the Mosquito represented the future of military aviation, not some antiquated blind alley with no future. The Mosquito was a multi role aircraft, perhaps one of the first of this kind. The B-29 represented a highly specialized, single purpose aircraft. In the post war era, both kinds of aircraft continued to have relevance, but with the rising costs of aircraft, I would say that MRCA have received a far greater level of attention and interest than single purpose aircraft. Even in the narrow confines of strike aircraft, I would say that there have been far fewer, and generally less successful specialized heavy bombers than there have been smaller, faster, lighter multi-role strike aircraft since 1945


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 15, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Hi FB
> Wooden construction has not progressed in military aviation, but in civil aviation, it is going very well, I understand. Plus don’t forget, the Mosquito was laminar construction which made it one of the stronger applications of wood as a structural material.
> 
> I agree that wood is not as durable as metal, but neither is it a true representation that it is essentially a short term material. Many Mosquitoes produced during the war were still being used operationally nearly twenty years later. I understand the RAAFs Mossies were not retired until 1962. That’s not a bad serviceability record in anybodies book. With regard to repair of battle damage, as you know, I am not an aircraft mechanic however I have repaired so many wooden boat hulls its not funny. I would say that provided you have the skills to work the materials its no more difficult to repair a wooden structure than it is to repair a metal one. If the material has changing malleability issues, or is not well worked by heat, I would think wood is actually easier to work. But the big if is having the skills to work the material, and there may not be too many carpenters working in the aero industry today….



The few Mossies that survived into the 1960s were the exceptions as they probably found themselves in a consistent weather environment that helped their longevity. Bottom line wood, (even in today's world) is harder to maintain and repair, requires special skills and environments to properly maintain and repair. Every time you make a repair to a wood structure, be it laminate or any other configuration, you can actually weaken the over all structure. Wood requires more attention to detail and more maintenance. As far as malleability issues on metal aircraft, that's a non issue as unless you have no clue what the aircraft is constructed from, repairs are usually easier and straight forward.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 5, 2011)

This is a very interesting thread to read.

Having read the entire thread (as a new member, so please don't hurl sticks at me immediately), it comes down to either technical ability or effectivenes.

No doubt that the b-29 was a technological wonder and ahead of its time.

However, as Zoomar points out, and I fully agree, usefulnes and effectivenes must be the criteria to qualify for "best".

So maybe the lancaster was not as sophisticated, but it was possible to maintain, to fly and to use by a broad set of people.

...and thereby put bombs on target with "known" technology.

Now, it is not saying that best will then negate technology, but a level of maturity must be expected before 'best" can be applied.

An example (please, allow me), although from different time periods:

Draken/Viggen were designed for landing and take-off on a piece of tar road anywhere and to be serviced (bombed up) by conscripts.

THAT would be useful as you could do turn-around pretty well -> effective and useful.

Now, try and do that with an F-22 Raptor, which is probably the most sophisitcated thing ever invented yet.

Not so useful suddenly if your logistics crack up on you.

Same with B-29, maybe not "best" after all.

Just a thought,

Ivan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> This is a very interesting thread to read.
> 
> Having read the entire thread (as a new member, so please don't hurl sticks at me immediately), it comes down to either technical ability or effectivenes.
> 
> ...



Ivan - I think you're putting too may semantics into this and your own statement solidifies the argument for the B-29. While coming on scene later in the war with both operational and tactical problems, the B-29 overcame them to be both "useful and effective." Let's add the fact that not only was the aircraft successful in placing a mine gauntlet around Japan (a mission that is overlooked by many) but its post war career solidifies your "usefulness and effectiveness" statement.


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 5, 2011)

Now that could be,

but, ... exactly that it became "best" late if not post-war is the thing.

The mining operation is an overlooked contribution in many aspects, totally agree.

I don't think any other a/c could have carried that out-agree 100%

A lot of the books I have read mention the teething problems as severely limiting its usefulnes, but that could be overstated.

Is it fair to claim that it really came into being "useful and effective" after the March '45 raid? And that it was a combination of technology and organisation?

"Best" should also encompass some sort of understanding of the capabilities offered.

Me262 as an example springs to mind ("best" fighter, but not so good as a bomber).

Ivan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> A lot of the books I have read mention the teething problems as severely limiting its usefulnes, but that could be overstated.



In reading some operational data and some forum material by people who actually fixed and flew B-29s, I'm beginning to belive that was the case. No doubt there are major issues, but considering the task at hand the mission the aircraft had to complete, it did well.


ivanotter said:


> Is it fair to claim that it really came into being "useful and effective" after the March '45 raid? And that it was a combination of technology and organisation?


I think it was "useful and effective" before that, it was a matter of getting the results that LeMay and company were looking for. Tactics did play into this as well


ivanotter said:


> "Best" should also encompass some sort of understanding of the capabilities offered.
> 
> Me262 as an example springs to mind ("best" fighter, but not so good as a bomber).
> 
> Ivan



Agree - again you compare the B-29's capabilities to heavy bombers of the period and there were no comparisons. The Lancaster was a distant second, planned Lancaster mods and the Lincoln were closing the gap, but then you had the B-50 on the horizon kicking everything up a notch, but all too late for the WW2.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 5, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Is it fair to claim that it really came into being "useful and effective" after the March '45 raid? And that it was a combination of technology and organisation?
> 
> "Best" should also encompass some sort of understanding of the capabilities offered.
> 
> ...



Ivan - a change in tactics from its design high altitude, high payload system to a low level night attacker made its utilization more meaningful - but did not alter the intrinsic capability.

To those that believe it would not be effective in the ETO? it certainly was more capable than the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster. Could it have achieved more, particularly after March-April 1944 when escort fighters were reducing losses to fighters down to less than 1% - yes. Could it have flown at 28,000 to 30,000 feet and reduced vulnerability to flak - yes.

Would it have been vulnerable to the Me 262 - yes but the 262 wasn't very effective, per se, against the slower and lower B-17/B-24..

Would it be more effective than a Lancaster in night bombing role at 28-30K vrsus 15K? Yes. Would its speed at altitude compounded greatly the night interceptor role? yes.

Was it needed in ETO? No

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 5, 2011)

Flyboy, we do agree then.

When technology, understanding of the capabilities and the right organisation came into play, the B-29 became "best". Whether it was designed for hi-altitude stuff or not, it came into being as a decisive factor in its low(er)-altitude role. I think that is the conclusion of it.

I could imagine there must have been some other examples of "best" at a particular point in time. B-24 and the Atlantic comes to mind, although not bombing cities, it was decisive in the Atlantic and was maybe "best" at that time in '42/43? Just another thought.

Along those lines it is really possible to claim tht the spitfire and the hurricane were the best bomber killers insofar as technology (a/c and RADAR), organisation (Dowding's tribe) and understanding of the technology available (the a/c themselves) came together. But that is another discussion altogether.

I like the other argument: Could it do a lot in ETO? yes, needed? no.

Ivan


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> in which case i shall show CC my source and ask him to confirm it to you all..........



The two bombers are not comparable. Different missions, different aircraft and dissimilar mission profiles.

Both were good.



looney said:


> I heared that the B29 was relative vulnarable also in the PTO until they could be escorted by P38 and P51. After that the Japs had the same problem as the Germans, not enough bomber killers in the air. And the ones you do have are being killed slowly, rookies faster.



At night they were extremely effective. Daylight escort helped to cut the loss rate.



syscom3 said:


> I will mention again, the USSBS that provided some unarguable truths; And a ton of lies. Remember that Galbraith helped to write it.
> 
> The Lanc had more bombs upon target, and the size of the bombs often had a direct correlation with target destruction and target damaged.
> 
> ...



Again that is a matter of subjectivity. All of the mentioned a/c were important.



BombTaxi said:


> I see. But I would suggest that you system is, as Glider suggested earlier, too simplistic. A simple point scoring system would surely make the Avro Manchester, for example a good bomber, as it would have all the plus point of the Lancaster with just one minus for the rubbish engines. This masks the fact that the problem was so severe that the Manchester was a bad aircraft full stop.
> 
> Likewise, the B-17 would be a good bomber on points, but this fails to explain why it was so abysmal in RAF day bomber service - this comes down to poor crew training and faulty operational tactics, which your system doesn't seem to take into account.



The RAF used D's and C's. The E's onward were completely different a/c. They cannot be compared.





looney said:


> I'd have to go with the B-29, there is not much i like about it, but it is the newest bomber and thus the most advanced a ckear advantage.
> 
> I don't rate the Lanc very high cause most of it's missions where carpet bombing of cities which are very large easy targets.
> Any strategic bomber had lousy accuracy (hit was within 250 m I believe), plus the bombs came out in a row sow only 1 or 2 bombs actually hit it's mark. The CEP was about 5 miles. Our bombs were lucky to hit the same country as the target.. Obviously accuracy improved later in the war.
> ...



This is a case of who's tallywhacker is bigger...


----------



## drgondog (Jan 5, 2011)

In that case I could be the Best WWII Bomber.. hmmm, it just never occurred to me..


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

Jeeze...


----------



## Tangopilot89 (May 15, 2011)

Ah, a question I've tossed around for ages. For me it was always a toss up between the Lanc and B-17. 

Liked the Lanc because of its ability to carry a bomb load greater than its own weight, which meant it could carry virtually anything. Plus my grandfather was a Lancaster pilot. But it had no belly armament.

Like the B-17 because of it's near invulnerability, plenty of defensive armament and I've seen some pictures of B-17s with horrific damage and still got back.


----------



## Readie (May 15, 2011)

Both the Lanc and Flying Fort were up to the job required.
I think that the Lanc just pips the Fort as it was more adaptable. The bouncing bomb, Tallboy etc.
Cheers
John


----------



## Glider (May 15, 2011)

And the B29?


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2011)

+1...everything the lanc and the B-17 could do, the b-29 could do better, further, and faster.

But there things that the b-29 could not do, but ther was nothing the b-29 could not do that the lanc or the b-17 could do...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 16, 2011)

parsifal said:


> +1...everything the lanc and the B-17 could do, the b-29 could do better, further, and faster.
> 
> But there things that the b-29 could not do, but there was nothing the b-29 could not do that the lanc or the b-17 could do...



Only the B29 could carry an atomic bomb and have the performance to get the crew far enough away from the blast so as to survive. 

The B17, B24 and B32 could not carry an atomic weapon at all.


----------



## Readie (May 16, 2011)

Glider said:


> And the B29?



The B29 arrived too late to make any significant impact in WW2.
Like other aircraft, the Sea Fury for example, it was the 'next generation'
Obviously it is immortalised as the only bomber to deliver A bombs and (for the time) enjoyed a techincal advantage over older designs.
The main bomber assault on Germany was done by the B17, Lancaster etc.This was the real grinding war of attrition with high losses on all sides.
Had the war gone on another few years then undoubtably the B29 would have superceeded the B17 whether it would have replaced the adaptable Lancaster is not known.I am not aware of any plans to do so.
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> The B29 arrived too late to make any significant impact in WW2.
> Like other aircraft, the Sea Fury for example, it was the 'next generation'


 
The Japanese might take exception to that even without the Atomic bombs. 
Some of the Island hopping strategy/decisions were made for the sole purposes of getting B-29 bases and emergency and/or fighter escort landing fields.
Some of the support for China and flying the hump or efforts to open the Burma road or build the Ledo rd were also, in part, to support anticipated B-29 missions. 
The B-29 played a very large part in the last year of more of the Pacific, either in direct combat missions or in operations/campaigns intended to support the B-29.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> The B29 arrived too late to make any significant impact in WW2.



So the dropping of the Atomic bombs had no significant impact in WW2 let alone the Post War World from 1945 until present?

Also...

Any advantages the Lancaster had over the B-29 were outweighed by the advantages the B-29 had over the Lancaster. Besides as you put it, it was "next generation".


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> Only the B29 could carry an atomic bomb and have the performance to get the crew far enough away from the blast so as to survive.
> 
> The B17, B24 and B32 could not carry an atomic weapon at all.



Yes, of course. But I was thinking more tactical operations like close support, or battlefield recon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2011)

I personally always love the argument about the Lanc and B-29. If you go back and read the 95 pages throughout the history of this thread, it always is the same arguments, and I feel that most are fueled by national bias.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbfoot (May 16, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Yes, of course. But I was thinking more tactical operations like close support, or battlefield recon


If I was a ground pounder the least thing I'd like to see is close air support by heavies , the battle of Normandy is well known for the poor bombing or dropping short by heavies.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> The B29 arrived too late to make any significant impact in WW2.


 The destruction of Japanese military industry, mining all the waters around Japan and the firebombing of Tokyo, let alone the atomic bombing thus eliminating the need for an invasion of the Japanese homeland, yep - not much of a significant impact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (May 16, 2011)

The first prototype made its maiden flight from Boeing Field, Seattle on 21 September 1942. Because of the aircraft's highly advanced design, challenging requirements, and immense pressure for production, development was deeply troubled. The second prototype, which unlike the unarmed first was fitted with a Sperry defensive armament system using remote controlled gun turrets sighted by periscopes,first flew on 30 December 1942, this flight being terminated due to a serious engine fire. On 18 February 1943 the second prototype crashed during its second test flight, an engine fire spreading to the wing, and causing the aircraft to crash into a factory just short of the runway, killing the entire 10 man crew and 20 others on the ground. Changes to the production craft came so often and so fast that in early 1944, B-29s flew from the production lines directly to modification depots for extensive rebuilds to incorporate the latest changes. The Air Force operated modification depots struggled to cope with the scale of work required, with a lack of hangars capable of housing the B-29 combined with freezing cold weather further delaying the modification, such that at the end of 1943, although almost 100 aircraft had been delivered, only 15 percent were airworthy.This prompted an intervention by General Hap Arnold to resolve the problem, with production personnel being sent from the factories to the modification centres to speed modification of sufficient aircraft to equip the first Bomb Groups in what became known as the "Battle of Kansas". This resulted in 150 aircraft being modified in the six weeks between 10 March and 15 April 1944.

The first B-29 combat mission was flown on 5 June 1944, with 77 out of 98 B-29s launched from India bombing the railroad shops in Bangkok and Thailand. Five B-29s were lost during the mission, not to hostile fire.

May 8 1945 VE Day -August 15 1945 VJ Day. So, the B29 career was rather short compared to the B17 and Lancaster. 
I appreciate that range speed made the B29 bomber attack on Japan possible and that the B29 had some features that survived into the 1950's. But, in the context of this discussion about the heavy bombers that contributed the most toward victory it has to be the B17 and lancaster.

I err toward the Lancaster and the site of the BBMF flying makes me very proud and humble at the same time.
The American's feel the same about the Boeing's I'm sure.

To take up the point made by DerAdlerIstGelandet, national pride is also an influence and as we British paid such a heavy price for our liberty in terms of infrastructural damage, lost historical buildings, privation and fear of invasion and percentage loss of life, not to mention 61 years to repay the lend lease, that a lot of the world, America included ,doesn't really understand as they were not in our situation. Like it or not WW2 is still part of British heritage. Much to European amusement I might add.

The other point is that a lot of Europe has taken a slightly anti American and British stance. I find this bit rich as Europe has a lamentably short memory.
I worked in Dover in 2000 - 2002 and at the D day anniversary lots of older Americans and Commonwealth people came to see the D Day beaches.
As with the BBMF I felt quite humble to think of the sacrifices made.

pdfoot makes a good point....neither would I mate !

Cheers
John


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2011)

All that has been mentioned and discussed before - "the heavy bombers that contributed the most toward victory it has to be the B17 and lancaster" if we're talking the ETO, agree. The B-29 shortened the war by months and eventually ended it. The B-17 and B-24 "would have" been replaced by the B-32 had the war continued and it was shown that the Lancaster, even in the later models to include the Lincoln would not have been able to complete the mission in the same capacity as the B-29 did. Weather it served for one year or five years the B-29 served in WW2 and was by far the best bomber to come out of the war in terms of capability and performance, hands down.


----------



## Readie (May 16, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the B-29 served in WW2 and was by far the best bomber to come out of the war in terms of capability and performance, hands down.



Look at the reliability records for B29. How can you make such a sweeping statement?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> Look at the reliability records for B29. How can you make such a sweeping statement?


 
Simple - it still accomplished the mission. At worse the B-29 carried about a 65% Mission Capable rate but because of its capability and bomb load it was able to inflict the required damage to the enemy. The B-29 was the future of modern multi engine aircraft with regards to systems and operations. Yes there were many teething problems with the aircraft but it was at least a half of generation a head of the Lancaster in terms of construction, systems and in most cases, performance. I could start re-posting performance charts to prove my points as can also being up the fact that after WW2 the RAF "borrowed" the B-29 so it had an intercontental strike capability until the first of the "V" bombers came on line, this while the Lancaster was basically being removed from any type of combat duties.


----------



## Readie (May 16, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> After WW2 the RAF "borrowed" the B-29 so it had an intercontental strike capability until the first of the "V" bombers came on line, this while the Lancaster was basically being removed from any type of combat duties.



You are moving on from the original point.
I know that the B29 was very much the next generation of long range bomber and that the Lancaster was removed from front line service.
I was talking about WW2 contribution.
You have your view and I have mine.
Cheers
John


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> You are moving on from the original point.
> I know that the B29 was very much the next generation of long range bomber and that the Lancaster was removed from front line service.
> *I was talking about WW2 contribution.*You have your view and I have mine.
> Cheers
> John


 
In the end so was I but agree...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> To take up the point made by DerAdlerIstGelandet, national pride is also an influence



I certainly agree with you and find nothing wrong with it either. I was just commenting how the topic seems to be like dejavu.


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2011)

Not always, I am British, proud of it and would defend the Lanc as a remarkable aircraft that did many things. But the B29 went further, faster, higher, carried a heavier payload, a greater radius with a far better defence capability and its in my mind foolish to pretend that the Lancaster was even close.

The B29 was the first of the next generation and the Lancaster in my mind, the best of the previous generation, period.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (May 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> Look at the reliability records for B29. How can you make such a sweeping statement?



The B29 was a reliable enough bomber through the latter part of 1944 through the end of the war. Once production ramped up and spares made available, and ground crews increased in proficiency, mission readiness improved.


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2011)

How did the B-29 readiness rate compare with the air force average. Both the british and US air forces had readiness rates for frontline formations of around 72% in the ETO. I would expect it was somewhat lower in the PTO. In early 1942 for example it , it plummetted to about 30%. Perhaps a figure of 65% might be appropriate?. How does the B-29 throughout its career compare with that . It also needs to be remembered the deployment of the B-29 may have something to do with a low serviceability rate. It began in China in the pacific, where the relative isolation of the bases from which was operating surely had an effect. B-29 operations were really not that successful until after two things happened.....the capture of the Marianas, which placed them better and solved the logistic issue, and secondly the switch to low level fire bombing, which greatly increased theuir lethality. If you want to talk about british comparability, it wasnt until the USAAC adopted British Incendiary/HE/Frag loadouts to maximise caualties, damage, and ignite targets. It was the fire bombing campaign that turned the corner for B-29 operations, not the A-Bomb so much


----------



## Readie (May 17, 2011)

Ok, The B29 was an advanced design agreed. However, I suggest that it was flawed in the engine department. '3 turning 1 burning'. I know this issue was resolved eventually but, in the public eye the B29 will be forever the A bomb aircraft not the bomber that defeated Germany.
That honour has to go to the Lancaster, Stirling, Halifax, Wellington and B17. A combined effort.
The B29 delivered devastation to Japan, The British bombers B17 delivered devastation to Germany.
Which was the 'best bomber' ? maybe it doesn't really matter at the end of day.
I read that the Allies guilt over Dresden and the A bomb is a hard legacy, but 'total war' is just that.
I referred to Bomber Harris at the German view in an earlier thread, I'm interested to know how the Allies A bomb / firestorm attacks are viewed in America Australia.
Cheers
John


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2011)

parsifal said:


> How did the B-29 readiness rate compare with the air force average. Both the british and US air forces had readiness rates for frontline formations of around 72% in the ETO. I would expect it was somewhat lower in the PTO. In early 1942 for example it , it plummetted to about 30%. Perhaps a figure of 65% might be appropriate?. How does the B-29 throughout its career compare with that . It also needs to be remembered the deployment of the B-29 may have something to do with a low serviceability rate. It began in China in the pacific, where the relative isolation of the bases from which was operating surely had an effect. B-29 operations were really not that successful until after two things happened.....the capture of the Marianas, which placed them better and solved the logistic issue, and secondly the switch to low level fire bombing, which greatly increased theuir lethality. If you want to talk about british comparability, it wasnt until the USAAC adopted British Incendiary/HE/Frag loadouts to maximise caualties, damage, and ignite targets. It was the fire bombing campaign that turned the corner for B-29 operations, not the A-Bomb so much


 
The B-29 ran about a 65 - 70% mission capable rate and a 30 - 40% fully mission capable rate during the first few months of operations, and I'm pulling those numbers from memory. Much of those MC/ FMC rates were not only due to problems with the aircraft itself, but as you mentioned, supply problem. Also consider that B-29s had to fly some of the longest distances of WW2 to bomb their targets under very unforgiving conditions.



Readie said:


> Ok, The B29 was an advanced design agreed. However, I suggest that it was flawed in the engine department. '3 turning 1 burning'. I know this issue was resolved eventually but, in the public eye the B29 will be forever the A bomb aircraft not the bomber that defeated Germany.
> That honour has to go to the Lancaster, Stirling, Halifax, Wellington and B17. A combined effort.
> The B29 delivered devastation to Japan, The British bombers B17 delivered devastation to Germany.
> Which was the 'best bomber' ? maybe it doesn't really matter at the end of day.
> ...


I agree with many of your points but when I'm asked about the "best" as I pilot and mechanic I look at the total operational capabilities of the machine and although many bombers hold their place in their operational during the war, nothing can touch the B-29. The Lancaster holds a distant second but in terms of systems and configuration (tail dragger landing gear, liquid cooled engines for example) it utilized technology of the day to get its job done. While its performance over Europe can never be questioned, I doubt it could have managed in the same capacity and in the same conditions as the B-29.


----------



## Tangopilot89 (May 17, 2011)

Here's a direct side-by-side comparison. Just click on 'Compare two other aircraft' and they should both be in the list. 

Compare Aircraft - Results

Yes, the B-29 was a great aircraft, one of the first to have a pressurized fuselage I think. But as people have said before, it was an entirely new generation of bomber.


----------



## pbfoot (May 17, 2011)

I've never seen this anywhere before so I thought I'd share it with the forum some bad points on the Lanc it had no deicing on either the props or the wing , and this little pearl from the flight manual about carb icing
"carburettor air intake control. A single lever for the hydraulic operation of all four carburettor hot air intakes is provided beside the pilots seat. Hot air should not be used unless the intakes become iced up and as ice guards are provided this should be rarely necessary. "
The ice guards were screens that covered the air intake
I wonder how many Lancs went down because of icing but all that icing equipment was extra weight that cut down on bombload


----------



## Readie (May 18, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I agree with many of your points but when I'm asked about the "best" as I pilot and mechanic I look at the total operational capabilities of the machine and although many bombers hold their place in their operational during the war, nothing can touch the B-29. The Lancaster holds a distant second but in terms of systems and configuration (tail dragger landing gear, liquid cooled engines for example) it utilized technology of the day to get its job done. While its performance over Europe can never be questioned, I doubt it could have managed in the same capacity and in the same conditions as the B-29.


 
Apart from the word 'distant' I see your point Flyboy.
Have we done this thread to death? 
Cheers
John


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I've never seen this anywhere before so I thought I'd share it with the forum some bad points on the Lanc it had no deicing on either the props or the wing , and this little pearl from the flight manual about carb icing
> "carburettor air intake control. A single lever for the hydraulic operation of all four carburettor hot air intakes is provided beside the pilots seat. Hot air should not be used unless the intakes become iced up and as ice guards are provided this should be rarely necessary. "
> The ice guards were screens that covered the air intake
> I wonder how many Lancs went down because of icing but all that icing equipment was extra weight that cut down on bombload


 
Yep! Also mentioned earlier was the single pilot operation in IMC, a very dangerous situation especially using stone age nav equipment for instrument approach procedures.




Readie said:


> Apart from the word 'distant' I see your point Flyboy.
> Have we done this thread to death?
> Cheers
> John



 several times over, but it just won't die!


----------



## Readie (May 18, 2011)

FLYBOYJ
:lol: several times over said:


> Never say never again eh


----------



## gjs238 (May 18, 2011)

To bomb Japan with the B-24, how close would the airfields have to be?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> To bomb Japan with the B-24, how close would the airfields have to be?


With a 2000 pound bomb load I think you're looking at a 21, maybe 2200 mile range, so one would have to be under 1000 miles to fly a B-24 to Japan, this just off the top of my head.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 18, 2011)

From Joe Baugher's website.

"Range and endurance with a 5000-pound bombload was 1700 miles in 7.3 hours at 25,000 feet (all-up weight of 61,500 pounds) with 2364 US gallons of fuel."
" Fuel: 2364 US gallons in main tanks, plus 450 gallons in auxiliary wing tanks and 800 gallons in extra tanks fitted in bomb bay if required."

B-29A:
" A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude"

Guam is over 1500 miles from Toyko and even Iwo Jima is about 700 miles from Toyko. 

Operating at lower altitudes and slower speeds and needing at least 3 times the number of aircraft to deliver the same weight of bombs even if it can reach, bombing Japan with B-24s doesn't look like a good idea.


----------



## Readie (May 18, 2011)

The Liberator had a combat range of 2100 miles with a payload of 2,700-8,000 lbs. ( Shortround I had typed this out while you posted)

So, to answer your question I reckon about 1000 miles or nearer with a heavier bomb load.
Vladivostok to Toyama 850Km (528 miles) as the crow flys.
Whether this was achievable though is another matter.
Cheers
John


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2011)

B24's (and the few B32's that were flying) were operating from Okinawa in the waning months of the war and doing missions over southern Japan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> B24's (and the few B32's that were flying) were operating from Okinawa in the waning months of the war and doing missions over southern Japan till the waning months of the war.


 They were - 30th BG comes to mind.


----------



## gjs238 (May 18, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Operating at lower altitudes and slower speeds and needing at least 3 times the number of aircraft to deliver the same weight of bombs even if it can reach, bombing Japan with B-24s doesn't look like a good idea.


I suppose that if the B-29 entered service a year or so earlier in the ETO, one could make the same argument against using B-24's against long-range targets w/high bombloads in that theatre as well.

Conversly, if B-29's enter service later, then perhaps (or perhaps not) B-24's somehow become feasible against Japan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> I suppose that if the B-29 entered service a year or so earlier in the ETO, one could make the same argument against using B-24's against long-range targets w/high bombloads in that theatre as well.
> 
> Conversly, if B-29's enter service later, then perhaps (or perhaps not) B-24's somehow become feasible against Japan.


 
The B-29 was never intended for the ETO. The plan was to have the B-32 replace the B-17 and B-24s in the ETO and have the B-32 as a back up to the B-29 in the Pacific, but as history played out both aircraft had development problems and the B-32 was way behind schedule to the point where its fate was sealed as the war ended early because of the atomic bomings.


----------



## gjs238 (May 18, 2011)

But IF the B-29 and/or B-32 had entered service earlier, the way strategic bombers were deployed may have turned out differently than we have come to know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> But IF the B-29 and/or B-32 had entered service earlier, the way strategic bombers were deployed may have turned out differently than we have come to know.


 
Probably, but also remember that tactics had to be developed to make both aircraft effective. Only 3 B-32s made it into combat and there's no way to tell how they would have done in the ETO.


----------



## gjs238 (May 18, 2011)

Right.
I'm just making a reverse argument when using the example of B-29's in ETO.
If B-29 deployment against Japan had occurred much later, or not at all like in ETO, then B-24's against Japan may need to be considered - and the B-24's would need to deploy closer to Japan for that to happen.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Right.
> I'm just making a reverse argument when using the example of B-29's in ETO.
> If B-29 deployment against Japan had occurred much later, or not at all like in ETO, then B-24's against Japan may need to be considered - and the *B-24's would need to deploy closer to Japan for that to happen*.


 
Which would have pushed for an invation of the Japanese homeland


----------



## Readie (May 18, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Which would have pushed for an invation of the Japanese homeland



That is a prospect to conjure with eh...the casualties would have been horrendous.


----------



## gjs238 (May 18, 2011)

Perhaps, or we wait for B-24's to be deployed closer to Japan, then continue the aerial assault that was historically performed by B-29's.
So aerial assault is delayed.
Does that mandate invasion?
Anyway, with no B-29's, how else do you carpet bomb the Emperor?


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2011)

It would be technically feasible to delay the aerial assault until bases even closer to Japan had been developed. However, by 1945, the imperative was to defeat japan as quickly a possible, primarily to liberate the POWs and even more importantly to prevent serious encroachments by the Russians into Chinese and Japanese controled territory. The dropping of the A-Bomb effectively stifled this push by the russians.


----------



## gjs238 (May 18, 2011)

So it seems that fans of the B-29 can justifiably claim that the plane slowed Soviet encroachment.
Also, without the B-29 or B-32, how would the A-Bombs have been dropped?
Were British heavies capable of this?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 18, 2011)

They may have been able to lift the weight but I believe access was needed to bomb while in flight ( at least there was a requirement for access to the bomb when the Douglas A-3 Sky warrior was designed in the late 40s). Getting the British bomber and crew clear of the blast may have been a problem.


----------



## Readie (May 19, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> So it seems that fans of the B-29 can justifiably claim that the plane slowed Soviet encroachment.
> Also, without the B-29 or B-32, how would the A-Bombs have been dropped?
> Were British heavies capable of this?


 
The Lancaster could lift the weight and with a modification allow access to the A bomb.
The issue would have the operational ceiling.
I'm not sure that it would have been high enough to avoid the blast.
Unless, remote control systems could have been used.
I know 'drones' were in the development stage.
Cheers
John


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 26, 2011)

Readie said:


> The Lancaster could lift the weight and with a modification allow access to the A bomb.
> The issue would have the operational ceiling.
> I'm not sure that it would have been high enough to avoid the blast.
> Unless, remote control systems could have been used.
> ...



Oh, so the Merlin wasn't up to the task?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 26, 2011)

Readie said:


> The Lancaster could lift the weight and with a modification allow access to the A bomb.
> The issue would have the operational ceiling.
> I'm not sure that it would have been high enough to avoid the blast.
> Unless, remote control systems could have been used.
> ...



As stated earlier in the thread, placing an atomic weapon on an aircraft with a tail wheel flown by one pilot is a major risk consideration. I don't think the Lanc had the altitude to avoid the blast.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 26, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As stated earlier in the thread, placing an atomic weapon on an aircraft with a tail wheel flown by one pilot is a major risk consideration. I don't think the Lanc had the altitude to avoid the blast.



There is no doubt in my mind that the B-29 was a far superior nuclear weapons carrier than any of the British bomber aircraft, or their postwar developments, the Avro Lincolns and Shackletons. Yet both these aircraft, which were pretty close copies of the Lancaster, could, and did carry nuclear bombs of various kinds.

"The Mark 101 Lulu was an air-dropped nuclear depth bomb (NDB) developed by the United States in the 1950s. It utilized a W34 nuclear warhead, with a yield of 11 kilotons. It was deployed by the United States Navy for the purposes of anti-submarine warfare, in five different models, from 1958 until 1971. Weapons were also stockpiled at overseas allied bases under U.S. Marine Corps guard for use by maritime aircraft of NATO allies, notably at RAF St. Mawgan, Cornwall, UK, for use by Royal Air Force *Avro Shackleton *aircraft, and Dutch Navy P-2 Neptune and P-3 Orion aircraft. The Mk-101 Lulu was replaced by the multi-purpose B-57 NDB in the mid-1960s. The B-57 was a nuclear depth bomb that could also be used by tactical strike aircraft in a land warfare role. The Mk-101 Lulu had a length of 7 ft 6 in, diameter of 1 ft 6 in, and weighed 1,200 lbs.

The W34 boosted fission warhead used in the Mk-101 Lulu was also used in several other similar weapons, and a version referred to as 'Peter' was used as a thermonuclear primary in the British Yellow Sun and as 'Python' in the U.S. B28 nuclear bomb"

Though not widely known the British (and RAAF) Lincolns based at Butterwort were selected to carry the Commonwealth far Eastern nuclear deterrent in the 1950s. This consisted of 48 Red Beard Tactical Nukes. held at RAAF Butterworth in the 50's. though capable, the Lincolns were never deployed as Nukes. For one thing it was a touchy subject in Australia, for another the RAF sent out 3 squadrons of Vulcans during the Malayan Emergency, and it was these much more capable aircraft that took on the nuclear deterrent role in the latter part of the '50s.


Both the Shackleton and the Linclon are of similar proportion, though somewhat better performance. They both had fixed tailwheels, and the lincoln at least just a single pilot....not sure about the shackleton.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 26, 2011)

parsifal said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that the B-29 was a far superior nuclear weapons carrier than any of the British bomber aircraft, or their postwar developments, the Avro Lincolns and Shackletons. Yet both these aircraft, which were pretty close copies of the Lancaster, could, and did carry nuclear bombs of various kinds.
> 
> "The Mark 101 Lulu was an air-dropped nuclear depth bomb (NDB) developed by the United States in the 1950s. It utilized a W34 nuclear warhead, with a yield of 11 kilotons. It was deployed by the United States Navy for the purposes of anti-submarine warfare, in five different models, from 1958 until 1971. Weapons were also stockpiled at overseas allied bases under U.S. Marine Corps guard for use by maritime aircraft of NATO allies, notably at RAF St. Mawgan, Cornwall, UK, for use by Royal Air Force *Avro Shackleton *aircraft, and Dutch Navy P-2 Neptune and P-3 Orion aircraft. The Mk-101 Lulu was replaced by the multi-purpose B-57 NDB in the mid-1960s. The B-57 was a nuclear depth bomb that could also be used by tactical strike aircraft in a land warfare role. The Mk-101 Lulu had a length of 7 ft 6 in, diameter of 1 ft 6 in, and weighed 1,200 lbs.
> 
> ...


Having worked on aircraft with nuclear depth charges (P-3C), the deployment of nuclear depth charge is such that an aircraft like the Lanc, Shack or Lincoln could easily deploy the weapon with little risk to the aircraft upon detonation. At the time of the first deployment of the atomic bomb, these lower yield weapons weren't even thought of and it wasn't until the 1950s when they were developed and deployed in such a capacity that the risk mitigation was minimized, even for a tail wheel aircraft deploying them. Point being is why incur a risk during the deployment of a war winning strike on an aircraft whose basic configuration is obsolete? Of course all this happening around first generation nuclear weapons.


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2011)

We had nuclear depth charges on HMS Tiger, to be dropped using Sea Kings and or Wasps, but I admit I always believed that this must have been pushing the luck of the air crews.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2011)

Yep - just flying around with them could be a but "unnerving"


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 1, 2011)

The "Baker" underwater shot during Operation Crossroads in 1946 used a 22 KT nuke detonating 180ft underwater. Look at the damage it produced. I dont think a helicopter would stand a chance in dropping a nuke depth charge.


----------



## Glider (Sep 1, 2011)

The nuclear depth charge had a variable charge, so the lower the depth of water, the lower the charge. If I remember correctly it varied from 1 to 10 KT but I do agree, it would be a nail biting moment.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 1, 2011)

They've become so much smaller over time


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 18, 2011)

I'd like to pitch up in support of the Lancaster being the best bomber of WWII...


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2011)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> I'd like to pitch up in support of the Lancaster being the best bomber of WWII...



Good god ... is that the real Lancaster Kicks Ass?


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 18, 2011)

Easy. JU 88. Bar none.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Easy. JU 88. Bar none.



Why's that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 19, 2011)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> I'd like to pitch up in support of the Lancaster being the best bomber of WWII...



There is the Lanc I remember...



Ratsel said:


> Easy. JU 88. Bar none.



Yeah okay. 

Certainly one of the most verstatile and best aircraft of the war, but in the bomber role it was hardly the best. 

Is there anything not built in Germany, that you would consider the best? Just asking...


----------



## parsifal (Sep 19, 2011)

Germany was very good at military engineering, and their equipment reflected that. But excellence comes with a price.

The Ju88 was an outstanding aircraft, unquestionably. Versatile, capable, but still limited. It very much represented the compromises made in the German procurement machine in the lead up to the war. Its capability should be neither under or over estimated.

Saying it was the best, bar none is, in my view a clear over-estimation. Without introducing the contention of comparing it to types of foreign manufacture, there are german types that outshone the Ju88. My own favourite was the Ar 234, but even the Ju188, or HS 129 were better in my view.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 19, 2011)

Aw, common, the Hs 129? as a bomber? even as a ground support machine it had a number of flaws.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 19, 2011)

I dont draw any distinction between ground support or general purpose level bombers, other than one was specialized and the other was not. Same reason I would include torpedo bombers in this general category of "best bomber". (this is a similar discussion about best artillery piece.....the thread title doesnt say best heavy bomber, or best strategic bomber, or best level bomber....just best bomber.....which means best at what????). The HS 129 was one of those pieces of German kit that actually was built to maximise resources....in this case using foreign manufactured engines that were not really being used for any other purpose. The type used highly innovative cannon armament that provedd very effective against its intended targets. So it was cheap *and* effective.....similar to items like the MG 42, the MP38 and the Ju87 and Me109, but unlike items like the Tiger, Panther Me262, or their K-18.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 19, 2011)

I am not at all sure that bit of very specialized kit, no matter how good it is at it's particular niche, deserves to be rated at the top (or near to it) in a general category. This sort of like claiming a very specialized AT gun (like the German 75mm/55mm taper bore) was the best artillery piece.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 19, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> Good god ... is that the real Lancaster Kicks Ass?



Of Course, did you miss me? Are you willing to admit yet that the Lanc's better than the B-24?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2011)

In the ETO, it was the better of the three main types. PTO is still a B24 affair.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 19, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There is the Lanc I remember...
> Is there anything not built in Germany, that you would consider the best? Just asking...


Not really. But if I must pick one, the Boeing B-17 practically won the war in the ETO. So I would pick that one. Even though it was limited in what it could do besides drop bombs.


----------



## woljags (Sep 19, 2011)

overall my vote would be for the Lancaster just because the best types aircraft still used for each job fighters and bombers a like were still used in service well after the war ended,i do have a soft spot for the B24 but by the end of the war the americans had B29's and don't forget 2 B29's finished the war with just 2 bomb raids and the bomb,i think i'm right in saying nothing else could have carried it to its target but stand to be corrected by people with more knowledge


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Not really. But if I must pick one, the Boeing B-17 practically won the war in the ETO. So I would pick that one. Even though it was limited in what it could do besides drop bombs.



The USSBS showed that the Lanc was superior in the categories that counted ... payload, bomb types and percentage of hits on target.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 20, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Not really. But if I must pick one, the Boeing B-17 practically won the war in the ETO. So I would pick that one. Even though it was limited in what it could do besides drop bombs.



B-17 won the war in ETO? That is surely backed by some master/doctoral thesis?


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 20, 2011)

"_master/doctoral thesis_"

ha! me? hardly...  thousands of bombers hammering German factories, fuel/oil plants-depots, railways, areodromes, etc., takes a toll on limited German resources. But I did say "practically" though. Also, as said earlier, two B-29's *ENDED* the war in the PTO. Keep in mind however I am not taking anything away from the sacrifices of the brave soldiers who were on the ground, or the fighter pilots to keep those bombers safe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Not really. But if I must pick one, the Boeing B-17 practically won the war in the ETO. So I would pick that one. Even though it was limited in what it could do besides drop bombs.



Yeah okay, but I will still make two observations...

1. Ju 88 does not come close to being the best bomber of the war. Like I said, great aircraft and one of the best to see service, but not the best bomber. 

2. Just because an aircraft was built in Germany, does not make it the best. Sometimes it is best to put national pride aside...


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 20, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah okay, but I will still make two observations...
> 2. Just because an aircraft was built in Germany, does not make it the best. Sometimes it is best to put national pride aside...


Oh I know that  . Győr, Hungary built some excellent aircraft also


----------



## parsifal (Sep 20, 2011)

two bombers won the war in the pacific...you think.

A unique view on WWII I guess


----------



## Kryten (Sep 20, 2011)

surely if its the best bomber of the war, it has to be the B29?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2011)

Kryten said:


> surely if its the best bomber of the war, it has to be the B29?


Coming full circle, without a doubt.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 20, 2011)

It was the best bomber, but i would draw the line that just two of them decided the issue in the pacific.

Dropping the A-bomb was a major event of WWII, but it was not the major event that decided the war in the pacific. The single most potent weapon (system) in the pacific war were the US submarines, followed by the fast carriers, followed by liberty ships. The biggest influences on the outcome, and the reasons for Japanese surrender, after the abovementioned big three were the US Marines, the Red Army, the US army air corps, and distantly behind that, the US and Australian Army, the Chinese forces, the forces in SEAC and even further behind, the BPF. 

The above list is in rough order of importance. The B-29s formed part of the USAAC, so in part rank about sixth in importance in causing Japanese surrender.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2011)

parsifal said:


> It was the best bomber, but i would draw the line that just two of them decided the issue in the pacific.
> 
> Dropping the A-bomb was a major event of WWII, but it was not the major event that decided the war in the pacific. The single most potent weapon (system) in the pacific war were the US submarines, followed by the fast carriers, followed by liberty ships. The biggest influences on the outcome, and the reasons for Japanese surrender, after the abovementioned big three were the US Marines, the Red Army, the US army air corps, and distantly behind that, the US and Australian Army, the Chinese forces, the forces in SEAC and even further behind, the BPF.
> 
> The above list is in rough order of importance. The B-29s formed part of the USAAC, so in part rank about sixth in importance in causing Japanese surrender.



Most historians say that the subs isolated Japan (took them till late 1944 to do it) and the B29's forced them to surrender. I also take the view that once the US was in the PI in late 1944, subs or no subs, no Japanese shipping was going to escape the allied air forces that could range at will throughout the south China sea. And of course, we cannot forget to mention the role the B29's had in mining the Japanese coastline that the subs couldn't get to.

The Red Army? Just what exactly did they do?

US Marines? A lot more army units were in the mix fighting just as many, if not vicious battles.

The war in the Pacific was a complex campaign that could not have been successfully fought without complex inter-dependencies between naval, ground and air assets, amongst the several nations.

And what event ended the war? The sub blockade or a pair of B29's carrying atomic weapons?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 20, 2011)

hi Sys

_Most historians say that the subs isolated Japan (took them till late 1944 to do it) and the B29's forced them to surrender. I also take the view that once the US was in the PI in late 1944, subs or no subs, no Japanese shipping was going to escape the allied air forces that could range at will throughout the south China sea. And of course, we cannot forget to mention the role the B29's had in mining the Japanese coastline that the subs couldn't get to._


The b-29s played a part, but japan showed only grudging inclination to accept the allied surrender terms. In the first instance the conventional bombing campaign had only a very limited effect on the japanese inclination to surrender.

The US got to the PI for two reasons, the effects of the sub campaign, which prevented the Japanese from properly garrisoning the islands needed to get to that location, and the operations of the fast carriers that destroyed the successive Japanese air and naval assets thrown up to defeat them. The marines (and i grant you, the army formations that helped them) took the ground at a respectable cost in allied lives.

B-29s in mining operations was another element of land based airpower that contributed to the military defeat, but not the surrender. and as an element of the military defeat, its effect was significant but limited especially the role played by the b-29s. Most mines were in fact dropped by B-24s and PBYs as i understand. 


_The Red Army? Just what exactly did they do?_

The Japanese leadership was not moved to surrender, until after the Russian attack. Read the deliberations by the japanese government of the time. They were more concerned about the Russians invading Manchuria than they were about the A-bombs being dropped. I dont understand the logic, but it was the russian invasion that was their main concern that led to surrender, not anything that the allies did. 

If the Russians had not invaded, there is every chance the Japanese would have hung on grimly till the end 


_US Marines? A lot more army units were in the mix fighting just as many, if not vicious battles_.

I grant you that those army formations that were attached to the MAF were just as important as the marines themselves. I would consider them to be part of the marine force incidentally. 

However, if you are referring to army units not involved in the amphibious campaigns, then no, i dont agree. Their involvement in the new Guinea campaign, for example, outside the operations of the 7th fleet, were very limited....mostly defensive garrisons and the like. 


_The war in the Pacific was a complex campaign that could not have been successfully fought without complex inter-dependencies between naval, ground and air assets, amongst the several nations._

Agree completely


_And what event ended the war? The sub blockade or a pair of B29's carrying atomic weapons_?

To be glib, neither, and yet both. The b-29s could not do what they did, without a whole lot of other elements at work, taking years to achieve and involving a whole range of factors. The subs did not end the war, but they ended japans ability to coninue effective resistance, and would have forced the japanese to surrender in the finish, or die.

But none of these efforts, taking years to achieve amount to the single most important event to influence the japanese to surrender. That unfortunately can be claimed by the reds. They were the single greatest influence that induced the japanese leadership to surrender....that and the few words spoken by the emperor


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Oh I know that  . Győr, Hungary built some excellent aircraft also



And the allies just made junk? 

Doesn't speak well for your beloved Luftwaffe, that they were beaten by junk.


----------



## Mustang nut (Sep 21, 2011)

I would love to have a beer with readie and ratsel together


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 21, 2011)

Nope. I never said they made junk. the P-51 Mustang was a very capable fighter, sleek, elegant, FAST, with the firepower to back her up. The P-47 was an ugly bird, but built tuff as nails the 8 50's could carve up an Me 109 to ribbons. B-17 was a flying tank, can deliver a punishing payload and her 50's did the job of defending very well. P-40's, although outdated failry fast, had excellent dive charactoristics, great turn radiuses roll rate. Her six 50's where as the P-51, very adequate to shoot down a 109. The P-38 also was a very capable fighter, but was outmatched against the Me 109G-10. B-24 could fly higher and faster then a B-17, but It was structurally weaker the the B-17. Spitfire well, overrated a/c in my opinion, the Hurricane was the true hero of Britian. All these a/c were great IMO. Even the P-40. I'm not saying the Me 109 was the be all end all of fighters, but technically it was one of the best. Nevermind the vastly superior pilots (in most cases) that flew her.

So yes the Allies made some very good aircraft.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 21, 2011)

a lot of people with an axe to grind like to claim the spitfire was overrated, yet its the one aircraft just about every pilot who flew them (despite flying many different types) raved about, and thier opinions have a lot of credibility, as they know what they are talking about!
if you look at world war two in its entirety, there were only two aircraft the germans fielded that gave the allies a nasty suprise, and that was the FW190 in 42 and the Me262, and the FW190 was matched within a year!
other than those two instances, the allies had comparable or more capable aircraft in every catagory!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> B-17 was a flying tank, can deliver a punishing payload and her 50's did the job of defending very well.



The B17 had smallest payload of the three heavy bombers in the ETO. As for defending itself? Not really.



> B-24 could fly higher and faster then a B-17,



Really? Who told you that.



> Nevermind the vastly superior pilots (in most cases) that flew her.



Quite a few allied aces would like that statement.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 21, 2011)

1. boxed flying formations.. very good defensively.

2. wikipedia

3. I sure they would. .25 of a kill at a time.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 21, 2011)

3. I sure they would. .25 of a kill at a time. 

well even .25 is better than a bunch of bogus propaganda claims and photo opportunities!


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 21, 2011)

Kryten said:


> 3. I sure they would. .25 of a kill at a time.
> 
> well even .25 is better than a bunch of bogus propaganda claims and photo opportunities!


true that!

but even if half or a 1/3 of the Luftwaffe claims were legit... hmmmmm... and we all know the Allies were dreaming to when it came to the same thing (overclaims)..


----------



## Altea (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Nope. I never said they made junk.
> 
> So yes the Allies made some very good aircraft.



Neither allies, nor even the soviets made junk. In 42/43 the Ju-88 was beaten in all points by the Tupolev 2 dive bomber*, except maybe in engine reliability. This if you're looking for the planes of the same category.

Now i don't see really why the best WWII bomber should be a tactical one. But in that case, the Ju-88 was condiderably outperformed also, by the A-26 invader.


In NII-VVS trials the first serial Tu-2 (42), failed to reach the requested performance (>530 km/h), flying only at 514 km/h max-continuous at 6 160m. The ill-working M-82 engines provide 521 km/h at 3 200 m that was aberrant (plane should have been fly 25-30 kmh faster at height).
Even with that default, it was much better than the best Ju-88 A6 tested in NII, that year with 2 perfectly working Jumo-211G: 452 km/h at 4900. 
And 490 km/h à 5000m for the soviet B-25C.

Unlike the Ju-88, that was a tactical bomber with "some" diving capabilities, (restricted in fact to 30-40° continuous, and up to 60° for short periods) the Tu-2 was moreover a "full dive bomber" from the blueprints as the Ju-87 or a Dauntless, and could withstand continuous 80° dives from the ceiling to low alts.

The late serial Tu-2 with M-82FN, reached 559 km/5 775m and 516 at SL, in 1943, that was even better than state requests (550, in fact 547 for the definition (experimental) plane).

Regards


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> . Spitfire well, overrated a/c in my opinion, the Hurricane was the true hero of Britian.


Ah, the famous "Hurricane won the Battle of Britain" myth. 19 Spitfire Squadrons (228 a/c) destroyed about 530, losing 276 aircraft in the process; 30 Hurricane Squadrons (360 a/c) destroyed about 655, losing 406.
And we can discount the Lancaster, as well? Which aircraft so severely damaged Peenemunde, killing one of Germany's top scientists, that it delayed the V1/V2/V3 campaign by months? Which aircraft destroyed the Tirpitz, freeing the Navy to go after other targets? Which aircraft wrecked the V weapons facilities at Watten, Wizernes, Siracourt, Marquise/Mimoyecques, rescuing London from terror? Which aircraft stopped Panzers getting through the Saumur tunnel, to reinforce German forces in Normandy? Which aircraft knocked holes in U-boat pens, with Tallboys, which other a/c only scratched with 500lb bombs? Which aircraft drained the Rhine basin by destroying the Kembs Barrage? It has become traditional to say that the B-17s B-24s attacked strategic targets, while the Lancasters Halifaxes only killed innocent civilians, which is a gross slur on Bomber Command.
Edgar


----------



## parsifal (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Easy. JU 88. Bar none.



Youve been asked several times already, and instead have deflected the question by making contentious posts aimed to inflame this thread....in other words throw the hounds off your scent. But with forlorn hope, I will ask the question properly, and again. 

What operational and or technical reasons do you have to support this claim that the Ju88 was the best bomber bar none, from any of the combatants, in WWII.

I await your answer with interest.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> true that!
> 
> but even if half or a 1/3 of the Luftwaffe claims were legit... hmmmmm... and we all know the Allies were dreaming to when it came to the same thing (overclaims)..



and you still end up with a non comparable result, simply because of the operating procedures of the opposing air forces, and by that I refer to section leaders getting first strike on any attacks at the expense of thier rotte and the allies totally different rest sytem, not to mention the actual number of enemy aircraft with whom to engage!

its a fools game trying to claim superiority when your not comparing like with like or even have any real understanding of war, and bear in mind huge numbers of "experten" died at the hands of alledged inferior pilots!


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 21, 2011)

_and bear in mind huge numbers of "experten" died at the hands of alledged inferior pilots! _

I can get into a billion reasons why experten died, but thats for another thread.

_'I await your answer with interest'_.

I'm afraid that no matter what I say, it will be unsatisfactory, so I'll pass.

_while the Lancasters Halifaxes only killed innocent civilians, which is a gross slur on Bomber Command._ 

not really that much of a gross slur. BC gave orders to bomb civilian targets with no hint of factories or military installations, did they not?


----------



## Kryten (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> _and bear in mind huge numbers of "experten" died at the hands of alledged inferior pilots! _
> 
> I can get into a billion reasons why experten died, but thats for another thread. you can scrabble around as much as you like, those men fought and died in combat with other aircraft, just like thier victims!
> 
> ...


 just like guernica?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2011)

Folks, please get this thread back on track.


----------



## Readie (Sep 21, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I would love to have a beer with readie and ratsel together



As long as its a Shepherd Neame Spitfire pint or two drunk in the Smugglers at St Margarets at Cliffe I'll be there...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2011)

Mildly more on topic, some claims made about the B-17 were made which I don't think were covered enough, the use of defensive formations so they can cover each other for example, didn't really work. They were still shot down in droves, it was the eventual fighter escort that made the difference. Don't kid yourselves that B-17s were so amazingly accurate that they didn't kill civilians either!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> _
> 
> I'm afraid that no matter what I say, it will be unsatisfactory, so I'll pass.
> 
> _


_

I think you pass because you know it was not the best "bar none" as you call it. If it were, you would provide facts that prove it, and happily do so. 

If you were to argue that it is "the most versatile" or "one of the best" then you would have a reason to stand. You however chose to use the words "bar none", now back it up._


----------



## Readie (Sep 21, 2011)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Mildly more on topic, some claims made about the B-17 were made which I don't think were covered enough, the use of defensive formations so they can cover each other for example, didn't really work. They were still shot down in droves, it was the eventual fighter escort that made the difference. Don't kid yourselves that B-17s were so amazingly accurate that they didn't kill civilians either!




I got our American friends to finally agree that the Lancaster was the better bomber in the ETO.
The RAF were much better at precision bombing.. that is all well documented.

The only point I had to sort of concede was that the SuperFort was the next generation bomber and therefore more a little more technically advanced than our beloved Lancaster.

Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> The only point I had to sort of concede was that the SuperFort was the next generation bomber and therefore more a little more technically advanced than our beloved Lancaster.
> 
> Cheers
> John



Little more???


----------



## Readie (Sep 21, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Little more???




If the Americans had fitted decent RR motors instead of those crude air cooled radials then one could admit that that the B29 had its uses.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2011)

Looked like a massive silver turd too...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2011)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Looked like a massive silver turd too...


That out performed all marks of the Lancaster


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2011)

not in looks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2011)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> not in looks



Coming from the guy who thinks French bombers look sexy...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2011)

I said that  

I'd like to issue an apology if I ever did say that, it must have been a very long time ago. I was young, stupid and didn't know what I was saying.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> . BC gave orders to bomb civilian targets with no hint of factories or military installations, did they not?


So what? They were only following the lead of the air force which bombed Guernica, Rotterdam, Hull, Coventry, Exeter (not renowned for their factories and military installations,) and I don't recall any Lancaster gunners mowing down civilian refugees, as was done in France. During a recent interview, one ex-Lancaster pilot faced some hostile questions, including,"Didn't you feel guilty, dropping bombs on civilians?" "Not really, I just felt, each time, that it was one back for Coventry."
Edgar


----------



## parsifal (Sep 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> As long as its a Shepherd Neame Spitfire pint or two drunk in the Smugglers at St Margarets at Cliffe I'll be there...



Hey dude...welcome


----------



## parsifal (Sep 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> _
> 'I await your answer with interest'.
> 
> I'm afraid that no matter what I say, it will be unsatisfactory, so I'll pass._


_

Adlers response says it all really. You cant complain if we dismiss your claim then as mindless drivel, unworthy to be even considered in this discussion.

Sure, you were in for a spirited debate over your remarks, but then, if the issue was as clear as you suggested, you would have no trouble in demolishing our counterarguments_


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2011)

Well, since our pretentious young friend wont post the capabilities of his pet aircraft, I guess I have to.

This is an extract from U-Boat net that gives a pretty good commentary on the capabilities of the type


"_The Junkers Ju 88 was one of the most versatile and effective combat aircraft of World War II. Its closest counterparts on the Allied side were the Mosquito and Beaufighter. The German aircraft was larger and slower, but nevertheless very effective. 14,676 were built, including a staggering 104 prototypes for its 60 different versions.

Like the Mosquito, the Ju 88 originated as a fast bomber. In 1935 the Luftwaffe had a requirement for a so-called Schnellbomber, which should have a speed of 500km/h with 800kg of bombs. This was much faster than the biplane fighters that then equipped the German fighter units; it was even faster than the first models of the Bf 109 monoplane fighter. For this ambitious goal Henschel proposed the Hs 127, Messerschmitt the Bf 162, and Junkers submitted the designs Ju 85 and Ju 88. Later the Bf 162 achieved some fame when it appeared on German propaganda postcards, but this was disinformation, and the real winner was the Ju 88.

Chief designer was Ernst Zindel. The first prototype (Ju 88V1) made its first flight on 21 December 1936. The Ju 88V1 had an all-metal, stressed skin construction; Junkers hired two American engineers to acquire knowledge about the latest structural developments. The Ju 88V1 had a compact, well-streamlined cockpit roof and a pointed nose. It was powered by Daimler-Benz DB 600 engines, installed in cowlings with circular radiators. The inverted V-12 engines were installed in front of the wing leading edge, not under the wing. Because of the long cowlings the Ju 88 earned the nickname Dreifinger, three fingers. The Ju 88V1 was lost before performance tests could begin, but the type had already shown great promise.

From the third prototype onwards the engines were changed to Junkers Jumo 211, because the scarce Daimler-Benz engines were reserved for fighters. The fourth prototype, the Ju 88V4, featured the "beetle eye" cockpit of the production aircraft, a four-seat cockpit covered with a large number of small, flat transparencies. It also had the ventral gondola under the nose, from which a gunner could fire rearwards. In contrast, the Ju 88V5 was completed with a maximum of streamlining, and on 9 March 1939 it set a closed-circuit record by flying 1000km with 2000kg of load at an average speed of 517km/h. It was a sensational public debut.

Meanwhile, the general staff of the Luftwaffe made some fateful decisions. On the one hand the Ju 88 was given the highest possible priority, with increasing concern expressed as the war came nearer and production still remained behind schedule. On 15 October 1939 Dr. Heinrich Koppenberg was put in charge of it, and given the authority to requisition any production facilities he needed; but the results were still disappointing. On the other hand the Luftwaffe had requested that the Ju 88 would be converted into a dive bomber. This inevitably slowed down the development and reduced flight performance. Installing dive brakes under the wing was the smallest problem: The need to reinforce the structure for dive bombing attacks caused a considerable increase in weight. Larger internal bomb bays and external bomb racks for four 500kg bombs increased the problems, and when the first production aircraft came off the line in August 1939, a number of restrictions had to be imposed. Even after all necessary modifications had been carried out, pilots did not usually achieve dives steeper than 60 degrees, although the excellent flying characteristics and automatic dive bombing equipment of the Ju 88 did not make such attacks particularly difficult. But there was little operational need for dive-bombing, except for anti-shipping missions.

The Ju 88 was certainly an excellent aircraft. It was easy to fly, gentle, responsive, and manoeuverable, without vices. These were the characteristics which also made it an excellent nightfighter. A point of criticism for allied test pilots was the cockpit. The extensive framing of the many panels resulted in a fairly restricted view. In the bomber versions it was also rather cramped and inefficient, although the close grouping of the crew made communication easier.

The War breaks out ...

When the war broke out the Ju 88 was an excellent bomber, but only a handful were available and production was not more than one per week. Just one Gruppe was equipped with Ju 88s. In the third week of the war four Ju 88A-1s attacked British warships at Scapa Flow, but they caused no damage. A Ju 88 had the dubious honour to be the first German victim of RAF fighters, on 9 October 1939, but nevertheless the RAF recognised it as the most formidable bomber of the time. The most important bomber version was the Ju 88A-4, with longer span wings, a stronger airframe, and Jumo 211J engines. It appeared in the summer of 1940. The strong points of the Ju 88 were speed and a significant bomb load. Its weak points were its short range (this was often extended by carrying additional fuel tanks in the bomb bays), a cramped and inefficient cockpit, and poor defensive armament. During the Battle of Britain the Ju 88 proved that it was the best German bomber, but operations from bases in Norway, without fighter escort, still resulted in heavy losses. And as the fight progressed, a shortage of trained bomber crews became apparent.


3 Junkers Ju-88A-4 bombers. 
Note the "beetle eye" cockpit glazing and the ventral gondola with gun position. 

The more streamlined Ju 88B series did not enter production, but was developed into the Ju 188, the successor of the Ju 88. But in 1942 a new attempt was made to increase the speed of the Ju 88. The resulting Ju 88S had a well-streamlined glass nose, and BMW 801 radial engines or Julmo 213 in-line engines with more power the Jumo 211. On most aircraft no external bomb racks were fitted, the ventral gondola was often removed, and armour was reduced. This increased speed to 612km/h, much faster than most other bombers of the war.

Meanwhile, a very different line of development had begun. The Reichsluftfahrtsministerium (RLM) had granted Junkers permission to pursue, at low priority, the development of a heavy fighter-bomber version. This became the Ju 88C. The transparent bomber nose was replaced by a metal nose cap, containing at first three 7.92mm machineguns and one 20mm cannon -- a relatively modest armament, but many models could carry two more 20mm cannon in the gondola under the nose. There also were a lot of variations in defensive armament. The Jumo 211 engines were retained, because the Ju 88C had too low a priority to get the desired BMW 801 radials. The first production model, Ju 88C-2, retained bomb bays, and it operated as a long-range coastal patrol aircraft, initially flying anti-shipping strikes from bases in Norway. Soon the Ju 88C-4 appeared and its roles were extended to include night attacks on British airfields, ground attack missions, flying escort for transport aircraft, and providing air cover for convoys.

Specifications

Ju 88A- 
Engines 2 Junkers
Jumo 211J-1 
Power 1350hp 
Wing Span 20.00m 
Length 14.40m 
Height 4.85m 
Wing Area 54.50m2 
Empty Weight 9060kg 
Loaded Weight 12350kg 
Max. Weight 14000kg 14674kg 
Max. Speed 470km/h at 5300m 
Ceiling 8200m 
Climb 9850m in 26.4min 
Range 2730km 2940km 
Armament One 13mm MG131 or two 7.92m MG81 in the nose; two MG81 in the rear of the cockpit, two MG81 in the ventral gondola. Up to 2000kg of bombs. Three 7.92mm and three 20mm MG FF cannon in the nose. Two rearwards-firing MG131 or MG81 guns. Up to 500kg of bombs. Four 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in ventral pod, two upward firing MG151/20, one aft-firing 13mm MG131_."


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2011)

Now, a comparison with its main rival, the Mosquito

"_The de Havilland Mosquito was one of the most successful aircraft of the Second World War. Only the Junkers Ju 88 could rival its versatily. All this was achieved by an aircraft which encountered great resistance when it was offered to the RAF. 

The Mosquito was designed as an unarmed, high-speed bomber. By dispensing with defensive armament the size, weight and drag of the aircraft could be greatly reduced. It was assumed that the resulting small, fast aircraft bomber would be almost impossible to intercept. The de Havilland design team lead by R.E. Bishop, R.M. Clarkson and C.T. Wilkins proposed the design of a twin-engined bomber, able to carry 1000 pounds (454kg) of bombs over 2400km, and able to reach a speed of 655km/h. The staff officers of the RAF and the officials of the Air Ministry where highly skeptic. They had earlier seen how some "fast" bombers had fallen short of the promised performance, or had been overtaken by progress in fighter designs, and became highly vulnerable. Also, de Havilland proposed a wooden construction, which is generally heavier than a metal one, but could be given a very smooth finish. However, a wooden structure was certain to deteriorate in a tropical climate, an important consideration for the RAF.

The project proceeded hesitantly, and would probably have been cancelled definitively without the support of Sir Patrick Hennesy. Finally, a small series was ordered, as reconnaissance aircraft. The prototype was built in great secrecy in Salisbury Hall, and made its first flight on 25 November 1940. The D.H.98 handled well and reached 632 km/h, faster than the fighters in production. 

The Mosquito was a exceptionally streamlined design. The fuselage was made in left and right halves, which were shaped in concrete rigs and then joined. They were made of balsa wood between two layers of cedar plywood. The rest of the airframe was primarily made of spruce, with plywood covering. The wing was built in one piece, and attached to the lower side of the fuselage structure. The bomb bay was below it. The Merlin engines were put in steel-tube mountings in underwing nacelles, which also contained the main landing gear. The radiators were housed in the extended leading edges of the wing center section, with inlets in the leading edge and outlets under the wing. This was an arrangement which reduced drag and even contributed positive thrust. The cockpit, over the wing leading edge, had seats for the pilot and the navigator. The bomber and reconnaissance models had a transparent nose. 

The first production version was the PR Mk.I reconnaissance aircraft, powered by Merlin 21s, which arrived in the summer of 1941. Only a few of these were built, before production was switched to the B.IV bomber. The first Mk.IVs were converted Mk.Is, but from November 1941 on wards the production B.IVs arrived. Originally they carried four 250 lb bombs, but later a switch was made to four 500lb bombs with shortened tail fins. The PR.IV was a reconnaissance conversion of the B.IV. The T.III trainer appeared in early 1942, but was built in relatively small numbers.

From the start, high priority was allocated to a heavy fighter version, and the initial contract was amended so that half the order became fighters. They emerged as NF.II night fighters, with four 20mm cannon, four .303 machine guns, and AI Mk.IV radar. The NF.II became operational in May 1942, somewhat delayed by a shortage of Merlin engines and the end of the German night bomber offensive. Later night fighter models had centimetric AI Mk.VIII or Mk.X radar. The installation of the radar dish in the nose required the deletion of the machine guns. 

In June 1942 the FB.VI fighter-bomber model flew, and this was to become the most built Mosquito. It had the four .303 guns and four 20mm cannon of the night fighter, but could also carry two 500lb bombs internally , and from 1944 on wards they were equipped to carry four rockets or a 500lb bomb under each wing. A variation was the FB.XVIII, sometimes called "Tse Tse", in which the four 20mm cannon were replaced by a single 57mm Molins cannon, which weighed 715kg and fired 6lb shells. Only two .303 guns retained, and additional armour was installed. These were originally intended as anti-tank aircraft, but because the 57mm cannon was obsolete in this role they were directed to Coastal Command. 

The high-altitude performance of all models was greatly increased by the installation of Merlins with two-stage compressors, as installed in the PR.VIII, B.IX, or NF.XXX. The B.XVI introduced further refinement, with 'handed' engines to eliminate torque, and a pressure cabin. Some were fitted with bulged bomb bay doors, and could carry a single 4000lb (1814kg) bomb. 

The Mosquito soon made its mark in many roles. It became the standard night fighter of the RAF, replacing the slower Beaufighter. They defended Britain against small numbers of German bombers, claimed 486 V-1s, escorted British bombers over Germany, and in "intruder" units they flew offensive missions at night. The bomber versions equipped the Pathfinder Force, marking targets for the heavy bombers of Bomber Command, and were used for light night attacks on German cities. Until the night fighter version of the Me 262 jet appeared (in small numbers) in 1945, the Germans did not have an effective defense. The fighter-bombers attacked precision targets throughout Europe with bombs and rockets. The long-range reconnaissance versions complemented the PR Spitfires. They were also used by the USAF, that assigned the designation F-8. Perhaps the most unusual version was the Sea Mosquito TR.33, a highly modified version which was designed for carrier operations -- a plan that was abandoned when the war ended. 

Coastal Command had seven squadrons equipped with the FB.VI, and later also received the 27 FB.XVIIIs. The Mosquitos were used for anti-shipping strikes, mainly against coastal traffic. Because this brought them within the range of land-based Luftwaffe fighters, good performance was essential. But the coastal convoys were also well protected with anti-aircraft guns, and attacks were dangerous. 

The Mosquito fights the U-boats
From November 1943 on wards the Mosquito was also used to attack U-boats shortly after, or just before they entered a port. Warning of these opportunities was provided by code breakers. At that moment the U-boats travelled on the surface, and therefore were vulnerable to rockets or the 57mm shells of the FB.XVIII. For safety, the U-boats usually formed small convoys, with an escort of mine sweepers or so called Sperrbrecher ships, which had hulls reinforced with concrete as a protection against mines; both types bristled with anti-aircraft guns. For example, on 27 March 1944 six FB.VIs and two FB.XVIIIs attacked a convoy towards La Pallice, formed by U-960 with a escort of four M-class mine sweepers and two Sprerrbrecher vessels. Three mine sweepers suffered light damage, U-960 was badly damaged, two Mosquitos returned home with serious damage, and one crash-landed. 

Total production of the Mosquito was 7781, including 1034 built in Canada and 212 built in Australia.

de Havilland Mosquito
Version B.IV NF.II FB Mk.VI B.XVI 
Function bomber nightfighter fighter-bomber bomber 
Engines Two 1250hp Merlin XXI Two 1460kW Merlin XXIII Two 1250hp Merlin XXI Two 1680hp Merlin 72 
Wing span 16.51m 16.51m 16.51m 16.51m 
Length 12.43m 12.43 12.47m 13.56m 
Height 4.65m 4.65m 4.65m 

Wing Area 42.18m2 41.81m2 42.18m2 

Empty weight 5942kg 6093kg 6486kg 

Max. weight 10152kg 
10115kg 10433kg 
Max. speed 612km/h at 5200m 595km/h 611km/h at 3960m 656km/h 
Ceiling 9500m 11000m 11000m 

Range 1960km 2740km 3033km 2390km 
Armament 907kg four Hispano-Suiza 20mm and four Browning .303 907kg, four Hispano-Suiza 20mm and four Browning .303 1814kg_"


----------



## Altea (Sep 22, 2011)

Kryten said:


> just like guernica?



Thanks Kryten.

It's off-top, but it's astonishing how Wiki could be a piece of...**** sometimes. 

Looking at english page of "bombing of Guerinca" there are virtually no mention to "terror raid" for "experimental purposes" despite it's the official spanish position from every sides and historians (left, right, middle, francoists, basque autonomists...).

The last synthesis published by Bartolome Benassar (2004-2006 is not even evocated. And no Antony Beevor or Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts fundamental works.

Regards


----------



## Readie (Sep 22, 2011)

I have noticed that the American's do not seem to understand the concept of being bombed.
British cities were flattened by the LW with the attendant loss of civilian life and historical buildings.
The LW started it. We finished it.
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 22, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That out performed all marks of the Lancaster



3 turning 1 burning?
I should coca


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 22, 2011)

Altea said:


> Looking at english page of "bombing of Guerinca" there are virtually no mention to "terror raid" for "experimental purposes" despite it's the official spanish position from every sides and historians (left, right, middle, francoists, basque autonomists...).
> 
> The last synthesis published by Bartolome Benassar (2004-2006 is not even evocated. And no Antony Beevor or Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts fundamental works.
> 
> Regards


I guess it's me, but, I'm sorry, I don't have a clue what that is all about; a long list of (presumably) authors, that I've a) never read, and b) never heard of, doesn't impress, so, for the less erudite among us, perhaps we could have a precis of what they've said?
Edgar


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2011)

I think we are all in agreement that making such bold statements requires that Ratsel has to back them up with factual evidence, however, lets keep it civil.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2011)

I think it is difficult to say taht one bomber is the best because of what it did in WW2. I think that there are situations where the bombers could have performed better had tactics held them back, and others where the bomber only succeeded because of the tactics.

It is also not fair to judge a bomber because it "bombed civilians", or praise one for bombing only "military targets". Both reflect on the leadership, and not necessarily the bomber.

I am too tired to try to read the whole topic - too many pages.
But the argument of Lancaster vs B-17 vs B-24 vs B-29 is clearly only about heavy/strategic bombers. Is the general feeling that strategic bombers were more important, and therefore the best bomber must be one of them?

Are there any bombers that could do both strategic and tactical bombing? If there are, would that make them better bombers overall?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 22, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Are there any bombers that could do both strategic and tactical bombing? If there are, would that make them better bombers overall?


This is precisely what the proponents of the Lancaster are saying; it could, and did, bomb civilian areas into oblivion, but it could also lift a 6-ton bomb to 15,000' and put it into the Tirpitz. It could also lift a 10-ton bomb to 12,000' and put it within 30 yards of a viaduct ("like trying to stick a dart in a line," as someone put it.) Any others with similar capabilities?
Edgar


----------



## Mustang nut (Sep 22, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> This is precisely what the proponents of the Lancaster are saying; it could, and did, bomb civilian areas into oblivion, but it could also lift a 6-ton bomb to 15,000' and put it into the Tirpitz. It could also lift a 10-ton bomb to 12,000' and put it within 30 yards of a viaduct ("like trying to stick a dart in a line," as someone put it.) Any others with similar capabilities?
> Edgar


 Harris argued that the RAF did a better job of containing the German navy than the royal navy did and the lanc was his preferred heavy bomber. however some credit must go to the bomb maker and the gun sight I see no reason why a B29 couldnt do what a lanc did


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2011)

I'd say that even though it didn't do such feats that the B-29 was more than capable of replicating that. It could lift a grand slam to the altitudes Barnes Wallis envisioned - over 30,000ft - though I'm not sure how accurate the sighting would be from up there. Or it could drop two Tallboys in the same 12,000ft scenario and have them land 30 yards from a via duct.

The only thing I am unsure of with the B-29 is what was the maximum bomb size for an unmodified version (ie to carry the nukes and the Grand Slam the B-29 had to modified to make it possible - Tallboys could be carried on underwing pylons).

http://forum.valka.cz/files/b29_a_grandslam.jpg

http://forum.valka.cz/files/b29_se_dv_ma_pumami_tallboy.jpg

btw, I believe a Mosquito could have fitted the _Little Boy_ nuclear bomb in its bulged bomb bay. Taking off with it there would be another matter....

_Little Boy_ was 2in smaller in diameter than a _cookie_ but 10in longer. The square US style tail probably would be too wide, but a round UK style tail would make it fit!


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2011)

wuzak said:


> But the argument of Lancaster vs B-17 vs B-24 vs B-29 is clearly only about heavy/strategic bombers. Is the general feeling that strategic bombers were more important, and therefore the best bomber must be one of them?
> 
> Are there any bombers that could do both strategic and tactical bombing? If there are, would that make them better bombers overall?



The "basic" criteria for a bomber is what weight of bombs it could carry over what distance and not take unacceptable losses while doing so. It turned out that only relativity small bombers carrying small loads could fly into defended airspace without escort with any real chance of suffering light losses and then in small formations/streams during daylight. Lacking escorts the bombers shifted to night attacks for self protection. 

Once you accept that escorts are needed then you are back to the "bomb truck". Bomb load+range= good bomber. 

I think we are not using quite enough classes either. Many "medium" bombers were actually strategic bombers, they were just smaller than the the "heavy" bombers. Wellingtons and Hampdens flying night missions were flying strategic missions. The Lockheed Ventura when bombing the Phillips works or the Power station near Amsterdam were flying strategic missions. 

Tactical use means direct participation in the army land battle (or close to it), attacking enemy positions like strong points/fortifications, river crossings, troop concentrations,etc. Then there is sort of a "grand tactical" or interdiction mission. Supply dumps, and lines of communication and supply for the front line troops. Bombing a railroad bridge 500 miles behind the front lines can mess up transportation and production of war material but does nothing to the land battle in the front line for weeks. Bombing a railroad bridge 15-30 miles behind the front lines makes it harder for the enemy to bring up supplies (ammunition/fuel) and places limits on his ability to retreat. 

It could take 2-3 medium bombers to equal one heavy bomber in the bombload+ range equation. While heavy bombers can perform some tactical missions ( and usually not well) they could, if needed, perform the interdiction missions. Medium bombers had a much harder time performing strategic missions while true "tactical" bombers (Ju-87s, IL-2, Hs 129s, any number of fighter bombers) had no hope of flying strategic missions. They didn't have the range to reach the targets. 

I will grant you that these are gross generalizations and exceptions can be found. In the early part of the war many air forces used what they had available and combined with poor tactics or poor coordination resulted in some pretty disastrous missions. 

The Blenheim, for example, may have been intended as a 'light' strategic bomber (range 1400 miles?) rather than the 'tactical' bomber it was used as in France and North Africa.


----------



## Siegfried (Sep 22, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> This is precisely what the proponents of the Lancaster are saying; it could, and did, bomb civilian areas into oblivion, but it could also lift a 6-ton bomb to 15,000' and put it into the Tirpitz. It could also lift a 10-ton bomb to 12,000' and put it within 30 yards of a viaduct ("like trying to stick a dart in a line," as someone put it.) Any others with similar capabilities?
> Edgar




The performance of the Lancaster is unremarkable in these instances: Some 32 Lancasters dropped 29 bombs from an ideal height of about 11,000ft; almost an ideal height for a computing bomb sight.

Given the size of the stationary Tirpitz 240m length and 36m beam hits were inevitable since the lenght of the Tirpitz matched the CEP of the bomb sight at that height. The RAF's SABS II bomb-sight, the USAAF Norden and Sperry and the German Lotfe 7 could all have done the job equally.


Due to the late stage of the war and due to a mix up and a message not getting through and so German fighters did not intercept: had they been launched in time (the Germans had ample warning) they might have made a mess of the unescorted Lancasters since the Squadron Leader of the 109s was Ehrler who had 199 victories.

What would the Germans have done to conduct a similar mission? It's likely a He 177A-5 conduction a similar mission over a longer range and at higher speed could have been conducted.
The biggest bombs the Germans had were 5500lbs, more than sufficient even if not as powerful as Tallboy. It is likely that however they would have used Fritz-X 1400gk (3000lb bombs) to attack a battleship with much greater accuracy. The He 177 was a disappointment but it is said that the A5 version was reliable if properly serviced. (I've been reading CIOS reports and a book by Fritz Trenkle on German WW2 guidence and its clear they had several anti jamming methods). I do not know what the biggest US AP bomb was, they had AZON and of course a Liberator could certainly have disabled a viaduct.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 22, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I'd say that even though it didn't do such feats that the B-29 was more than capable of replicating that. It could lift a grand slam to the altitudes Barnes Wallis envisioned - over 30,000ft - though I'm not sure how accurate the sighting would be from up there. Or it could drop two Tallboys in the same 12,000ft scenario and have them land 30 yards from a via duct.
> 
> The only thing I am unsure of with the B-29 is what was the maximum bomb size for an unmodified version (ie to carry the nukes and the Grand Slam the B-29 had to modified to make it possible - Tallboys could be carried on underwing pylons).



Oh there's no denying she could carry them, but she didn't, different countries aside part of that is because she wasn't around at the time! I'm not arguing the Lanc was better than the B-29, but she was there when she was needed, whereas the first tallboys were used just days after the B-29's first mission!


----------



## Siegfried (Sep 22, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> So what? They were only following the lead of the air force which bombed Guernica, Rotterdam, Hull, Coventry, Exeter (not renowned for their factories and military installations,) and I don't recall any Lancaster gunners mowing down civilian refugees, as was done in France. During a recent interview, one ex-Lancaster pilot faced some hostile questions, including,"Didn't you feel guilty, dropping bombs on civilians?" "Not really, I just felt, each time, that it was one back for Coventry."
> Edgar



Rotterdam was a defended city under siege that had been beseeched for nearly 1 week to surrender as required under Hague convention . As it turns out a timezone mix up and a Dutch commander who milked the negotiations too much were ultimately responsible for Rotterdam being bombed. (the bombers were recalled but did not get thr message as their long range aierials had been reeled in) The city was messed up by fire, not bombs directly. The German army had to keep moving and cross the river, for strategic reasons. I can tell you that the German army, nor any army, was going to send its young troops into a city into the machine guns of the cities troops. There would be a bombardment; makes little difference if it was artillery or aircraft.

The Royal Air-force began its raids on Germany the day after Rotterdam. These had been planed for a long time, Rotterdam was used as an excuse. British propaganda Casualties were exaggerated by a factor of 30. The Butt report would show how inaccurate they were.

When the RAF began bombing Berlin and Munich they did so for an alleged Luftwaffe raid on London: this was a lone He 111 that had gotten lost and dropped its bombs accidentally on London killing no one and causing little damage. The raids on Berlin and Munich caused considerable civilian collateral damage.

Only then was the Luftwaffe released to attack British cities. When they did they targeted the center of the critical British machine tool and engine manufacturing center Coventry and they did so using x-geraet, a blind bombing system of exceptional accuracy. (ie still a miserable 100-150 but much better than anything the RAF had for years)

The Baedeker raids on British tourist towns were in reprisal for attacks on the medieval hanseatic cities of Lubeck and Rostok. These were of enormous cultural significance to Germans, had little in the way of industry (light industry) to such an extent that Goebells thought it was a knew form of warfare via vandalism of culturally significant areas.

Bomber Harris in his memoirs makes note they were simply selected to see how their wooden structure would burn and that no specific target was chosen: they simply did an area bombardment of the center of the city.

Hull was a port city, Luftwaffe pilots were told to use it as an alternate target and to aim for the port. Maps are available and one can see that the bombs do concentrate towards the water.

The reality is that it was the British that expanded the air war and developed the policy of terror bombing (euphemised as 'dehousing' and 'demoralization') and carpet bombing (termed as 'area bombardment')

The alleged strafing of civilians in France was British propaganda or Luftwaffe strafing attacks on columns of vehicles that were military or thought to be military or mixed up with military vehicles. Pilots on all sides occasionally did something wrong.

Had the Germans gotten the V1 and v2 operational in late 1943 instead of late 1944 when Germany still had bases in France and might still make thousands of the weapons per month then Britain would have paid a very high price for its area bombardment campaign.

They were called "Vergeltungs Waffen" or "Reprisal Weapons" for nothing.


----------



## Altea (Sep 22, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> I guess it's me, but, I'm sorry, I don't have a clue what that is all about; a long list of (presumably) authors, that I've a) never read, and b) never heard of, doesn't impress, so, for the less erudite among us, perhaps we could have a precis of what they've said?
> Edgar



Since we are again in off-top, i'will do it very short.
Bartholomé Benassar is a spanish and Antony Beever a british historian. Both studied the spanish war in general, and Guernica crime in particular.

Others are welsh and english investigation journalists, and wrighters.

They are famous enough to learn more on the web.

Well, all this people went to a conclusion that Guernica was a planned 'terror act" or a "war crime" as if you want, not just a Luftwaffe error or mismatch, something like that...

Unfortunatly, you can find a lot of more or less doubtful "historians" to discuss or denigrate the fact, as for the holocaust victims for instance...

End of the off-top

Regards


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> This is precisely what the proponents of the Lancaster are saying; it could, and did, bomb civilian areas into oblivion, but it could also lift a 6-ton bomb to 15,000' and put it into the Tirpitz. It could also lift a 10-ton bomb to 12,000' and put it within 30 yards of a viaduct ("like trying to stick a dart in a line," as someone put it.) Any others with similar capabilities?
> Edgar


Yes, a B-29,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Sep 22, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes, a B-29,



But, the B29 didn't though did it...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 22, 2011)

The issue of crew training aside I believe the point he's trying to make includes the element of time, which you're overlooking. No one's claiming the B-29 couldn't carry the bombs or bomb with them, but why didn't she bomb the Tirpitz? Why didn't she bomb Saumur? Why didn't she bomb the V weapon sites? Because she'd literally only just entered service, by this point the Lancaster was a proven airframe and realistically was, at the time, the only one capable of doing it operationally. The two are not contemporary designs after all, the Lancaster is essentially a 1936 design, it's like saying the B-52 would be able to do the bombing raids, of course she could, but she wasn't around and proven at the time. I'm not really sure why we're arguing this point, it's not disputed that the B-29 could take the weight, but nor should it be taken away from the Lanc that she's the one with dropped Tallboys and Grandslams on her combat record, the '_Yes the Lanc's the only one to have done it operationally but the B-29 could also take the weight_' argument shouldn't take anything away from the Lanc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> But, the B29 didn't though did it...


Just because it didn't do it, doesn't mean that it couldn't.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> The issue of crew training aside I believe the point he's trying to make includes the element of time, which you're overlooking. No one's claiming the B-29 couldn't carry the bombs or bomb with them, but why didn't she bomb the Tirpitz? Why didn't she bomb Saumur? Why didn't she bomb the V weapon sites? Because she'd literally only just entered service, by this point the Lancaster was a proven airframe and realistically was, at the time, the only one capable of doing it operationally. The two are not contemporary designs after all, the Lancaster is essentially a 1936 design, it's like saying the B-52 would be able to do the bombing raids, of course she could, but she wasn't around and proven at the time. I'm not really sure why we're arguing this point, it's not disputed that the B-29 could take the weight, but nor should it be taken away from the Lanc that she's the one with dropped Tallboys and Grandslams on her combat record, the '_Yes the Lanc's the only one to have done it operationally but the B-29 could also take the weight_' argument shouldn't take anything away from the Lanc.



Agree...


----------



## Readie (Sep 22, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just because it didn't do it, doesn't mean that it couldn't.
> .



Ummm....but, if it could have, would it have? or would we just wonder 'if it had'? Then again, the bomb bays were too small so it couldn't have even if we had wanted it too...


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2011)

The point is that just because the B-29 didn't do it is no reason to give it lesser marks in the which bomber is best test.

The decision could easily have been made by the RAF to obtain a few - say a squadron's worth - B-29s which would have arrived in time to drop most of the tallboys and grand slams.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> Ummm....but, if it could have, would it have? or would we just wonder 'if it had'? Then again, the bomb bays were too small so it couldn't have even if we had wanted it too...



The bomb bays were too small to fit the tallboy and Grand Slam internally, but the B-29 could carry them externally higher, faster and for a longer distance than teh Lancaster could.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2011)

I have a bit of a problem with the coulda woulda shoulda, but did not argument. You could extend that argument to whole range of aircraft that in reality would never have such capability. for example, the Lancaster could be modified to carry the fritz X or the b-29 modified to carry the wallis bomb. Facts are a lot of aircraft could have been modified to do a lot of things but werent. We should assess the aircraft as they actually were used, not how they could have been used, if we are making judgements about best. Potential uses might have some consideration, i suppose, but if so, it should be a low priority.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2011)

In the case of the B-29 and the 12,000lb bomb, while it did not carry them in WW II it did carry and drop them in Korea (although with guidance packages added). This puts it in a grey area, didn't do it in WW II but obviously could do it and did do it at a later date. Some other combinations might not work so well, just because a plane can lift a certain amount of weight doesn't mean it can either carry a certain weapon or can fly the mission profile needed to deliver the weapon. For instance, while I have a soft spot for the Whitley and it could carry 7,000lbs of bombs the chances of modifying one to carry an 8,000lb bomb are pretty slim no matter what else you leave out. With a fair amount of those 7,000lbs located in bomb cells in the wings the main bombbay might not be big enough. B-29s could certainly carry the Wallis bomb (if you are referring to the Dam buster bomb, the Tall Boy and Grand Slam were Wallis bombs too and the B-29 could carry them) or be modified to, but while a B-29 flying 60ft above the surface of a lake might be something to see, it may not be a practical attack by a B-29. It may not have the maneuverability to get into a valley, level out and line up on the target, drop the weapon and pull up to avoid the surrounding hills. 

Not all bombers have the same airflow patterns around the bomb bays and so not all weapons drop cleanly from the bomb bays.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2011)

It does make a difference that the B-29 did eventually carry tallboy derivatives. I wasnt aware of that. I guess ive made that same distinction, arguing that the Lanc derivatives did eventually carry atomic weapons.

I like the lanc, but I would never argue it was technically superior to the B-29. It was a generation behind in terms of technology IMO. To me, for the heavy bomber category, its the b-29 hands down. What puzzles me, though is that B-29s were specialized and couldnt undertake all roles , and were expensive. massive concessions have to be made because of these constraints. For example would it have been cost effective to send, say 500 B-29s over Germany, when for the same outlay, you could have say 2000 b-17s. if you look at the issue in those terms, Im not as convinced of the b-29s value


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> Ummm....but, if it could have, would it have? or would we just wonder 'if it had'? Then again, the bomb bays were too small so it couldn't have even if we had wanted it too...


 Had there been a need for the B-29 to drop a bomb that large, bomb bay doors "would have" been made avaiable to swap out with normal doors, something quite easy to do in the field.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The point is that just because the B-29 didn't do it is no reason to give it lesser marks in the which bomber is best test.
> 
> The decision could easily have been made by the *RAF to obtain a few *- say a squadron's worth - B-29s which would have arrived in time to drop most of the tallboys and grand slams.



That was actually done in the early 1950s for other reasons.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 23, 2011)

The best bomber is the one standing on an abandoned airfield at May 5th 1945 in Europe, or at September 2nd in the Pacific. After a job well done...


----------



## wuzak (Sep 23, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Had there been a need for the B-29 to drop a bomb that large, bomb bay doors "would have" been made avaiable to swap out with normal doors, something quite easy to do in the field.



It is more than just the doors.

The B-29 "silverplate" models were specially modified to carry the atomic bombs - but tallboys were approximately twice as long as either _Little Boy_ or _Fat Man_ and the Grand Slam was even longer.

The pictures above show the Grand Slam covers the two forward bomb bays.

Does anybody know what the maximum bomb size that could be carried inside the standard B-29 bomb bay?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> For example would it have been cost effective to send, say 500 B-29s over Germany, when for the same outlay, you could have say 2000 b-17s. if you look at the issue in those terms, Im not as convinced of the b-29s value



If the B-29 could carry 4 times the bomb load to distant targets you are using 1/4 the aircrew the B-17s would use, perhaps 1/2 the fuel, would a higher cruising speed make it harder to intercept? While economical cruise was 220mph, max cruise was 342 mph at 30,000ft. We could decide, for the sake of this discussion that the B-29 had to bomb from the same height and close to the same speed as the B-17 for accuracy but the approach and departure could certainly be done at higher speeds and altitudes than the B-17 used. Lower losses per 1000 tons of bombs dropped?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2011)

wuzak said:


> It is more than just the doors.
> 
> The B-29 "silverplate" models were specially modified to carry the atomic bombs - but tallboys were approximately twice as long as either _Little Boy_ or _Fat Man_ and the Grand Slam was even longer.
> 
> ...



Bottom line, the B-29 "could have" carried the Grand Slam if there "would have" been a need for it to do so.


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Had there been a need for the B-29 to drop a bomb that large, bomb bay doors "would have" been made avaiable to swap out with normal doors, something quite easy to do in the field.



Of course FBJ, 
Michael, we were joshing each other about 'could have' etc. Not being serious !
The B29 is the next generation of bomber on from the Lancaster B17. It was technically superior as one would hope it would be.
Cheers
John


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 23, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The point is that just because the B-29 didn't do it is no reason to give it lesser marks in the which bomber is best test.
> 
> The decision could easily have been made by the RAF to obtain a few - say a squadron's worth - B-29s which would have arrived in time to drop most of the tallboys and grand slams.



Surely then you must use your own logic to ask why they didn't do that? If we're saying 'It's ok, because the B-29 _could_ do it, it doesn't matter that she wasn't in time to do it'. The B-29 first dropped bombs in anger a couple of days before the first tallboys were used against Saumur. You don't just turn up and both with these things as you would any other bomb, it took Bomber Command's most celebrated squadron months of training, which would have meant that even if the RAF could have got their hands on what were not at the time numerous bombers then they wouldn't have been able to use the new bomb for a while, as not only do they have to train on a new aircraft, but also a new bomb. Also if you want to leave the dropping of an expensive bomb to an as yet untested aircraft on your head be it! Why would you bother doing that when you already have an aircraft capable of doing it?

By contrast the Lancaster was by this point a proven airframe and was very clearly up to the job, as she dropped over 800 tallboys. Don't get me wrong here, again I'll say I'm not saying the Lanc was better than a B-29, of course I'm not, what I'm saying is that a bomber that's available and actually doing the job should score points over one that was later shown could have done it, but at a later date. Surely the bomber actually causing the damage should get the credit rather than having it taken away by the fact that another aircraft could have done it at a later date? Otherwise like I say I could argue the B-52 is the best because it could have done the bombing without any problems, because I've ignored the fact she wasn't around at the time!


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2011)

If the thread is about the best bomber of WW II the the B-52 is out 

WW II covers 6 years. A bomber that reaches Squadron service in 1944 should be better than a bomber that reaches squadron service in 1942. If you want to put restrictions on it we could say what was the best bomber up until the summer of 1944 as any bomber after that time didn't have time to be adapted to many different missions?

The Lancaster was miles ahead of any bomber in service in Sept of 1939. Should we give extra points to Whitleys and Hampdens (or the Amiot 143  because they were available and doing the job for 2 1/2 -3 years before the Lancaster showed up?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 23, 2011)

No, we should give the Whitley points for actually doing the damage at the time. The point I'm making is that the B-29 wasn't the one doing the damage with tallboys and grandslams. Yes, she could carry them, but she wasn't the one doing the damage with them, it's the Lancaster with them on her combat record and the B-29 shouldn't take anything away from that. I'm not saying we should limit the discussion to 1944 because other bombers didn't have time to be modified at all, I'm saying we should include right up to the end of the war because even then other bombers _weren't_ modified.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2011)

Are we comparing the capabilities of a bomber to decide which was best or are we comparing the war records? Or mix of the two? 

Could a B-29 carry a Tall Boy? Yes did it in combat in WW II? no

Could a B-17 lift 17,000lbs of bombs of the ground? Yes. Could it actually reach a target with a such a load (even the coast of France) ? No. Could a B-17 carry a 12,000lb Tall Boy? No. It could not fit it inside and there wasn'
t room outside. Same for a B-24. They could carry the weight but not the actual weapon and no amount of fiddling with bomb doors or anything short of a total rebuild/new design was going to change it.

See the difference? The B-17/B-24 couldn't do it no matter what. The B-29 could but didn't. If Tall boys and Grand Slams had been needed against Japan in 1945 the B-29 could have done it. Now you want to down grade the B-29 because it didn't do it in combat in the time frame we are talking about.


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> No, we should give the Whitley points for actually doing the damage at the time. The point I'm making is that the B-29 wasn't the one doing the damage with tallboys and grandslams. Yes, she could carry them, but she wasn't the one doing the damage with them, it's the Lancaster with them on her combat record and the B-29 shouldn't take anything away from that. I'm not saying we should limit the discussion to 1944 because other bombers didn't have time to be modified at all, I'm saying we should include right up to the end of the war because even then other bombers _weren't_ modified.



Not forgetting the Wellington as well. Heroic raids to 'hit back' as best we could and at a hideous cost.
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Are we comparing the capabilities of a bomber to decide which was best or are we comparing the war records? Or mix of the two?
> 
> Could a B-29 carry a Tall Boy? Yes did it in combat in WW II? no
> 
> ...



Which is the point I have been trying to make all along. Thank you SR6 for putting it in a nutshell.
John


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Are we comparing the capabilities of a bomber to decide which was best or are we comparing the war records? Or mix of the two?
> 
> Could a B-29 carry a Tall Boy? Yes did it in combat in WW II? no
> 
> ...



Yes, I think combat record definitely should come in to it. To that end, yes, I think the Lanc should score points over the B-29, she is the one that actually dropped them in combat. I can't really put it any more succinctly than that


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2011)

And the B29 is the only plane to have dropped atomic weapons. Of which the Lancaster did not.

And Lanc ..... The B29 could carry two large naval mines on a 1600 mile mission. Could the Lancaster do that?


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> And the B29 is the only plane to have dropped atomic weapons. Of which the Lancaster did not.
> 
> And Lanc ..... The B29 could carry two large naval mines on a 1600 mile mission. Could the Lancaster do that?



Why would we want to carry naval mines 1600 miles in Europe?
A bomb Berlin? We are far to nice to do that.... Not cricket old boy.
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2011)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Yes, I think combat record definitely should come in to it. To that end, yes, I think the Lanc should score points over the B-29, she is the one that actually dropped them in combat. I can't really put it any more succinctly than that



Following that thinking means that few, if any aircraft, introduced into service from late 1944 on could be considered as the "best in category" because they wouldn't have enough time to build up as big a service record.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 23, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> And the B29 is the only plane to have dropped atomic weapons. Of which the Lancaster did not.
> 
> And Lanc ..... The B29 could carry two large naval mines on a 1600 mile mission. Could the Lancaster do that?



Well the RAF's largest mine was 2,000lb so yes, she could carry two of them that far (at a push without auxiliary tanks), indeed standard loading pattern 6 consisted of 6 such mines, but you could carry just 2. But that's rather besides the point though because if you think that's the argument I was trying to make you've completely missed the point I was trying to make. You mention the A-bombing as though you think I'm gonna say 'no, no that's different you see...', but I'm not, in exactly the same way the Grandslam is a feather in the cap of the Lanc, the A-bombs are a feather in the cap of the B-29.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Following that thinking means that few, if any aircraft, introduced into service from late 1944 on could be considered as the "best in category" because they wouldn't have enough time to build up as big a service record.



I fail to see how that follows on from what I said as I said that combat record is _part_ of it. I believe combat record should matter to an extent, if nothing else it protects against the extreme cases. For example there was a B-29 flown around Britain in 1944. So there was a B-29 in Europe during the war but I'd be surprised if you were to argue that the B-29 was the best bomber in Europe during the war! I guess we just disagree as to how much emphasis to put on it.


----------



## Readie (Sep 23, 2011)

The'A bomb' may be the B29's claim to fame in the PTO but, in the ETO its irrelevant as not even the maddest commander would consider nuclear weapons when they own troops were in the vicinity. would they????


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2011)

Combat record should count as it helps point out turkeys or problems of which the B-29 had many. It was not well loved by many of it's crews, some of which, when given the choice at the end of WW II elected to go back to the US by ship rather than trust to flying back in their B-29s, or so the story goes. It took quite a while to sort the B-29 out. 

But claiming that bomber A is better than bomber B because during a certain time period Bomber A dropped weapon C while bomber B did not even though bomber B was perfectly capable of dropping weapon C seems to be cutting things a bit fine. 

Tell me that you don't like the B-29 because it killed a number of it's crews because of engine troubles or other problems that the Lancaster didn't suffer from anywhere near as bad.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> The'A bomb' may be the B29's claim to fame in the PTO but, in the ETO its irrelevant as not even the maddest commander would consider nuclear weapons when they own troops were in the vicinity. would they????



The B-29 had a number of "claims" to fame in the PTO. The mining campaign is a little known one and the "A" bombs while the most destructive raids flown by small groups of air planes do over shadow the rest, like burning 16.4 square miles of Tokyo in one raid. It took many more planes but it destroyed more buildings over a wider area and killed more people than either "A" bomb drop. The "A" bomb cities were chosen because most of the bigger cities had already been turned to rubble.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mustang nut (Sep 23, 2011)

To usea B 29 you need pretty much complete superiority, If the B 29 was available in 1943 would it have been used in Europe which plane would escort it, on another thread it was stated that the use of the B 29 had to be re considered due to cost loss rates acceptable on B17s wernt acceptable on B 29s it was simply too expensive to lose.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> To usea B 29 you need pretty much complete superiority,* If the B 29 was available in 1943 would it have been used in Europe *which plane would escort it, on another thread it was stated that the use of the B 29 had to be re considered due to cost loss rates acceptable on B17s wernt acceptable on B 29s it was simply too expensive to lose.



Not true - the B-32 was the aircraft to be used inEurope to replace both the B-17 and B-24


----------



## wuzak (Sep 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> To usea B 29 you need pretty much complete superiority, If the B 29 was available in 1943 would it have been used in Europe which plane would escort it, on another thread it was stated that the use of the B 29 had to be re considered due to cost loss rates acceptable on B17s wernt acceptable on B 29s it was simply too expensive to lose.



Interesting question.

In 1943 the USAAF still believed in the idea that a bomber like the B-17 could fly to target and back unescorted. While this proved to be folly, the B-29 was far more capable of uperating unescorted because it could fly higher and faster, and it had a more formidable defence. 

I would suggest that had the B-29 operated in Europe from late 1943 the tactics used would vary from those used for the B-17 and B-24.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2011)

SR .... your claims about the B29 are not supported by facts. The veterans on the B29 website almost to a man, say that the B29 of middle 1945 was a reliable weapon. Your claim that they would have rather taken to sea route home to the USA is not borne out by reality. My "BS" detector is going off and I challenge you to provide proof of your assertions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2011)

I would wager to say that everyone is still patiently waiting for Ratsel to back up his claim that the Ju 88 was the best bomber "bar none".


----------



## Readie (Sep 24, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not true - the B-32 was the aircraft to be used inEurope to replace both the B-17 and B-24



I'm not convinced that we really needed a replacement for the Lancaster Flying Fortress.
I realise that the PTO demanded range but, in the ETO the old faithfull's delivered some pulverising attacks on the German war machine.

Having said that the LW delivered some pretty pulverising attacks on Britain too...Plymouth was flattened with twin engined bombers.

I have always been eternally grateful that the LW didn't have the Lancaster.

Cheers
John


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2011)

Readie said:


> I'm not convinced that we really needed a replacement for the Lancaster Flying Fortress.
> I realise that the PTO demanded range but, in the ETO the old faithfull's delivered some pulverising attacks on the German war machine.



It would have replaced the B17 and B24. If it weren't for the inexplicable and inexcusable delays in getting the first production types built, we would have seen it flying in Europe by the fall of 1944.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 25, 2011)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> I said that
> 
> I'd like to issue an apology if I ever did say that, it must have been a very long time ago. I was young, stupid and didn't know what I was saying.




And today is different because.......??  
What about the Dauntless, how would the war in the Pacific developed, if they hadn't sank IJN carriers when they did, Australia next??


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 25, 2011)

Well, since it's all seem bugged down around the Lancaster and the B-29, I was wondering....

1. How many missions did each type fly?
2. What's tonnage dropped by each type?
3. What's the percentage in accuracy for each type?
4. Survivability for each type?
5. Mission abort percentage for each type?
6. Adaptability for each type and different missions?
7. Ease of maintenance for each type?

Can probably think of a few more.....

How did the B-29 compare to the Lancaster and flying night missions?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2011)

We are back to comparing the war record. Due to numbers built and time served this can lead to some rather absurd conclusions. Like comparing the Blenheim to the A-26.

1. How many missions flown by each during WW II?
2. what was the tonnage dropped by each in WW II?
3. Accuracy? measured how?
4. Survivabilty? Ok the A-26 gets this one 
5. Mission abort????
6 Adaptability Paragraphs on this one, 
7. Ease of maintenance?? Blenheim wins hands down. Two 9 cylinder engines vs two 18 cylinder engines put it far ahead to begin with 

In three out of seven catagories the Blenheim is way ahead. Does this mean that the Blenheim is a better light bomber than the A-26? NO WAY. 

It may have done more to help win the war with thousands built vs hundreds (during the war) and serving for years vs months. I don't think that means it was a better or more capable aircraft. 

I know that these are not the bombers under discussion at the moment, just pointing out that a methodology that relies too heavily on war record can give some strange results.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 25, 2011)

Thanks, but was thinking solely between the B-29 and the Lancaster, since they seem to be the two that we're mostly, well.....arguing about....


----------



## Readie (Sep 25, 2011)

Lucky13 said:


> Thanks, but was thinking solely between the B-29 and the Lancaster, since they seem to be the two that we're mostly, well.....arguing about....




There is no argument L13. The Lancaster was a superior and ultimately more adaptable / flexible heavy bomber. Now before theB29 boys blow a gasket, I am only talking about ETO and the Lancasters generation.
Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2011)

Not to blow a gasket or anything, but how is it any different in the ETO as in the PTO? When comparing any aircraft, aircraft A is aircraft A, and aircraft B is aircraft B. 

The B-29 was a superior aircraft to the Lancaster. Period. It was superior in design, performance, defensive armament...

The Lancaster was the better aircraft in the ETO because the B-29 did not serve in the ETO, but that does not make it a superior aircraft. 

Again I am not blowing a gasket or anything like that, nor am I trying to take anything away from the Lancaster. It was a marvelous aircraft and did its job with exceptional ability. I would take a Lancaster over a B-17 or B-24 any day. People always want to use service record and what not, but the B-29 was still the next generation and was a superior aircraft in all respects to any of the earlier generation of heavy bombers to include the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Sep 25, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not to blow a gasket or anything, but how is it any different in the ETO as in the PTO? When comparing any aircraft, aircraft A is aircraft A, and aircraft B is aircraft B.
> 
> The B-29 was a superior aircraft to the Lancaster. Period. It was superior in design, performance, defensive armament...
> 
> ...




Chris, I said 'within its generation'. I am being specific. The Lancaster proved itself in the specialist raids and with its hitting power. The Flying Fortress very very bravely flew daytime raids and the it proved itself to be tough as old boots. Both are classic bombers, my contention is that the Lancaster was a bit useful. Nothing more nothing less. Its is futile to compare the Lancaster to the B29. They are poles apart and of a different generation. Maybe if the ETO had dragged on a few more years we would celebrate the B29 as the bomber that levelled Germany.
Cheers
John

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2011)

He said he was not going to bother, so i did it for him. Just a flaming statement designed to get us going....... 

You and i both know it was a great bomber, very versatile, and effective. But there is no way that it can be claimed as the best bomber bar none....even if you were to break bomberws down into more specialized categories.

Even as a medium or divebomber it is not the best....one of the best yest, but THE best....no


----------



## Readie (Sep 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> He said he was not going to bother, so i did it for him. Just a flaming statement designed to get us going.......
> 
> You and i both know it was a great bomber, very versatile, and effective. But there is no way that it can be claimed as the best bomber bar none....even if you were to break bomberws down into more specialized categories.
> 
> Even as a medium or divebomber it is not the best....one of the best yest, but THE best....no




Winding you up by design mate. Mr Ratsel is good at that....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> He said he was not going to bother, so i did it for him. Just a flaming statement designed to get us going.......
> 
> You and i both know it was a great bomber, very versatile, and effective. But there is no way that it can be claimed as the best bomber bar none....even if you were to break bomberws down into more specialized categories.
> 
> Even as a medium or divebomber it is not the best....one of the best yest, but THE best....no



I don't think we will get a response with facts, because as you and I know, it is not true.

Let try not to flame though...


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 25, 2011)

Wasn't the B-29 maybe too big for the ETO? How long does it take a fully loaded B-29/Lancaster to reach their maximum height, take it that the B-29 would have to circle instead for climbing over mainland Europe and Luftwaffe, or am I wrong?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 25, 2011)

Lucky13 said:


> Wasn't the B-29 maybe too big for the ETO? How long does it take a fully loaded B-29/Lancaster to reach their maximum height, take it that the B-29 would have to circle instead for climbing over mainland Europe and Luftwaffe, or am I wrong?



No, it wasn't too big.

8th AF B-17s and B-24s would climb over England as each group joined the formation until the formation was complete. This could take hours and would allow the attack altitude to be reached, or nearly so, before heading off to the target. I assume that B-29s and/or B-32s would have gone trough the same process, at least initially.

I think that 8th AF tactics would quickly evolve to make better use of the strengths of the B-29 - speed and altitude.

The only proviso on the size would be the length of the concrete runways that had been prepared in the UK. They were designed around B-17s and B-24s, and I wonder whatthe diference was in take off between those three. Though in Europe the B-29 would rarely, if ever, need a full fuel load, which may have mitigated the problems the B-29 was having in the PTO with overload takeoffs.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 25, 2011)

Lucky13 said:


> Well, since it's all seem bugged down around the Lancaster and the B-29, I was wondering....
> 
> 1. How many missions did each type fly?
> 2. What's tonnage dropped by each type?
> ...




If anyone has the report that was prepared in 1943 which compared the Mosquito and Lancaster in terms of bombing efficiency, it would be interesting to see the criteria that was used.

At the moment I can think of only a few criteria which could be used to compare bombers, specifically the B-17 and B-29.


```
Criteria                          B-17          Lancaster           B-29
Crew (normal)                       10                  7             11  
Maximum Internal Bomb Load       9,600lb           14,000lb       20,000lb
Maximum Internal Bomb size       2,000lb           12,000lb          ???
Defensive armamemnt          13 X 0.50mg        8 x 0.303mg    10 x 0.50mg
                                                                  1 x 20mm
Range                            2,000mi            3,000mi	       3,250mi
Maximum Speed                      287mph             280mph         357mph
Service Ceiling                 35,600ft           23,500ft       33,600ft
Rate of Climb                      900ft/min          ???            900ft/min
Cost                        US$238,329         £45-50,000     US$639,188
```

These numbers are from Wiki and may not be 100% accurate. For instance the range of the Lancaster is given with a low bomb load as 3000 miles, whereas I would expect around 1800 miles with normal bomb load. The ceiling for the B-29 I would have expected to be higher, and its range longer with a normal bomb load.

But it is a start. Any other criteria, not related to the aircraft's actual service, that we could use? Can anyone convert UKP of the 1940s to USD?

Also, while the Lancaster could carry the Tallboy comfortably in terms of weight it could not carry them without modification, and the Grand Slam required even more modification. It could, however, carry the 12,000lb HC bomb internally without mods. The B-29 could not carry the Tallboy internally, nor the Grand Slam.


----------



## Readie (Sep 26, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Also, while the Lancaster could carry the Tallboy comfortably in terms of weight it could not carry them without modification, and the Grand Slam required even more modification. It could, however, carry the 12,000lb HC bomb internally without mods. The B-29 could not carry the Tallboy internally, nor the Grand Slam.




Bingo.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 27, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> We are back to comparing the war record. Due to numbers built and time served this can lead to some rather absurd conclusions. Like comparing the Blenheim to the A-26.
> 
> 1. How many missions flown by each during WW II?
> 2. what was the tonnage dropped by each in WW II?
> ...



I pretty much agree with this, but the flip side is just as convincing....if the war could be won with just sticks and rocks, why go to the trouble of a complex solution? Is not achieving the mission with the simplest, cheapest, most survivable aircraft a prefereable option over a design that does the same thing but costs a bucket to design annd build? Why is it that "best" has to be equated to "most expensive" or 'heaviest" or "most complex". on that basis the He177 was abetter aircraft than the Ju88. I dont believe that it was. 

The problem is with the thread parameters....what exactly does "best" mean???? it means different things to different people. My favourite discussion that revolves "best tank of WWII" which inevitably devolves to the quality verus quantity argument....do you have 100 Panthers, or 1000 Shermans....which is the better tank????

I dont have an answer for this conundrum, and i admit i am not even consistent in my own thinking. i happen to think the T-34 was the best tank of WWII....a quantity based argument, but then I happen to think the b-29 was the best bomber of WWII....a quality and technology based argument....go figure that. Oh, and its not because the panther is German, whilst the B-29 is American. I happen to think the best MG was the MG 42, the best SMG was the MP38, and the best side arm the the STG44.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 2, 2011)

As William Green put it: 
"Many aeroplanes of the Second World War became famous; few were truly great. Greatness is a quality that cannot be instilled in an aircraft on the drawing board or the assembly line. A great aircraft must have that touch of genius which transcends the good, and it must have luck - the luck to be in the right place at the right time. It must have flying qualities above the average; reliability, ruggedness and fighting ability, and, in the final analysis, it needs the skilled touch of crews to whom it has endeared itself. All these things the Lancaster had in good measure."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

Lucky13 said:


> As William Green put it:
> "Many aeroplanes of the Second World War became famous; few were truly great. Greatness is a quality that cannot be instilled in an aircraft on the drawing board or the assembly line. A great aircraft must have that touch of genius which transcends the good, and it must have luck - the luck to be in the right place at the right time. It must have flying qualities above the average; reliability, ruggedness and fighting ability, and, in the final analysis, it needs the skilled touch of crews to whom it has endeared itself. All these things the Lancaster had in good measure."



Well said sir.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 2, 2011)

Kinda hit the nail on the head Sire, doesn't it?


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

Lucky13 said:


> Kinda hit the nail on the head Sire, doesn't it?




You have. I couldn't say it better myself.
Well posted.
Cheers
John


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 2, 2011)

Much obliged young man, pour yourself a pint or a dram of your choice...


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

Lucky13 said:


> Much obliged young man, pour yourself a pint or a dram of your choice...



A pint of Spitfire ale will do nicely...

or this..Merlin's ale

http://www.broughtonales.co.uk/store/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=6


----------



## GregP (Oct 2, 2011)

You know I looked at the first pages of this thread and it seemd like tere was a pretty good battle going on between some people in here.

So I looked up some numbers for the entire war and came up with the following:

1) Lancaster: Bomber sorties: 148,403 (not the 156.192 for all sorties) , losses: 3,832, loss / 1000 sorties: 20.8, tons bombs: 608,612, tons / sortie: 4.1
2) B-24: Bomber sorties: 226,775 (in Europe, 1942 - 1945) , losses: 3.626, loss / 1000 sorties: 16.0, tons bombs: 452,508, tons / sortie: 2.0
3) Hallifax: Bomber sorties: 73,312 (not the 82,773 for all sorties) , losses: 2,232, loss / 1000 sorties: 30.4, tons bombs: 224,207, tons / sortie: 3.1

Please don't quibble with the numbers unless the changes are significant. If not significant, the general stuff that follows won't change.

So, it looks to me as if the B-24 is the safest to fly on a combat sortie but not by a great margin, the Lancaster delivers twice the bomb tonnage per sortie, with the Hallifax being more dangerous to fly per mission but still delivering more bombs per sortie than a B-24.

As a Prime Minister, I'd opt for the Lancaster for bombs delivered. As a crew member, I'd opt for the B-24 as safer but, again, not by a large margin ... could go either way. For maritime pattrol, I'd opt for air cooled engines as not susceptible to failure due to coolant issues. For other missions, I'd probably take the Lamcaster for per-mission effitiveness (bombs per sortie).

After the war, the B-24's were taken out of service, not due to any aircraft shortcomings, but due to not needing a huge strategic air force after the war was over. We weren't going to be bombed anytime soon by anybody, as far as we knew. We still had B-29's (perceived as our best bomber, and the war's heavyweight champion) and B-17's (very well though of) if needed, plus a few medium bombers to fall back on. Really, we didn't need 3 or 4 types of heavy bomber in 1946. Likewise, we retired a lot of piston fighters while still keeping a few types around, notably Mustangs and Corsairs. 

The Lancasters were kept in service because there were still a bunch left after the war and it was perceived, not incorrectly, as the best British heavy bomber of the war still in service. The Brits needed SOME bomber, why not choose their best one? We did! The British loved Lancasters like we loved the B-17 and flew them until the first-gen jet bombers were in service. They gave yeoman service and did everything asked of them.

There was no hatred of the B-24 after the war, it became superfluous to the military needs of the USA and was removed from service as a simple economic result.

I didn't post this to restart a fight. 

I think both planes did very well in the war. The Lancaster unquestionably carried more bombs per sortie, but wasn't safer in combat or as long ranged. But if you needed to fly a mission that was outside the normal range of the Lancaster, you could drop the bomb load and add fuel or take B-24's. I believe the British did both as dictated by the situation at the time and resources available to the commander.

While I am American and feel I shoud, "take up the cause" for the B-24, in reality I am also a Lancaster fan. Looking at it from a hopefully unbiased viewpoint, the USA had more heavy bomber types to choose from. We had the B-29, the B-17, and B-24. The B-25, and B-26 were also available for some missions. The P-38's could be presed into carrying bombs too, as could any number of fighters, but not much bomb load.

The British had the Lancaster and Hallifax. The Short Sterling wasn't a great success and neither was the Whitley or Hampden. So they really had two heavy bombers and several great ships like the Mosquito and Beaufighter / Blenheim that could be pressed into being medium bombers, but they generally had fewer choices. It happens when you get bombed on a regular basis during several years in a long war. Part of the reason the US had more choices and more production was lack of attack from above by anything heavier than pigeons.

All in all, I think the British made their best choice after the war was ove in keeping the Lancasterr, and so did the USA in keeping the B-29. We were still flying B-29's well into the 1960's, about as long as the faithful Lancs served England and went on serving in the guise of Shackletons into the 1970's. People may SAY the Shacks weren't Lancs, but they were close relatives if not, and also did great service. Neither type need be embarassed of the war record and both were good planes for what they were asked to do at the time. I think the Lancaster was better on a one-on-one basis, but there were a LOT of Liberators in the theater. Was a Lancaster better than two Liberators? Maybe, but I don't think by a large margin. And we had both Lancasters and two Liberatos per Lancaster available. Life was good for a commander who had those options!


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

You could also add that we kept the Spitfire in front line service till 1954.
I think that you have summed up the bomber thread very well Greg.
You are right about our love of the Lancaster.
http://www.thwaitesbeers.co.uk/brands/ales_lancasterbomber.htm
Cheers
John


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 3, 2011)

The Shackleton actually remained in AWACS service until 1990; there was a mini "step change," just post-war, with the Lincoln, as well.
Edgar


----------



## Gixxerman (Oct 3, 2011)

One element that is worth including here is cost.

As unreliable as Wiki can be - and please, anyone who knows better feel free to correct if wrong - they list unit costs as follows

- Lancaster................£45,000 - £50,000
- Boeing B17.............$238,329
- Boeing B29.............$639,188
- Consolidated B24 -..$297, 627 

Whether or not those numbers are entirely accurate is a little besides the point, the general truth is obvious.
Lancaster gave vastly more bang for buck.....and to a nation pressed for finance it was exactly what was needed in that regard, surely?

(sadly I couldn't find a costing for the Halifax)


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 3, 2011)

It will pay to check on the (then) exchange rate; it could have been $4 to the £, but, as I was only 0-4 years old, during the war, it didn't really have much significance. I have a vague recollection of a downward devaluing, to $3, around 1960.
Edgar


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2011)

GregP said:


> All in all, I think the British made their best choice after the war was ove in keeping the Lancasterr, and so did the USA in keeping the B-29. We were still flying B-29's well into the 1960's, about as long as the faithful Lancs served England and went on serving in the guise of Shackletons into the 1970's. People may SAY the Shacks weren't Lancs, but they were close relatives if not, and also did great service. Neither type need be embarassed of the war record and both were good planes for what they were asked to do at the time. I think the Lancaster was better on a one-on-one basis, but there were a LOT of Liberators in the theater. Was a Lancaster better than two Liberators? Maybe, but I don't think by a large margin. And we had both Lancasters and two Liberatos per Lancaster available. Life was good for a commander who had those options!



Don't forget the Brits used the B-29 as well until the Canberra and V bombers started coming into service.


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It will pay to check on the (then) exchange rate; it could have been $4 to the £, but, as I was only 0-4 years old, during the war, it didn't really have much significance. I have a vague recollection of a downward devaluing, to $3, around 1960.
> Edgar



Just as well the Euro wasn't around in WW2 eh Edgar !!


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't forget the Brits used the B-29 as well until the Canberra and V bombers started coming into service.



You and your B29's FYB
You are almost as bad as me with Merlin's and Spitfires...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2011)

Readie said:


> You and your B29's FYB
> You are almost as bad as me with Merlin's and Spitfires...


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


>



Given the parlous state we found ourselves after 1945/46 we were pleased to have the B29, as a nuclear bomber to counter the Soviet threat before our own planes became available.
It was either the B29 or a huge catapult...
Such is the price of liberty


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2011)

Readie said:


> Given the parlous state we found ourselves after 1945/46 we were pleased to have the B29, as a nuclear bomber to counter the Soviet threat before our own planes became available.
> It was either the B29 or a huge catapult...
> Such is the price of liberty



Just as US aircrews were pleased to know that while they tredged on during day missions, RAF Lancasters were keeping the fight round the clock!


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just as US aircrews were pleased to know that while they tredged on during day missions, RAF Lancasters were keeping the fight round the clock!



That's right. 24/7 took at bit of doing eh. We must not forget the Commonwealth crews that flew with the RAF either.:BIG:

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 3, 2011)

Lancaster/B29 performance


Aircraft/TO weight/bomb load*/*time to climb to-altitude*/service [email protected] weight)/*TO run/TO to 50ft*/max speed at weight @ altitude

B I/72,000lb/22,000lb/*50min-18,000ft*/18,600ft/*4350ft/?????*/246mph at 72000lb @ 16,00ft

B29A/140,000lb/10,000lb/*61.5min-20,000ft*/24,000ft/*5,230ft/7825ft*/381mph at 101,500lb @ 25,000ft

BIII/63,000lb/14,000lb/*35.8min-20,000ft*/24,000ft/*2,250ft/3900ft*/287mph at 60,000lb @ 18,000ft

B29B/135,750lb/10,000/*43.5min-20,000ft*/30,250ft/*4800ft/7125f*t/395mph at 96,100lb @ 30,000ft

B VI/65,000lb/14,000lb/*26min-20,000ftE*/28,500ft/*~2,000ftE/~3000ftE*/313mph at 65,000lb @ 18,300ft

* B29 could increase bomb load to 20,000 lb by reducing fuel load with same TO, ceiling and climb performance

B = Lancaster
E = estimate

I haven't included range because the sources use different criteria such as fuel reserve which was only 5% for the B29 but typically ~20% for Lancaster.

Ranges as given, B29A = 3600nm for 10,000lb BL, Low/high mission profile; 2856nm for 20,000lb BL, Low/high mission profile; 3126nm for 10,000lb BL, high/high mission profile.

Lancaster I = 2200nm for 14000lb BL, high/high mission profile; at 72000lb (saddle tanks and 6000lb bomb load) TO range with reserves = 3017nm (~3200nm with 10% reserve and standard combat allowance), low/high mission profile.


sources.
Standard Aircraft Characteristics for B29A/B
mason, The Secret Years for lancaster.


----------



## Readie (Oct 4, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> Lancaster/B29 performance
> 
> 
> Aircraft/TO weight/bomb load*/*time to climb to-altitude*/service [email protected] weight)/*TO run/TO to 50ft*/max speed at weight @ altitude
> ...




Very interesting but, it would be more relevant to compare the Lancaster with the Flying Fortress Liberator as they flew together in ETO and had the bomb load range to deliver pummelling body blows to the Nazi war machine.
At the slight risk of an outcry from its supporters I don't believe that the B29 could have done any more than was achieved in raids like Dresden by 1945.
It was the next generation of bomber but, was too late to have any impact in Europe. The PTO is another matter entirely of course.
Cheers
John


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 4, 2011)

A problem with these performance stats is that the B-29 info is all from calculated data, where the Lancaster info is from actual aircraft tests. The Standard Aircraft Characteristics charts tend to be optimistic, and this is especially so, for example, for the F4F (from previous discussions) where actual aircraft tests fell far short of the SAC info. In daylight raids from Tinian/Saipan the original B29 struggled to carry 7000lbs of bombs to Tokyo even though this was only a ~2600nm round trip. What's really needed are figures on fuel consumption and AMPG, from actual tests, for the aircraft under discussion.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 4, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> In daylight raids from Tinian/Saipan the original B29 struggled to carry 7000lbs of bombs to Tokyo even though this was only a ~2600nm round trip. What's really needed are figures on fuel consumption and AMPG, from actual tests, for the aircraft under discussion.



Was that because they discovered the jetstream?


----------



## Nig (Oct 4, 2011)

My first post, had intended to read for a while yet before commenting .

If the way it is to be evaluated is a cost to benifit ratio and keeping it's crew alive by it's ability to defend itself then all honors should go to the wooden wonder the mosquito.

After the war they analyzed it and found that in terms of useful damage done it was 4.95 times cheaper than the Lancaster.

It is also good to see what the enemy at the time said 


"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

— Hermann Göring, 1943.


----------



## RCAFson (Oct 4, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Was that because they discovered the jetstream?



If you read General Hansell's memoires, you will discover that the USAAF already knew, from practice missions from Kansas to Cuba (which emulated a Saipan to Tokyo mission), that the B-29 did not have sufficient range to fly the mission with adequate fuel reserves:

HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]

Hansell responded by pressing for an increase in max TO weight, but this still resulted in a reduction to a 7000lb (88 aircraft dropping 277.5 tons = 7000lbs/aircraft) bomb load:

HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 5]

for Saipan to Tokyo missions, which is far less than the SAC data would suggest. Additionally, TO at 140000lb meant that the Saipan airfields were too short for predictable TO.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I thought that the B-29 was the best bomber of WW-II?


It was the best bomber to serve in WW2 based on eventual performance and ending the war in Japan. Thankfully the allies had others before the summer of 1945.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2016)

James W. said:


> Some thoughts on the matter.
> 
> B-29 was, in hindsight, an expensive folly. It was a failure as a self-defending bomber, even against the Japanese.
> General LeMay, as a pragmatic boss,( with his bean-counter buddy McNamara) stopped such fruitless ideology.
> However, IMO, the punishment of Japanese civilians by mass burning was cruel & needless.


The B-29 was far from a folly. Also, name me *one* bomber that existed during WWII that was fully capably of defending itself without fighter escort in contested skies.

As far as the "punishment of Japanese civilians" goes, why not replace "Japanese" with "British", "German", "Chinese", "Russian", "Spanish" or any other nationality where warfare happened to catch civilians in the crossfire.



James W. said:


> Minelaying, while effective, could've been effectively done by less expensive means.


How exactly? Sailing U.S. minelayers into Tokyo bay and just casually drop them here and there?

One B-29's mine payload was the equivellent of two U.S. sub mine payloads...you can't possibly think two subs are cheaper to operate than a single B-29...



James W. said:


> The USN carrier forces were quite able to smash Nippon industry.


You must be reading a far different history book than I am...

A carrier force that would have gotten within strike range of Japan would have been well within range of Japanese fighters and bombers.



James W. said:


> Cheap cruise missiles were a much more cost effective approach to mass city bombardment.
> Weird that the B-36 was proceeded with, as a 'Mega Flying Fortress' bristling with gun turrets.
> 
> The Mosquito & Ar 234 pointed the way to the future, as had the V-weapons.


The B-36 was on the drawing board early in WWII...when it finally took to the air, it was the world's largest and most modern strategic bomber and would remain that way for several years.

Also, keep in mind that the Russians, who were the number two power in the world after WWII had a reverse engineered *B-29 *as their primary strategic bomber for several years...

Regarding "cruise missiles"...it would be decades before a cruise missile was a viable weapon. And citing the B-29 bombings as punishment to the Japanese people and then turning around and saying that a V-1 is a better anwser to bombarding a city is ridiculous. The V-1 attacks on London and other city centers were indiscriminate, random strikes with no specific target other than a set "area".

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 26, 2016)

James W. said:


> Have to disagree, Mosquito bomber ops showed that speed/evasion was the better option.



Part of the B-29's defences again the Japanese was its altitude and speed capabilities, making it difficult to be intercepted.




James W. said:


> MiG-15's quickly drove the B-29's back into the night over Korea, a Canberra would've done better.



Irrelevant to the matter of whether the B-29 was the best bomber of WW2.




James W. said:


> The stripped out lightweight B-36 which could use height to evade was another thing, but once nukes got compact, as noted, a fast jet would do it better.



As mentioned by GrauGeist, the B-36 was on the drawing board from the early war years. A lot of time and investment had gone into the aircraft before it became operational.

Which was a "stripped out lightweight" version?




James W. said:


> I don't hold to mass bombing of cities, but a positive US appraisal of the V1 had Ford mass-making them as the 'Loon'..



To what end?




James W. said:


> A dedicated minelaying C-54 could've done that job at a fraction of the B-29's price.



Did such a thing exist?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2016)

James W. said:


> Have to disagree, Mosquito bomber ops showed that speed/evasion was the better option.


For surgical strikes, i cannot think of any Mosquito missions that took out an aircraft factory or marshalling yard.



James W. said:


> MiG-15's quickly drove the B-29's back into the night over Korea, a Canberra would've done better.


Hello...no MiGs or Canberras in WWII...



James W. said:


> The stripped out lightweight B-36 which could use height to evade was another thing, but once nukes got compact,
> as noted, a fast jet would do it better.


Again, no jets or B-36 in WWII



James W. said:


> I don't hold to mass bombing of cities, but a positive US appraisal of the V1 had Ford mass-making them as the 'Loon'..


They built over 1,300 of them and never used them.

They barely even used the TDR.



James W. said:


> The USN wanted to confront the forces of Nippon, & destroy them, which they did.


You have that backward.
The Imperial Japanese Navy wanted a grand showdown and was denied. The closest they came were on two occasions: Battle of Midway and the Battle of Surigao Straight.

As it happens, the USN ended up bleeding out the Japanese Navy.



James W. said:


> A dedicated minelaying C-54 could've done that job at a fraction of the B-29's price.


If using unarmed cargo planes were an effective option, I am pretty sure that it would have been done.

Reality dictates, however, that a C-54, traveling at it's max. speed of 275mph (cruise was 190) would have been deadmeat for the Japanese interceptors. It had no defensive armament, it had no defensive speed - you would be sending those airmen to thier deaths with such a stunt.

You're aware that the Japanese fighters (Army and Navy) were active right up to the final hours of the war, right?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

Max fuel for C-54/DC-4 was 2877 gallons or about 17,250lbs. Throw in oil and crew and the load in mines is going to be rather small compared to a B-29. You are trying to use a roughly 70,000lb airplane to do the job of a 120-130,000lb plane, and no the extra 50,000lbs was NOT sucked up by the guns and extra crew.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> B-29 mining ops were also done at night, NIppon nightfighters were ineffective.


The Japanese sure as hell did have effective night fighters.

They had latewar fighters that were actually superior to the P-51, F6F and Corsair.



James W. said:


> Jets were flying in WW2 , some even made combat. So were MiGs, just not MiG 15s


The only jets that saw combat in WWII were:
Me262
He162
Ar234
Gloster Meteor
the only other jet that was *technically* in a combat zone, was the P-80
The only other armed combat jet that was in the proximity of a war zone, was the He280.

The Russians did not have a jet until postwar - the closest thing they had, was a Thermojet: the MiG I-250.



James W. said:


> But the B-29 was an obsolescent idea when built, & in practice, over Korea a few years later.


Most aircraft were obsolescent by the time they reached production.

The B-29 first saw combat in spring of 1944. The B-36 started on paper in 1941. The Douglas Skyraider (also of Korean service) started out on the drawing board around the middle of WWII.

Let's talk about obsolescent: the Bf109 started out on the drawing board in the early 1930's. By 1935, it had it's first flight and two years later, introduced into service. It remained a front-line fighter for nearly ten years. I'm sure that many downed Allied airmen would be interested to hear you explain to them about obsolescence.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

If you need twice as many planes and crew to drop the same number of mines what happens to the cost? Or fly the same number of missions. 
Without a C-54/DC-4 manual we are guessing. WIki figures are the usual nonsense of quoting the max in each category. Like max range with max fuel without saying what the speed/ altitude or useful payload was to reach that range.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

Hampdens, Lancasters, Wellingtons, Halifaxes all did mining operations during WW2 for the RAF.

Perhaps they should have used Dakotas?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Hampdens, Lancasters, Wellingtons, Halifaxes all did mining operations during WW2 for the RAF.
> 
> Perhaps they should have used Dakotas?


Why not a Mossie? They're faster and can do the same job as a B-29!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> MiG-3s were used in combat in WW2, but Mikulin mills were wanted for IL-2s more.
> 
> & I wrote "Super Mosquito" which if it ( &/or the Hawker high-speed bomber) had been realized, then Butch Harris' program
> to export Merlin wreckage to Germany in the hundreds a month - would've been shown as needless.


The 1962 Chevy Nova has 12 bolts that hold the front clip to the firewall.

Mount Everest is the highest mountain in the world, but experts believe that K2 is higher

The Golden Mantle ground Squirrel is typically referred to as a "Chipmunk"


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> These are myths though right G-G, they don't belong on the best bomber thread, unlike the 'Super Mosquito'..


They make far more sense than the stupid crap you're posting.

At least the info in my last post was factual, but just about as relevant to the conversation as what you're putting up

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> You are funny, de Havilland project DH 102 & Hawker project P.1005 certainly existed,
> - but sadly ol' Blighty couldn't build enough Sabre to power 'em


While you're at it, look up the Dornier Do-STRA

That's a "bomber" that would better suit you...


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Why not a Mossie? They're faster and can do the same job as a B-29!



I think Moss


James W. said:


> You are funny, de Havilland project DH 102 & Hawker project P.1005 certainly existed,
> - but sadly ol' Blighty couldn't build enough Sabre to power 'em



The DH 102 was a paper project. It performance was strictly projected.

The Hawker project got slightly further - it managed to get to a mock-up.

Neither would have made it early enough to make much of a difference in WW2.

And while the production issues at Napiers which almost caused it to go under and then get bailed out by English Electric had some influence, the performance of existing types, particularly the Mosquito, was the real reason they were not continued with.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> G-G, seems you left out the Me 163,
> (& yes it has a tiny prop on its nose, but it was propelled by a jet, albeit not one made by a turbine. )



Generally in the aviation world the Me 163 is categorized separately from the pack - being a rocket aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

Ok look at it again. You are guilty of the Wiki pick the max data phenomenon. Or close to it. 

I would also note two things. 

One. no "G" limit is given in this document. .
Two. When was the 82,500lb weight limit approved?
Several sources say a max gross of 73,000lbs was used during the war. and that was crept on in several stages from lower weights. 
Please note the "combat" weight of 47,700lbs. No notes as to what restrictions were implemented as the weight went higher. 
For an early version with a empty weight of 35,134lbs a gross weight of 47,000lbs allowed 1700 gallons of fuel, a crew of 3 and a payload of 1496lbs (yes 1496lbs). gross was bounced to 50,000lbs pretty quick and into the 60s and then finally to 73,000lbs for "wartime use". Post war airliner use saw the gross dropped back to 66,500lbs, then 71,300 and finally back to the 73,000lb setting.
The 1946 Jane's lists several versions of the C-54, what is really interesting from the weight stand point is a max landing weight of 62,000lbs. 

The Pilots manual available on this website doesn't have the range charts but all the do not exceed speed limits are for 65,000lbs. 
In the somewhat puffy introduction (like where the P-38 was call the Fork tail devil in it's manual) the C-54 is said to be able to carry 20,000lb 1500 miles. Manual is dated August 1st 1945.
The 1946 Janes says 16,500lbs over 1500 miles at 220mph at 10,000ft and 5400lbs over 3900 miles at 190mph at 10,000ft.

There were at least 3 different fuel tank setups used in C-54s fuel capacity varied only a small amount as fuel tanks in the fuselage were replaced by even more fuel tanks in the wings but the wing tanks came with restrictions on how much fuel could be in them when landing to prevent breaking the wing.

Trying to fly "combat" missions with an overloaded airliner puts you in the same situation as the Fw 200 Condor, lots of broken planes due to structural failure.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> However, the C-54 certainly could tote a useful load, be they mines or what have you..



The problem is that it couldn't carry them far enough in it's WW II configuration, especially it's configuration during the _planning stages _of the B-29 and other large bombers when the C-54 was a 50-60,000lb airplane. 
BTW for those that want to play the MAX game, Some B-17s could carry 17,600lb of bombs, just not very far. two 4000lb bombs on external racks and eight 1600lb AP bombs inside (1600lb AP bombs were smaller in diameter than 1000lb HE bombs and would fit in the racks better). 
Operational capabilities of aircraft are often far below what WIki (and some books) would have people believe.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Some B-17s could carry 17,600lb of bombs, just not very far. two 4000lb bombs on external racks and eight *six* 1600lb AP bombs inside (1600lb AP bombs were smaller in diameter than 1000lb HE bombs and would fit in the racks better).



Minor correction SR.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

It did in the early stages as the Liberators didn't have the range required. 
It could take 3-4 years to bring a plane from the planning stage to the operational stages in large numbers. It often took a year from 1st _production _example to the 500th production example. 
A lot of times planes got better during that time due to other events, sometimes they became obsolescent or redundant due to other events. Since we are on the C-54 the P & W R-2000 that powered it was only used in the C-54 (and a few conversions). It started life as a back-up engine to the R-1830 according to some sources. Back up in the sense that it could match the power output of the R-1830 using lower grade fuel. like 87 or 91 octane rather than 100 octane should their be a shortage of 100 octane. Turns out there was no shortage and the extra displacement was used to make more power than the R-1830. P & W was also able to modify the R-1830 to make 1350hp for take off in the last models in WW II, some used in Navy Privateers, so be careful in looking at performance of Navy B-24s.
Sawing plane X should have been canceled because plane Y could do the job after the fact (like 3-4 years after the program started) is using hindsite a bit too much to justify the position taken.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Minor correction SR.


Thank you. I believe the B-17 was lucky it could fly from England to the French coast and back with such a load, it was essentially useless except for winning bar bets.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

really?












If you want to drop bombs or lay mines at long ranges you need big airplanes. Big airplanes are expensive.
Japan is not a tiny country. It has a coast line according to most sources of around 29,000km. Granted you don't have to mine the entire coast but it is a much harder job than mining Germany.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

A question about the practicality of deploying aerial mines from a C-54.

Do the crew throw the mines one by one out the cargo door?

http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/img/s/v-3/p1563606272-3.jpg

They are not exactly set up for releasing stores.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

Use mounting system for M-22 tank 





Drag plays heck with speed and range though.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> I daresay it wouldn't take Dornberger & von Braun to work it out.



Take a shot at it, please.

I would think aerial mines were designed to be released from standard bomb racks/containers. And teh C54 didn't have fittings for them.




James W. said:


> SAC for USN transport Liberator give max range as ~3,500 miles ( 6,000lb payload).



In transport guise dd the Liberator lose some/all of its turrets/guns?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Mining German waters included the rivers from the Rhine to the Danube, & likely more dangerously defended than Nippon.



But at shorter range and with far more features to be used for navigational purpose.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> I am not suggesting that a 'bog standard' C-54 be used, but that it could be used as a basis & customised for the duty.
> 
> & yes transport Lib was stripped of the guns/turrets & etc, AFAIR, Churchill had one he liked..


Churchill ate too many pies, he needed a Liberator to carry his big fat behind.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Some thoughts on the matter.
> 
> B-29 was, in hindsight, an expensive folly. It was a failure as a self-defending bomber, even against the Japanese.
> General LeMay, as a pragmatic boss,( with his bean-counter buddy McNamara) stopped such fruitless ideology.


 Hindsight is 20-20 especially if you're trying to compare technologies and situations that were state of the art 70 years ago. The B-29 was state of the art and ushered in systems and manufacturing techniques that can be traced to aircraft manufacturing technology today. The B-29 maintained a combat attrition rate of 10% (including in Korea) and remained in service until 1960. If it was that much of a folly then why did the RAF use it in post war years and the Soviet Union illegally copy it?!?!?



James W. said:


> However, IMO, the punishment of Japanese civilians by mass burning was cruel & needless.


Your opinion - tell that to the POWs held by the Japanese (I happen to have a family member who was a Japanese POW). The indiscriminate bombing of civilians was done by all combatants. Please refrain from this type of discussion, it will piss off many people on this forum and can ultimately lead to being banned.


James W. said:


> Minelaying, while effective, could've been effectively done by less expensive means.


Not in the mass and time frame that was done by the B-29.


James W. said:


> The USN carrier forces were quite able to smash Nippon industry.


And the war would have lased until 1950


James W. said:


> Cheap cruise missiles were a much more cost effective approach to mass city bombardment.
> Weird that the B-36 was proceeded with, as a 'Mega Flying Fortress' bristling with gun turrets.
> 
> The Mosquito & Ar 234 pointed the way to the future, as had the V-weapons.



Hindsight is 20-20!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Have to disagree, Mosquito bomber ops showed that speed/evasion was the better option.



Not if you needed to saturate a large target area. With the Mosquito and even with the Canberra, you were bombing by hand and was subject to human error. While desired results were achievable it wasn't until a generation later when aerial warfare allowed this to be the norm


James W. said:


> MiG-15's quickly drove the B-29's back into the night over Korea, a Canberra would've done better.


Not entirely true - B-29s over Korea suffered losses to MiGs early in the war - They started bombing at night but did conduct limited daylight operations in areas where UN forces had aerial superiority or where MiGs weren't a factor.

A good piece about B-29s operating during the Korean War;

Korean War: The Boeing B-29 Superfortress Served Throughout the Air War | HistoryNet


James W. said:


> The stripped out lightweight B-36 which could use height to evade was another thing, but once nukes got compact,
> as noted, a fast jet would do it better.



And that's when the B-47 entered the picture.




James W. said:


> A dedicated minelaying C-54 could've done that job at a fraction of the B-29's price.



Utter nonsense


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

The actual mining campaign took a little over a month, March and April 1945, but was preceded by several months of planning and preparation. It was first brought up in the summer of 1944. It took 1529 sorties to drop 12,135 mines. Average mine load was 12,000lb per plane. Some of the mines were 2000lb. The base/s used were in the Marianas and ranges to some the mine fields were well over 1000 miles, radius is obviously double. While the planes did not fly in formation they did stream across the target area in quick succession and used the latest radar sets in the theater for a navigation aid to proper placement of the mines. Each plane having an assigned drop area to form a dense mine feild. Some areas were defended by AA guns and there were some attempts at interception by fighters including a few being shot down by the defensive guns on the B-29s. 
Question was cost effectiveness, specially modified planes carrying smaller payloads at slower speeds in combat areas and suffering higher losses makes the cost effectiveness rather doubtful.
Supporting oddball aircraft on Pacific islands thousands of miles from home is also expensive. The mine laying aircraft could be used for conventional bombing within a few hours or at most a few days (it was an entire bomb wing) and not have to be replaced by a different type of aircraft for different missions.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

Mine laying 101;

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a425762.pdf

"Aerial Mine Laying Results In a 5-1/2 month campaign (beginning March 1945): 1,529 B-29 sorties laid over 12,000 mines Aerial mines sank 287 Japanese ships, damaged 323 50% of all merchant ship losses during period."


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> G-G, seems you left out the Me 163,
> (& yes it has a tiny prop on its nose, but it was propelled by a jet, albeit not one made by a turbine. )


The Me163 wasn't included on the jet list, because it was a rocket.

And the prop on the nose was for it's generator.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hindsight is 20-20 especially if you're trying to compare technologies and situations that were state of the art 70 years ago. The B-29 was state of the art and ushered in systems and manufacturing techniques that can be traced to aircraft manufacturing technology today. The B-29 maintained a combat attrition rate of 10% (including in Korea) and remained in service until 1960. If it was that much of a folly then why did the RAF use it in post war years and the Soviet Union illegally copy it?!?!?


The cost of the B29 just as a bomber on a mission maybe was not worth it however it did drop the bomb and left post war USA in the lead in aviation and many other areas of technology.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The cost of the B29 just as a bomber on a mission maybe was not worth it.



It depends how and where you calculate it's worth. For what it cost to develop and deploy in WW2 by today's standards, you're probably correct, however the need outweighed all other factors. What the AAF was looking for in the B-29 was achieved in the B-29D which eventually became the B-50. Although its combat career ended after Korea, if filled a number of roles until 1960, mainly as a tanker. the fact that it had use after WW2 and hung around for 18 years may have justified the original cost. One would also have to look at other factors (fleet operating costs, attrition and MC rates)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

One of the big misconceptions regarding the B-29, was that it was an over-priced, problem ridden dead end.

The truth of the matter, was that it was cutting edge technology that ushered in a whole new era of strategic bombers. As with any new technology, there will be problems to be worked out. Which were, in time.

The difference between the U.S. and it's advanced concepts (with success) and the German's advanced concepts (with failures), is that the U.S. had the luxury of fielding other types until the project's bugs were worked out. The Germans were desperate and had to press everything into service with desperation.

The other luxury that the U.S. had, was that it's manufacturing and test facilities were far removed from any combat zone, so progress could go forward unhindered. The Germans had no such peace: their test facilities and factories were being bombed on a continous basis resulting in loss of test equipment, manufacturing facilities, damage (or destruction) to the prototype(s), loss of data and loss of skilled engineers and personnel. So everytime a site was bombed, the Germans nearly had to start from scratch (again and again, etc.)

For the mission results, longevity of service and lending it's technology to successive types, the taxpayer got it's money's worth out of the B-29 project without a doubt.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

It seems to me, that folks are so bent on disproving the B-29, that they miss the B-32 adventure entirely!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

Consolidated B-32 Dominator bomber, design, development, history, production, scrapping, survivors, and photographs

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> For the mission results, longevity of service and lending it's technology to successive types, the taxpayer got it's money's worth out of the B-29 project without a doubt.


Of course it did, the huge cost went on research and training, the actual aircraft are a by product, the space programme was much the same.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Of course it did the huge cost went on research and training, the actual aircraft are a by product, the space programme was much the same.


Agreed

And another, often overlooked aspect of the B-29, was the several "spin-offs" like the B-50, which remained in service for 20 years.

Additionally, the B-50 was developed into the KB-50, which was an aerial tanker and the storm-chaser WB-50, which evaluated weather/atmosphere.

Back to the B-29: two successful variants were the C-97 transport and the model 377 Stratocruiser.

The last C-97 was retired about 1977/1978 and the 377 was retired in 1963.

If that weren't enough, the "Guppy" series of oversized transports have their lineage leading directly back to the B-29, some even remaining in service until the late 90's.

Not many other bombers can boast of that!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Consolidated B-32 Dominator bomber, design, development, history, production, scrapping, survivors, and photographs


What??

No wiki??

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Me 163 was jet propelled, by a rocket motor sure, but a jet even so.
> 
> Some aircraft gas turbines propel their airframes via a jet, others drive a propeller, or fan via a shaft.



In no way shape or form was the Me 163 "a jet." It carried it's own oxidizer and had no turbine in the combustion chamber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> What opposition was provided to the B-29 mining ops? Were these dedicated interceptions, or was it chance encounters?
> What were the altitudes/speeds? I guess there was a fair bit of USAAF/USN cooperation, & the flyboys wanted to show
> that the massive B-29 program was worth the cost, perhaps a harbinger of the B-36/Super-carrier funding playoff later on.


It's all in that PDF I posted - I'll give you the simpler Wiki page...Operation Starvation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> What caused it to move then? Would it be the jet of gasses expelled through the nozzle at the tail?


Expansion of gases in a combustion chamber.

Here...

the term _jet engine_ loosely refers to an internal combustion *airbreathing* jet engine. These typically feature a rotating air compressor powered by a turbine, with the leftover power providing thrust via a propelling nozzle


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> That thesis in pdf form was a good overview, ( if scant on ops detail),
> & showed the military/political opposition that had to be overcome,
> I accept there is likely no way the Transport Command would allow diversion of any C-54s, no matter how good the reason.
> 
> ...



Any combat mission has the potential to be dangerous, your comment doesn't negate the effectivness of the B-29


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> But in reality, as well as in proper aero-space usage, the type of engine does not matter, a bottle rocket flies due to the "jet".
> 
> & gas turbines are used to power ships, tanks & electrical generation plants, yet these are not "jets" as such.



I could tell you as a "aero-space usage" employee for a number of years who have worked on turbine jet engines AND rockets, you are 100% wrong!!! What determines the difference between a jet and a rocket is the way fuel is mixed, where the oxidizer comes from and the way thrust is controlled.

Comparing gas turbines with a GEARBOX into this is just silly!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> No indeed, using the B-29 was convenient, once LeMay ok'd it, even if it was overkill as a mission task.


Overkill? The only other aircraft that "possibly" could have dropped that many mines during that time period was the Lancaster. 70 years ago there was no such thing as "overkill" unless you were on the receiving end!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> For surgical strikes, i cannot think of any Mosquito missions that took out an aircraft factory or marshalling yard



I can't either, but Mosquitoes were used to destroy some oil refineries/synthetic oil plants.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Some rockets ( solid fuel, per bottle rocket) are "light that candle!" unthrottleable, others such as in the Me 163 were controllable.
> 
> The "jet" which provides the motive thrust is produced by an internal combustion engine in any case, turbine/athodyd/liquid fuel rocket.
> 
> The use of the gas turbine to produce a primary propulsive "jet", or turn a fan - is incidental to the Newtonian physical process.



The Me 163 WAS NOT a jet. A ducted fan could provide motive thrust in a confined container, does it make it a jet???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> I thought you reckoned we ought not go into that part ( receiving end) of it, & just stick to the technical debates.l.o.l..


Now you're being rational (and smart)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

From Wiki

"The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, designed by Alexander Lippisch, was a German *rocket-powered* fighter aircraft. It is the only *rocket-powered* fighter aircraft ever to have been operational."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> If the thrust provided drives the machine, then what would you call the directed thrust flow, if not a "jet"
> 
> A garden hose supplies a "jet" of water , & a carburetor a "jet" of fuel, & a leaf blower a "jet" of air.



A jet comes out of the reduced orifice - what happens up stream of that is the determining factor. for that reason was the Space Shuttle a jet?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Oh no not wiki!
> Seriously though, from wiki: "A rocket engine is a type of jet engine".



And seriously, the Me 163 IS NOT a jet. Now please get this thread back on subject.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Of course, the SS used various kinds of "jets" including "jets" to make subtle docking manoeuvres in orbit.


Called "thrusters" that carried their own oxidizer and couldn't be fully controlled. Now back on subject


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

*Full Definition of jet engine*

: an engine that produces motion as a result of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid;_specifically_ : an airplane engine that uses atmospheric oxygen to burn fuel and produces a rearward discharge of heated air and exhaust gases — see airplane illustration
Definition of JET ENGINE

The way I see it is that technically a rocket can be a jet but that convention has defined a jet engine to be a gas turbine since rockets have proven to be impractical for aircraft.

Jet engine is often used to describe gas turbines that are not actually jets - as in gas turbines for industry/power generation, in boats, trains, cars or propeller powered aircraft.

Then there are jet boats which can be powered by piston motors or gas turbines, but which are propelled by a jet of water from a nozzle.
Jetboat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Yeah that wiki definition is convention for elementary school kids, don't try it in a academic/technical/scientific thesis


Or on a flight line in front of a bunch of maintenance engineers!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> No indeed, using the B-29 was convenient, once LeMay ok'd it, even if it was overkill as a mission task.



Hardly "overkill". 

The first mining mission involved 105 aircraft. There were 13 attacks by Japanese Aircraft up to another 60 were spotted but did not attack (one might think of multiple claims here and try to figure if there were multiple sightings of the same aircraft.)
Defensive gunners claimed one Tony. Gunners opened fire when the attacking Japanese fighters did according to the report. Mild evasive maneuvers were used. 1. the AA fire varied in intensity depending on target area, On this night with 105 aircraft two mine fields were laid. The total distance of the flight was 2878 nautical miles. 2. The AA Barrage over the straight shot down 3 B-29s, heavily damaged 3 more and caused light damage on 5 more, mild evasive maneuvers were used. 3.
Of the 105 aircraft planned for the mission 3 failed to take-off an 5 returned without dropping mines in primary or secondary locations. 
2nd mission 3 nights later involved 85 aircraft. 

Now lets imagine using C-54s for the first mission.
point 1. the C-54s have NO defensive fire. Japanese fighter attacks were weak but against planes offering NO defensive fire would they have been bolder or pressed their attacks harder? 
Point 2. 2878 nautical miles is 3311 stature miles. Payload of a C-54 (in 1945) over 3300 miles is nowhere near 12,000lbs meaning more planes needed or repeat visits to the same target area needed to get the mine density desired.
Point 3. B-29s had passive protection. There was at least some armor at crew positions and at least some of the fuel tanks were self sealing, perhaps all were, I don't know. The C-54 has NO passive protection. No armor, no self sealing fuel tanks. Losses from damage that allowed a B-29 to return to base could very well have resulted in a loss of the C-54. 

Another point. What was the capability of the C-54 to perform even mild evasive maneuvers? I will freely admit that "mild evasive action" is a subjective term and certainly subject to interpretation. However what is "mild evasive action" varies from a fighter to a bomber and from a bomber to a transport. The bomber and transport can really vary in weight at different points in a long flight and allowable maneuvers or "G" loading's can vary along with them. What a Lancaster crew might consider "mild evasive action" considering some of the cork screw maneuvers they used against Luftwaffe fighters might be considered a violent maneuver to a transport pilot.
For the C-54 to even try this mission it needs internal weapons storage (and that means bomb doors) it needs bombing radar and operator. A load that cuts into fuel or payload as does the structural modifications. 

Sorry, a C-54 in noway, shape or form can substitute for a B-29 doing long range mining missions. 
Now if you want to wait a few more months until the the Navy and Marines can capture Islands closer to Japan and shorten up the flight distance it _might _have some merit. You are still going to have higher losses than using the B-29s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Yeah that wiki definition is convention for elementary school kids, don't try it in a academic/technical/scientific thesis



I didn't take it from Wiki, but from Merriam-Webster
Definition of JET ENGINE

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Curiously, a check of the Brit archives at Kew brings up a reference to wind-tunnel testing
> being done on the Hawker High-speed bomber design in 1943.
> 
> 1943 was also the year when the RAF tried using powerful R-2800 engined Lockheed Ventura
> bombers in the high-speed precision daylight attack role, but it went badly, VC winning badly.



And tunnel testing in 1943 _might _lead to flying hardware in 1945. It _MIGHT _even lead to service use in 1946 if you are really lucky. 

As for the Ventura, from wiki "The RAF ordered 188 Venturas in February 1940. They were delivered from mid-1942 onwards. Venturas were initially used for daylight raids on occupied Europe" and lets remember that the Lockheed 18 airliner (airframe the the Ventura was based on) first flew September 21, 1939.

It took a long tome to go from paper or mock up to squadron service. Planning for operations or production needs often meant planing 2-3 years into the future.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Or, if they'd had a VLR Mustang escort, they could've been bait & wasted the Nippon fighters too.


Yeah, they just needed a VVVLR Mustang escort. Very, Very, Very long range Mustang. 
Mustang has Zero chance of returning to base after jettisoning drop tanks at 1600 plus miles from base.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> It was never going to happen.. in 1943 Typhoons were still sitting around waiting for Sabres.
> 
> While Merlins were turned out in huge numbers, often going to obsolescent airframes
> of little military value, in the 2,000hp & over range, far fewer than 20,000 of the big British engines were built,
> as against ~125,000 R-2800s & even enough R-3350s to get the B-29 program up & flying.




I'm sorry, what does engine availability in 1943 have to do with engine availability in 1945/46? 

The Sabre was trouble prone in 1943 and was always expensive to build. It may have been an outstanding example of technical sophistication but as a practical powerplant it left an awful lot to be desired for too much of it's life.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> However did they do then? Mustangs were roaming over Japanese skies, from bases in newly captured Iwo Jima.


 Mustangs first flew from Iwo Jima about a week after the first mining mission. How long did it take to build up a large number of Mustangs to handle all the duites that were wanted. Mustangs had enough trouble flying the missions they did, daylight escort, without trying for night escort.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Sabre troubles were not a design issue, but an industrial/political production problem, imagine Stalin's solution being applied.



I imagine Stalin would have cut off Sabre production before it began as it was taking too long. He may have dealt with the Napier board as well....




James W. said:


> As for cost, what cost the hundreds of Merlins being spread over Germany every month, sometimes even hundreds a night..



And how many more weren't "spread all over Germany"?

Most of the Merlins that went down in Germany late in the war were in Lancasters. 

They took with them a big load of bombs. And the vast majority of the Merlins on a mission returned safely with the plane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Sabre troubles were not a design issue, but an industrial/political production problem, imagine Stalin's solution being applied.
> As for cost, what cost the hundreds of Merlins being spread over Germany every month, sometimes even hundreds a night..


 Boy, for person who has trouble bombing cities you seem to have no problem shooting factory workers and managers on your own side.
The "super" mosquitoes powered by Sabres lost a lot of their reason for being when DH fitted two stage Merlins to the Mosquito. Even higher boost ratings on the single stage engines cut into the need. And how many Super Mosquitoes would be needed to replace the 4 engine heavy bombers? Or do you plane to fly 2 missions per night most nights instead of a few times a year? The _planned _bomb load for these fast twins was 4-5000lbs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> What caused it to move then? Would it be the "jet" of gasses expelled through the nozzle at the tail?


I find it interesting that you want to engage in detailed conversations about various warbairds and even go to great lengths to correct me, and you don't even know the fundamentals of a Hydrogen Peroxide rocket motor.

When the two fuel elements (T-Stoff & C-Stoff) were mixed in the Me163's combustion chamber, a violent chemical reaction occurred, causing a violent expansion of volitile gasses...it was this reaction, that was contained and vented out the exhaust nozzle with great force, that propelled the Me163.

And as I mentioned earlier, the propeller on the nose was to provide power to the radio and instruments by way of a generator, since there was no engine in the Me163 to do so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Actually, the Shuttle's and most other satellite's "Thrusters" use mono propellant WO "Oxidizer". Just to be technically correct.


Actually, the RCS systems use NitrogenTetroxide and Monomethyl Hydrazine

To be technically correct

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jun 28, 2016)

Everyone here should be aware that "jet" in this context is a contraction of turbojet, a gas turbine that relies on the reaction principal to provide propulsion rather than using a free turbine to drive a gearbox that could be connected to a separate propulsion method as in the turboshaft or turboprop. Turbofans weren't in use at this time but also use the reaction principal.


----------



## Ascent (Jun 28, 2016)

James, much as politicians may wish otherwise simply repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

This site is full of people who know what they're talking about and can spot bollocks talkers.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2016)

Ascent said:


> Everyone here should be aware that "jet" in this context is a contraction of turbojet, a gas turbine that relies on the reaction principal to provide propulsion rather than using a free turbine to drive a gearbox that could be connected to a separate propulsion method as in the turboshaft or turboprop. Turbofans weren't in use at this time but also use the reaction principal.



Actually the term turbojet is the combination of turbo for turbine and jet as in "a rapid stream of liquid or gas forced out of a small opening".


----------



## Ascent (Jun 28, 2016)

After nearly twenty years as a propulsion tech in the RAF I'm quite aware of where turbojet comes from thank you.

The important word in my post was context. Any argument or discussion has a context, wether implicit or explicit. On this forum the context is implicit and is framed by the nature of the board itself. To bring in an argument from outside of that context indicates that either you are unaware of the context or are deliberately ignoring it.

In philosophical circles I'm sure that would make you look smart, unfortunately on a technical forum such as this where those who generally comment are aware of the context and are of a technical nature by inclination it just makes you look like an arse.

Not aimed at you Wuzak.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

A jet is a jet because it didnt have a propellor and sends the hot gas through an orifice, the rocket pre dates all of them and is a rocket.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2016)

Sometimes the meaning of words change over time. Especially when new technology shows up and then becomes common place after several decades.

So just for information as I am making no claim that this *the* definitive list passed down from on high by divine powers.

_Turbojet: _Gas turbine-compressor unit with full jet reaction thrust.

_Turbojetfan: _Gas turbine-compressor unit with full jet reaction thrust augmented by secondary turbine driven ducted fan or open fan thrust.

_Turboprop: _Gas turbine-compressor unit driving a propeller, with minor jet reaction thrust

_Rocketjet: _Rocket unit using liquid or solid propellants, with full jet reaction thrust.

_Pulsejet: _Intermittent firing or pulsating ram-compression duct unit with full jet reaction thrust.

_ Ramjet: _Continuous firing ram-compression duct unit with full jet reaction thrust.

List is from "Aircraft Engines of the World" 1947 edition by Paul H. Wilkinson.

The engines known to be in existence (at least the ones not on secrets lists) were separated into those categories in the "Jet propulsion engines and gas turbines" section of the book.

It seems over the years that _turbo _got deleted from _Turbojet, jet _got deleted from _Turbojetfan, Jet _got deleted from _Rocketjet. _at least in common useage.

edit, change rocket to jet in last sentence.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2016)

James, you're being a douche - stop the semantics and get this thread back on subject.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2016)

James W. said:


> Douche is like French for cleanser, right?
> Never the less, your honour, I rest my case, since res ipsa loquitur.


Thank you


----------



## ALEX Hogarth (Jul 19, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> So it seems that fans of the B-29 can justifiably claim that the plane slowed Soviet encroachment.
> Also, without the B-29 or B-32, how would the A-Bombs have been dropped?
> Were British heavies capable of this?


I understand that the lancaster was the failback hcad the b29 failed, plans were even made to build the lanc in the us


----------



## Valdez (Jul 19, 2016)

I would be interested to see the source for the Lancaster as an alternative to the B-29. I was under the impression that the Consolidated B-32 Dominator was the only alternative, especially after the B-32 was simplified by removing pressurization and using manned turrets.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2016)

ALEX Hogarth said:


> I understand that the lancaster was the failback hcad the b29 failed, plans were even made to build the lanc in the us


Oh dear, do you realise how long it took to start lancaster production in Canada? The USA would never have used the lancaster for many reasons,even though it could have done it.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 19, 2016)

I've read the Lancaster could carry "Little Boy" but not "Fat Man" as the fuselage was too narrow

Would the atomic bomb have been used against Germany?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2016)

ALEX Hogarth said:


> I understand that the lancaster was the failback hcad the b29 failed, plans were even made to build the lanc in the us


The XB-39 was the "fallback" for the B-29 in the event that the R-3350 engine problems couldn't be ironed out.

The B-32 was the backup for the B-29 if the project itself ran into problems.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2016)

The Lancaster was considered for carrying the Than Man nuclear bomb, because its length required a lot of changes to the B-29 bomb bays. In the end those changes were made, and the Thin Man was dropped in favour of Lttle Boy and Fat Man (both of which still required extensive modifications to the bomb bays of the B-29.



fubar57 said:


> I've read the Lancaster could carry "Little Boy" but not "Fat Man" as the fuselage was too narrow
> 
> Would the atomic bomb have been used against Germany?



That may well be the case. Grand Slam was 46" in diameter, and couldn't be carried in the Lancaster without the bomb bays being removed. Fat Man was 60" in diameter.

Little Boy was about the size of a 4000lb HC Cookie and would have no problems for the Lancaster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2016)

Way back in this thread I think we had the Lancaster/ atomic bomb discussion. I think this was just a discussion by some leaders that really didn't go that far. The "Silverplate" B-29 were modified to drop the atomic bombs and would eventually become the world's first nuclear strike force.

Project Silverplate

_"Nicknamed after the codeword for the project (a shortening of the original moniker “The Silver Plated Project”), B-29 Superfortress bombers in Silverplate configuration were the first planes ever to carry nuclear payloads. Of the 65 planes so modified between 1944 and 1947, 53 served with the first nuclear weapons unit, the 509th Composite Group. Two survive to this day and their names—Enola Gay and Bockscar"_


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Way back in this thread I think we had the Lancaster/ atomic bomb discussion. I think this was just a discussion by some leaders that really didn't go that far. The "Silverplate" B-29 were modified to drop the atomic bombs and would eventually become the world's first nuclear strike force.
> 
> Project Silverplate
> 
> _"Nicknamed after the codeword for the project (a shortening of the original moniker “The Silver Plated Project”), B-29 Superfortress bombers in Silverplate configuration were the first planes ever to carry nuclear payloads. Of the 65 planes so modified between 1944 and 1947, 53 served with the first nuclear weapons unit, the 509th Composite Group. Two survive to this day and their names—Enola Gay and Bockscar"_


I the USA was facing imminent destruction then the Lancaster could have dropped the bomb, but that was nor the situation. The Lancaster did take off and land with huge payloads. however an accident with a grand slam would severely damage the airfield, an accident with a nuclear bomb destroys the whole region which may be one of the few islands you have in reach of your enemy

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 19, 2016)

All the components weren't assembled in the bomb until after takeoff. I forget the exact procedure, I think the highly enriched triggers weren't installed until after takeoff, and at altitude. So a crash might breach the shell, and disperse nuclear matter, or a fire might detonated the high explosive charge and you'd have a small dirty bomb, but no nuclear explosion without the full assembly..

They were still using a procedure somewhat like that even in the 50's and maybe later.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I the USA was facing imminent destruction then the Lancaster could have dropped the bomb, but that was nor the situation. The Lancaster did take off and land with huge payloads. however an accident with a grand slam would severely damage the airfield, an accident with a nuclear bomb destroys the whole region which may be one of the few islands you have in reach of your enemy



All three of the nuclear bombs developed at that time (Thin Man, Little Boy and Fat Man) were comfortably below the Lancaster's normal bomb load.

Fat Man was the heaviest at 10,300lb, Little Boy was 9,700lb and Thin Man around 8,000lbs.

Thin Man was 38" in diameter (same as Tallboy and the 8,000lb and 12,000lb HC bombs). It was also 17' (5.2m) long. It was for this reason the Lancaster was considered as a candidate to deliver the bomb.

In terms of size, Little Boy could fit inside a Mosquito B.XVI. But taking off may be problematic.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> All the components weren't assembled in the bomb until after takeoff. I forget the exact procedure, I think the highly enriched triggers weren't installed until after takeoff, and at altitude. So a crash might breach the shell, and disperse nuclear matter, or a fire might detonated the high explosive charge and you'd have a small dirty bomb, but no nuclear explosion without the full assembly..
> 
> They were still using a procedure somewhat like that even in the 50's and maybe later.



If that were the case I think the Lancaster would be ruled out, as there wasn't the access to the bomb bay.

Did the B-29 have access to its bomb bays? Since it was pressurised and fore/aft access was via a tube, I thought it wouldn't.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 19, 2016)

You're right, the bomb bay can't be pressurized. I probably shouldn't have said at altitude.

But if you read about the mission it's mentioned one of the crew , maybe the bombardier, practiced the procedure several times before the mission , and it was done in flight for the actual missions.

You would think any large bomber has access to the bomb bay, I've read of various instances where crew had to assist getting hung bombs to drop.

In a cutaway of the B-29 it shows both a catwalk in the bomb bay, and a access door.

How else could Slim Pickens have rode the H-bomb down in Dr. Strangelove, lol. I know, that was a B-52.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ALEX Hogarth (Jul 20, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> You're right, the bomb bay can't be pressurized. I probably shouldn't have said at altitude.
> 
> But if you read about the mission it's mentioned one of the crew , maybe the bombardier, practiced the procedure several times before the mission , and it was done in flight for the actual missions.
> 
> ...


The lancaster had access to the bomb bay, there was a series of hatches all down the roof and a larger access port at the far end, these were however quite small, suffcient to get to a hung bomb but little else


----------



## ALEX Hogarth (Jul 20, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The XB-39 was the "fallback" for the B-29 in the event that the R-3350 engine problems couldn't be ironed out.
> 
> The B-32 was the backup for the B-29 if the project itself ran into problems.


But you would still be placing faith in what were paper designs the lancaster was a production aircraft, it wasnt ideal but it was there if the new designs failed and remember that especially the b29 was pushing current technology to its limits if not beyond


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2016)

ALEX Hogarth said:


> But you would still be placing faith in what were paper designs the lancaster was a production aircraft, it wasnt ideal but it was there if the new designs failed and remember that especially the b29 was pushing current technology to its limits if not beyond


The B29 was the most expensive military project ever undertaken at the time, costing more than the bombs it dropped, it wouldnt be allowed to fail.


----------



## ALEX Hogarth (Jul 20, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The B29 was the most expensive military project ever undertaken at the time, costing more than the bombs it dropped, it wouldnt be allowed to fail.


Expensive project fail in fact more often as they tend to be more complex, but how about a year delay?
Having fail back position is sound planning 
Plans were in place to build the lanc in the us should it be required although iirc it would have been a mk4 what was later named the lincoln


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2016)

ALEX Hogarth said:


> Expensive project fail in fact more often as they tend to be more complex, but how about a year delay?
> Having fail back position is sound planning
> Plans were in place to build the lanc in the us should it be required although iirc it would have been a mk4 what was later named the lincoln



Do you have proof of that?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2016)

ALEX Hogarth said:


> Expensive project fail in fact more often as they tend to be more complex, but how about a year delay?
> Having fail back position is sound planning
> Plans were in place to build the lanc in the us should it be required although iirc it would have been a mk4 what was later named the lincoln


Why would they build Lancasters in USA when they were being built in Canada, from late 1944 the RAF were running out of targets. The problems with the B29 were mainly material and cooling technology and largely solved in 1944.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2016)

ALEX Hogarth said:


> But you would still be placing faith in what were paper designs the lancaster was a production aircraft, it wasnt ideal but it was there if the new designs failed and remember that especially the b29 was pushing current technology to its limits if not beyond



The B-32 WAS NOT a paper design.

Consolidated B-32 Dominator bomber, design, development, history, production, scrapping, survivors, and photographs


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2016)

Several things that aren't being taken into consideration.

Fisrt of all, the B-29's concept first started in 1938 and first flew in 1942, the Lancaster was developed from the Manchester, which started on the drawing board in 1936. The Lancaster first flew in 1941.

At that point in time, no one knew which way the war was going and they certainly had no idea how long it would last.

And no one had any idea at the time the B-29 or Lancaster was being developed, that there would be Atomic Bombs deployed during the war. A few people "in the know" were aware of the Atomic project when it was established in 1942, but by then, the Lancaster and B-29 were well under way in production.

By the time the Atomic bomb program had narrowed down the design and dimensions of a workable atomic bomb, it was July 1945.

The B-36 was already under development by July 1945 and would take it's first flight a year later.

So the notion of cancelling the B-29 program after it was already in development and starting up a production line in the U.S. midwar, for the Lancaster makes no sense.

As had been mentioned before, there were a series of options that could be turned to, if the B-29 program showed signs of trouble.

And technically, there was yet another heavy, long range bomber in the wings that eventually died out, being the XB-19, which had a range far beyond that of the B-29 at 4,200 miles.

This also points to the Lancaster's range of 2,530 miles versus the B-29's range of 3,250 miles. And the comparison in speed also needs to be taken into consideration. The B-29 was fast enough to avoid all but the most modern fighter/interceptor types that Japan had to offer. The Lancaster was nearly 80 miles an hour slower than the B-29 and had a much lower service ceiling than the B-29, by roughly 10,000 feet. 

The Lancaster would not have been suitable for operations against Japan

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2016)

The USA could only produce a bomb every two weeks, at that rate they only need one aircraft, they could produce a six engined B17/B24 if they were desperate or used a Lancaster, by the time the bombs were ready the B29 was pretty much sorted.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2016)

A B-24 rolled out of Willow Run every hour at peak production.

B-24 Liberator Willow Run Assembly Plant in Michigan run by Ford, history, facts and hotographs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2016)

16 B-17s a day...

Plant 2


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2016)

The B-29 (and XB-19) was also seen as a way to strike German targets in the event Britain fell, too

As I mentioned earlier, when these concepts were set in motion, no one knew which way the war was going to go.

We have the luxury of sitting back over 70 years later and say "why didn't they..." or "they should have done..." but at the time, these decisions were made in real-time based on what they knew.


----------



## ALEX Hogarth (Jul 20, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Do you have proof of that?


My bad i didnt realise that its design was so early but saying that i would not have fath in it being avail


FLYBOYJ said:


> Do you have proof of that?


It was in a report i read i think it was by someone called norman f ramsey, i do remember it is refered to in leo mckinsktry lancaster book

I have looked it up and i miss remembered it, it was a proposal only made by a member of the atom bomb project tasked with evaluating delivery systems, it was killed off by happ


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 16 B-17s a day...
> 
> Plant 2





ALEX Hogarth said:


> I have looked it up and i miss remembered it, it was a proposal only made by a member of the atom bomb project tasked with evaluating delivery systems, it was killed off by happ



Thats what I remembered, since you have the book look up how long duplicating the drawings for the lanc took.


----------



## ALEX Hogarth (Jul 20, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Thats what I remembered, since you have the book look up how long duplicating the drawings for the lanc took.


Duplicating had already been done for the canadian avro, however i will grant that any us plant would require bigger changes as they used a different projection and i think a different notation for tolerances let alone the changes to threads etc


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2016)

ALEX Hogarth said:


> Duplicating had already been done for the canadian avro, however i will grant that any us plant would require bigger changes as they used a different projection and i think a different notation for tolerances let alone the changes to threads etc


So the Canadians carry on with no drawings? I am just old enough to remember drawings being done by hand, it was part of my school syllabus, if you want another drawing in 1944 you draw it


----------



## ALEX Hogarth (Jul 20, 2016)

pbehn said:


> So the Canadians carry on with no drawings? I am just old enough to remember drawings being done by hand, it was part of my school syllabus, if you want another drawing in 1944 you draw it


I could be wrong here but i thought multiple copies were made and transported by different routes to ensure a ful copy was available and iam old enough to have been taught engineering drawing to a level


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2016)

Multiple copies are needed, every subcontractor needs a drawing and so do the people ordering the assembly/part and building the plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2016)

A Few things here folks -

The "Ramsey Letter" (as I now remember it) was a proposal made by one individual. As stated, the proposal of using the Lancaster was made by someone who had little insight into the already implemented B-29 program. Although these folks were probably very intelligent individuals, I doubt they truly had any concept of what it took to manufacture aircraft.

*There is no record of any US manufacturer ever being approached to build the Lancaster AFAIK.*

"Drawings" are just one part of the equation. Production tooling, jigs, fixtures, templates are what's going to put everything together (of course with the manpower)

AVRO received the first Lancaster drawings in January 1942. A pattern aircraft arrived in Canada August 1942. From the first blueprint to the first test flight - sixteen months. The Canadian prototype, with serial number KB-700, rolled off the Victory Aircraft assembly line on August 1, 1943.

A total of 430 Lancaster Mk. X's were built.

The Canadian Lancasters

The Lancaster was a great aircraft, 2nd best bomber of WW2, but there were other aircraft either in the design or early production stage that would have negated any thought of the US producing Lancaster for the AAF.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "Drawings" are just one part of the equation. Production tooling, jigs, fixtures, templates are what's going to put everything together (of course with the manpower)
> 
> AVRO received the first Lancaster drawings in January 1942. A pattern aircraft arrived in Canada August 1942. From the first blueprint to the first test flight - sixteen months. The Canadian prototype, with serial number KB-700, rolled off the Victory Aircraft assembly line on August 1, 1943.
> 
> .


I was just quoting from memory FBJ I no longer have the book, without the drawings you cannot have meaningful or worthwhile discussions with suppliers for all the jigs fixtures and templates. I presume the time taken to produce them was the time from deciding to make them in Canada and the drawings arriving, I cant actually remember how long but I do remember how surprised I was.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 20, 2016)

Im trying to follow the discussion guys but its a level or three above my limited grasp of the issue. so at the risk of garnering some short dismissal id like to ask a bit of a "Dumbed down" question about the B-29. Was it a cost effective weapon system for the ETO , to replace or reinforce the more conventional B17/B24 combination? It two critical advantages over the older bombers, height and speed, and one rally bad element, cost and complexity. were the latter outweighed by the former?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2016)

parsifal said:


> Im trying to follow the discussion guys but its a level or three above my limited grasp of the issue. so at the risk of garnering some short dismissal id like to ask a bit of a "Dumbed down" question about the B-29. Was it a cost effective weapon system for the ETO , to replace or reinforce the more conventional B17/B24 combination? It two critical advantages over the older bombers, height and speed, and one rally bad element, cost and complexity. were the latter outweighed by the former?



I think that by the time the B-29 could have been deployed to the ETO the threat from enemy fighters was largely over. And on of the main threats that still remained, the Me 262, would have been quite capable of giving the B-29 serious headaches.

You are also missing one vital advantage the B-29 had over the B-17 and the B-24 - range. It was range that was the feature most required in the PTO and why B-29 deployment to the Pacific was prioritised.

As for cost and complexity, you have to consider the weight of bombs a B-29 could carry. Maximum bomb load was 20,000lb - I'm sure that was available for typical mission ranges in the ETO. Which is more than twice the load that could be carried by the B-17 or B-24. So when the cost is calculated it would need to be comparing one B-29 with two or more B-17s or B-24s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2016)

parsifal said:


> Im trying to follow the discussion guys but its a level or three above my limited grasp of the issue. so at the risk of garnering some short dismissal id like to ask a bit of a "Dumbed down" question about the B-29. Was it a cost effective weapon system for the ETO , to replace or reinforce the more conventional B17/B24 combination? It two critical advantages over the older bombers, height and speed, and one rally bad element, cost and complexity. were the latter outweighed by the former?



The B-32 was to be operated in the ETO, replacing both B-17 and B-24.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 21, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Several things that aren't being taken into consideration.
> 
> Fisrt of all, the B-29's concept first started in 1938 and first flew in 1942, the Lancaster was developed from the Manchester, which started on the drawing board in 1936. The Lancaster first flew in 1941.
> 
> ...



High altitude daylight bombing with the B-29 was pretty much ineffective. The real results came when they stripped it down and used it at night. Certainly the Lancaster could not have operated from the Mariannas but it could have been used from Iwo Jima and Okinawa. When fitted with high altitude, two stage, Merlin engines Lancaster performance increased considerably.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 21, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I think that by the time the B-29 could have been deployed to the ETO the threat from enemy fighters was largely over. And on of the main threats that still remained, the Me 262, would have been quite capable of giving the B-29 serious headaches.
> 
> You are also missing one vital advantage the B-29 had over the B-17 and the B-24 - range. It was range that was the feature most required in the PTO and why B-29 deployment to the Pacific was prioritised.
> 
> As for cost and complexity, you have to consider the weight of bombs a B-29 could carry. Maximum bomb load was 20,000lb - I'm sure that was available for typical mission ranges in the ETO. Which is more than twice the load that could be carried by the B-17 or B-24. So when the cost is calculated it would need to be comparing one B-29 with two or more B-17s or B-24s.



It's doubtful that the B-29 could have performed high altitude missions in the ETO while carrying a 20,000lb bomb load. The engine failure rate would have been prohibitive.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> High altitude daylight bombing with the B-29 was pretty much ineffective. The real results came when they stripped it down and used it at night. Certainly the Lancaster could not have operated from the Mariannas but it could have been used from Iwo Jima and Okinawa. When fitted with high altitude, two stage, Merlin engines Lancaster performance increased considerably.


The problem that the B-29 encountered over Japan, was the varying air currents that are prevelant over Japan due to the Jet Stream.

The conditions over Europe are a great deal different.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 21, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The problem that the B-29 encountered over Japan, was the varying air currents that are prevelant over Japan due to the Jet Stream.
> 
> The conditions over Europe are a great deal different.



Yes conditions over Europe were a great deal different. The Germans had a far more effective air defense network with a much greater density of Flak. B-29s would have had to climb faster and higher, sooner, compared to operations from the Mariannas and this would have exacerbated their engine problems. I can't really see any reason why a B-29 formation would have greater bombing accuracy over Europe than a formation of B-17s.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2016)

With the far more predictable air currents, pattern (area bombing) would have had much better results for the B-29 over Europe.

It was also much faster than the B-24, Lancaster and B-17 and it could operate at altitudes that made interception difficult (not impossible, difficult) for nearly all Luftwaffe interceptors except the Me262. It also had a standard bombload that was much heavier than the three bombers' capacity I just listed.

As it happens, one B-29 (41-36963) did fly to England in March 1944. It was there until early May of 1944, where it returned to the U.S. However, it did not fly any missions (bombing, recon, etc.) over continental Europe during it's stay in Britain.

There was also consideration to equip several bomb groups, to be stationed in Northern Ireland, but the idea was cancelled by February 1945. The main reasons was that the war in Europe by that time was drawing down, Germany simply did not have much fight left and the war effort in the Pacific was still in full swing and the B-29s were in demand.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 21, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> With the far more predictable air currents, pattern (area bombing) would have had much better results for the B-29 over Europe.
> 
> It was also much faster than the B-24, Lancaster and B-17 and it could operate at altitudes that made interception difficult (not impossible, difficult) for nearly all Luftwaffe interceptors except the Me262. It also had a standard bombload that was much heavier than the three bombers' capacity I just listed.
> 
> ...



Yes, the B-29 could operate at higher altitude but it had to climb to that altitude fairly quickly, against European targets, and thus stress the engines more with high power climbs. Higher altitudes and faster cruise during bombing will probably equal less accuracy than a B-17/24 flying lower and slower.

B-29 standard bomb load was not higher than the Lancaster for most mission profiles.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2016)

The idea that Europe doesn't have air currents is debatable I flew around Europe for years and a head or tail wind could add or take off 10 minutes on a one hour flight. I once arrived 10 minutes early on the flight Schipol Hanover


----------



## wuzak (Jul 21, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, the B-29 could operate at higher altitude but it had to climb to that altitude fairly quickly, against European targets, and thus stress the engines more with high power climbs. Higher altitudes and faster cruise during bombing will probably equal less accuracy than a B-17/24 flying lower and slower.
> 
> B-29 standard bomb load was not higher than the Lancaster for most mission profiles.



I don't think the B-29 would have bombed from much greater altitudes in Europe than did the B-17 and B-24.

The climbing issue is not really there, as the bombers would climb over the UK, or to the west, as they formed up into their combat wings. Much like the B-17s and B-24s did.

The airfields could be longer in the UK than they were in the Marianas, which would reduce the problems during take-offs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, the B-29 could operate at higher altitude but it had to climb to that altitude fairly quickly, against European targets, and thus stress the engines more with high power climbs. Higher altitudes and faster cruise during bombing will probably equal less accuracy than a B-17/24 flying lower and slower.
> 
> B-29 standard bomb load was not higher than the Lancaster for most mission profiles.


Bomber command had a problem synchronizing the bomber stream, a B29 didn't have to fly straight at Germany, R.A.F. bombers would go across to Wales others went north across the sea,they only had to pass the coast at a given point at a given time. With the range of the b29 I can't see any problem getting gently to 30,000ft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I don't think the B-29 would have bombed from much greater altitudes in Europe than did the B-17 and B-24.
> 
> The climbing issue is not really there, as the bombers would climb over the UK, or to the west, as they formed up into their combat wings. Much like the B-17s and B-24s did.
> 
> The airfields could be longer in the UK than they were in the Marianas, which would reduce the problems during take-offs.


I used to race on a circuit at R.A.F Carnaby , 9,000 ft long, Elvington was also an R.A.F. base and I believe was an emergency landing site for the shuttle it was 10,000ft long. Much of the UK is flat, the airfields are as long as you want.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 21, 2016)

The most likely scenario that might see a need for the b-29 in the ETO is some form of extension in the ETO. Realistically this would mean history following a different pathway to that from as early as 1942.

this is the scenario I see playing out.

hitler accedes to OKH wishes and wanders off into semi-retirement on the eastern front, appointing manstein as the supreme commander East Front. Speer is appointed minister of armaments and immediately abandons all tiger and panther production in favour of STUG and MK IVs as well as rationalising truck production. 

There is an immediate withdrawal from North Africa

The battles of late 42 and 43 through to Kursk are no static encirclements, but mobile affairs, in which the heer trades ground for time. The Red army is successful, but the costs are high. The heer emerges with a workable mobile reserve and a line intact, behind the Dnieper.

At this point a truce is negotiated. it is temporary uneasy and nobody believes it will last. Stalin informs the west he needs breathing space to rebuild his shattered forces, and will return to finish the job in one years time

Faced with this the allies are unable to open a second front until 1945. They use 1943 and 1944 to liberate Africa, liquidate Vichy, occupy Sicily Sardinia and Corsica, gain neutrality from turkey and Spain, and decide to intensify the air battle for Germany.

The german attempt to get their jet program to fruition, but largely fail. There are too many competing priorities and throughout 1945, despite the promise the jet technologies offer, they still are largely ineffectual in terms of numbers and serviceability rates

The germans do however succeed in developing a high altitude pressurised cabin technology and engine management (not sure if that is realistic or not).

From mid 1944 on, the dominant US types become these new bomber types, B-32/B-29. They face a bolstered German defence system, but not impregnable. they need to bring down, or at least control the explosion in german production whilst the Soviets rebuild their forces. Can they do it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> B-29 standard bomb load was not higher than the Lancaster for most mission profiles.



Standard Lancaster bombload was 14,000 pounds, the standard B-29 bombload was 20,000 pounds.

Yes, the Lancaster "could" carry a 22,000 pound bomb, but was highly modified to do so and was mission specific just as the Silverplate B-29s were modified to carry nuclear bombs and were mission specific.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 21, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Standard Lancaster bombload was 14,000 pounds, the standard B-29 bombload was 20,000 pounds.
> 
> Yes, the Lancaster "could" carry a 22,000 pound bomb, but was highly modified to do so and was mission specific just as the Silverplate B-29s were modified to carry nuclear bombs and were mission specific.


B-29 bomb loads varied by mission profile and range. From the Marianas, flying a high altitude daylight mission bomb load, was, IIRC 5-7000lb. 

The "standard" load of the B-29 was 10,000 lbs for a high altitude drop (20k cruise and drop at 30k ft). The maximum bomb load was 20,000lb.
Service ceiling at Max TO (140000lb) weight was 24000ft
Service ceiling at 130000lb TO weight was ~29000ft
Radius with a 20,000lb bomb load and 140k lb TO was 1750 miles but this envisaged a cruise to target of 230mph at 10000ft with a bombing altitude of 25000ft. Radius at 130k lb TO = ~1350 miles.
Time to 20k ft at 140k lb = 61.5mins
Time to 20K ft 130k lb = ~45mins

(Post war SAC data) 


These mission profiles would have needed considerable modification against European targets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2016)

Did anyone consider that these performance numbers will vary with temperature and density altitude?

As will any cooling issues, say the hypothetical engine issues of the 3350 operating in the European winter??

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 21, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The idea that Europe doesn't have air currents is debatable I flew around Europe for years and a head or tail wind could add or take off 10 minutes on a one hour flight. I once arrived 10 minutes early on the flight Schipol Hanover



I think he was referring to the issue of the jet stream over Japan, not saying that Europe doesn't have air currents.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2016)

I always liked Joe Baugher's sites - great information with lots of references. With all this hypothetical talk about what the B-29 "could have" and "would have" done, some real good info...

_"Before he left, General Hansell had introduced some reforms which were to have lasting effects. Engine failures were still a problem for the B-29 as late as mid-January of 1945, and the abort rate was running at 23 percent per mission. In order to reduce the abort rate, Hansell ordered a weight reduction program for the B-29 in which one of the fuel tanks was taken out and some of the 0.50-inch machine gun ammunition was removed, shaving over 6000 pounds from the weight of each plane. Maintenance was centralized under Hansell's headquarters rather than having it being split up between the various Bombardment Groups. As a result of these changes, B-29 endurance began to lengthen, engine life was extended from 200 to 750 hours, and the abort rate began to decline. By July of 1945, it was down to less then seven percent per operation."_

B-29 Attacks on Japan from the Marianas

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 22, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> I think he was referring to the issue of the jet stream over Japan, not saying that Europe doesn't have air currents.


Right, the geography of the Japanese islands coupled with the Jet Stream makes for extremely difficult air currents.

Regarding the B-29 & Lancaster loadouts...when I said "standard", I meant their designed maximum loads.

I was in a hurry so I wasn't more specific, but yes, each mission will have a specific distance and the bomb load will be made accordingly. The mission will also take into consideration of the weather, time of day, the enemy's defenses (AA & local airfields) plus the target profile will determine the amount of ordnance to be dropped times how many bombers will be fielded to achieve the mission's goal.

If the B-29 happened to have been deployed in the ETO against German proper, it could have carried close to the max. loadout since the targets were not a long distance objective. On the otherhand, they could have a 3/4 loadout to be able to maintain a higher cruise speed - which would still be more per bomber than a B-17 or B-24 in the same mission.

So it could have been done, but the people in charge didn't see a need for it, because as I mentioned before, Germany was punch-drunk and on it's last legs by the time the B-29 was rolling off the assembly line and making it's way to the bomber groups. The Lancaster, the B-17, B-24 and all the Allied medium bombers were doing a good enough job to warrant the B-29 to be dedicated to the Pacific, where it was most needed.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 22, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-32 was to be operated in the ETO, replacing both B-17 and B-24.




FBJ - Quick question, I read somewhere (maybe Wiki now that I think of it) the 8th and perhaps also the 15th AF were to reequip with the Dominator but then be redeployed to the PTO for the final push on Japan. I guess my confusion, and my question is was the B-32 slated for ETO operations or as new equipment for a move to the PTO?

Thanks.
Pete


----------



## stona (Jul 22, 2016)

There is no consideration above to what exactly the B-29 was supposed to hit from 30,000ft or any other altitude. 
The weather in NW Europe is indeed very different from the Pacific, and it has nothing to do with winds. It has everything to do with cloud and the fact that the ground and any targets are invisible to the attacking aircraft. A B-29 bombing on H2X would simply distribute more bombs in the vague vicinity of the target than a B-17/24 would.
More than 50% of bombing carried out by the USAAF in NW Europe in the last three months of 1944 was carried out through 8-10/10 cloud. 35% through 10/10 cloud. 86.3% of H2X missions bombed through 8-10/10 cloud.
Through 10/10 cloud only 0.2% of bombs fell within 1000' of the aiming point, more worryingly only 58.5% fell within 5 miles of the aiming point! This is NOT precision bombing. 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 22, 2016)

stona said:


> A B-29 bombing on H2X would simply distribute more bombs in the vague vicinity of the target than a B-17/24 would.



As well as more bombs on the target area, no?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 22, 2016)

Greyman said:


> As well as more bombs on the target area, no?


More bombs on fewer aircraft would mean less even scatter, a hit would have more effect but more chance of hitting nothing at all.


----------



## stona (Jul 22, 2016)

Greyman said:


> As well as more bombs on the target area, no?



Well if they bombed from the same altitude then they too would get 1 bomb in 500 within 1000 ft of the aiming point (H2X through 10/10 cloud) obviously if they dropped 1,000 bombs rather than 500 then statistically they would get 2 of them in the target area, so yes  They'd also get twice as many 5 miles away.

Altitude is another factor. I would suggest that the B-29 would be obliged to bomb from similar altitudes as the B-17 and B-24 did. In *good visibility* bombing from below 12,000ft the B-17 Groups managed to get 66% of bombs within 1000ft of the aiming point. Above 24,000ft this fell to just 12.6%. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 22, 2016)

*B-29 compatibility with the Pointblank directive and Operation Pointblank*

Of course, the timing is off, but I wonder if the B-29's, theoretically flying higher and faster, would have made as good "bait" as the B-17's and B-24's.


----------



## stona (Jul 22, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> *B-29 compatibility with the Pointblank directive and Operation Pointblank*
> 
> Of course, the timing is off, but I wonder if the B-29's, theoretically flying higher and faster, would have made as good "bait" as the B-17's and B-24's.



I think that the Luftwaffe would have been obliged to try and intercept them.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jul 22, 2016)

The B 29s performance comes at a price, the crews and planes were too costly to suffer the losses considered acceptable with other bombers like the B17/24. if they were met by numbers of Me262s the losses would be unnacceptable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> FBJ - Quick question, I read somewhere (maybe Wiki now that I think of it) the 8th and perhaps also the 15th AF were to reequip with the Dominator but then be redeployed to the PTO for the final push on Japan. I guess my confusion, and my question is was the B-32 slated for ETO operations or as new equipment for a move to the PTO?
> 
> Thanks.
> Pete



I think the original thinking was just focusing the B-32 in Europe. The wrench in the plan was the B-32 was running way behind schedule and production delays perpetuated throughout its development. In the end it was too little too late and the B-29 was able to complete the mission

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 22, 2016)

Makes sense, I had forgotten the B-32's development woes, I appreciate your insight, thanks and have a great weekend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 22, 2016)

Best in Class: A-26 and the B-29. If you add Naval Aviation, the TBF

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 23, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Makes sense, I had forgotten the B-32's development woes, I appreciate your insight, thanks and have a great weekend.



The B-32 contract was placed as a contingency to the B-29. Once the B-29 development was moving along, its not hard to see Consolidated putting its best resources on the B-36. The XB-36 was rolled out in August 1945.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> The B-32 contract was placed as a contingency to the B-29. Once the B-29 development was moving along,* its not hard to see Consolidated putting its best resources on the B-36.* The XB-36 was rolled out in August 1945.


There were orders for the B-32 that were cancelled at or around VJ Day that numbered 1,500 aircraft. Contractors don't always have a say where their best resources go - they follow a contract and delivery schedule dictated by the customer unless they are working on a private venture, and the B-36 WAS NOT a private venture. Delays in delivery are negotiated and sometime the contractor is penalized for delays.

From Wiki;

_"As the Pacific war progressed, the air force increasingly needed a bomber capable of reaching Japan from its bases in __Hawaii__, and the development of the B-36 resumed in earnest. Secretary of War __Henry L. Stimson__, in discussions with high-ranking officers of the AAF, decided to waive normal army procurement procedures, and on 23 July 1943 ordered 100 B-36s before the completion and testing of the two prototypes. The first delivery was due in August 1945, and the last in October 1946, but Consolidated (now renamed Convair) delayed delivery. The aircraft was unveiled on 20 August 1945, and flew for the first time on 8 August 1946"

Throughout its development, the B-36 would encounter delays. When the United States entered World War II, *Consolidated was ordered to slow B-36 development and greatly increase **Consolidated B-24 Liberator** production*. The first mockup was inspected on 20 July 1942, following six months of refinements. A month after the inspection, the project was moved from San Diego, California, to Fort Worth, Texas, which set back development several months. Consolidated changed the tail from a twin-tail to a single, thereby saving 3,850 pounds (1,750 kg), but this change delayed delivery by 120 days. The tricycle landing gear system's initial main gear design, with huge single wheels found to cause significant ground pressure problems, limited the B-36 to operating from just three air bases in the United States: Carswell Field (former Carswell AFB, now NAS JRB Fort Worth/Carswell Field), adjacent to the Consolidated factory in Fort Worth, Texas; Eglin Field (now Eglin AFB), Florida; and Fairfield-Suisun Field (now Travis AFB) in California[13]). As a result, the Air Force mandated that Consolidated design a four-wheeled bogie-type wheel system for each main gear unit instead, which distributed the pressure more evenly and reduced weight by 1,500 pounds (680 kg). Changes in the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) requirements would add back any weight saved in redesigns, and cost more time. A new antenna system needed to be designed to accommodate an ordered radio and radar system. The Pratt & Whitney engines were redesigned, adding another 1,000 pounds (450 kg)._


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 23, 2016)

Yes, the B-36 was developed on contract money. If you were Consolidated Management and by 1944 you saw the B-29 in production and deployed, and you had a contract to develop a complimentary bomber, the B-32, and a contract to develop what was probably the bomber that would replace both the B-29 and B-32, which project would you assign the best engineers and development team to? I'd staff the B-36 program with the best team I had. I think it could have been one of the reasons for the long gestation period of the B-32. 
Just MHO, we tend to look back and consider performance and specifications, but then as now, I'm sure politics, lobbys and profits had a lot to do with which planes were sent to combat. Different topic, but I can't help thinking the reason the USAF chose the 51 over the 47N post war was the politics of the California Congressional Block, and North American knew how to Lobby and play the procurement game in peace time better than Republic. NA kept the P-51 sold. Republic didn't.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> Yes, the B-36 was developed on contract money. If you were Consolidated Management and by 1944 you saw the B-29 in production and deployed, and you had a contract to develop a complimentary bomber, the B-32, and a contract to develop what was probably the bomber that would replace both the B-29 and B-32, which project would you assign the best engineers and development team to? I'd staff the B-36 program with the best team I had. I think it could have been one of the reasons for the long gestation period of the B-32.


No - I'd sign my assign my best engineers to the programs that had the highest priorities. At manufactures it doesn't work that way and I've worked at several.

The long gestation period involved several changes to the B-32's outward configuration and some of the internal systems.



pinehilljoe said:


> Just MHO, we tend to look back and consider performance and specifications, but then as now, I'm sure politics, lobbys and profits had a lot to do with which planes were sent to combat.


 If you want to believe that, fine, I could tell you back then lobbyists had little to do with what went into combat, if they did the P-51 would have never been built.



pinehilljoe said:


> Different topic, but I can't help thinking the reason the USAF chose the 51 over the 47N post war was the politics of the California Congressional Block, and North American knew how to Lobby and play the procurement game in peace time better than Republic. NA kept the P-51 sold. Republic didn't.


 Unless you have some proof of that, this is just your opinion. The P-47 was operated by the USAF well into the 50's so I really don't understand your point. The P-51 was sent to Korea because there were more of them and they were cheaper to operate.

There's plenty of DOCUMENTED evidence that shows how US aircraft were developed, vetted and procured, there's no "conspiracy theory" behind some of these decisions.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 23, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There's plenty of DOCUMENTED evidence that shows how US aircraft were developed, vetted and procured, there's no "conspiracy theory" behind some of these decisions.



I don't think there was conspiracy in the War procurement. But I've worked in Aerospace for over 30 years, and I agree with Sydney Camm, when he said "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics" You need to get all four right to get a contract and keep your program sold. Sixty years later I think we tend to look at just the airplane specifications.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2016)

There's plenty of acknowledgement to the "politics" behind the types that made it and the ones that didn't.

Whether is was congressional "anxiety" over project delays and cost over-runs or typical infighting between the Army and the Navy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> I don't think there was conspiracy in the War procurement. But I've worked in Aerospace for over 30 years, and I agree with Sydney Camm, when he said "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics" You need to get all four right to get a contract and keep your program sold. Sixty years later I think we tend to look at just the airplane specifications.



38 years in aircraft maintenance and manufacturing (to include Lockheed, Boeing, Teledyne Ryan and BAE, and a few more) I could agree to a point - going back to your original point about the P-51 and P-47N, nonsense IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## topspeed (Feb 17, 2022)

How well would the Farman 223.4 fare with HP Halifax and Short Stirling ?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 19, 2022)

delcyros said:


> [...] or the B-29 (despite the latter gains some additional credit for shortening the war by delivering nukes to Japan. However, this credit should be given to the whole Manhatten project rather than to the carrier plane).



I've only started reading this thread, but I'd argue that the firebombings prior to the A-bomb attack had as much to do with ending the war. It also laid thousands of mines, interdicting interisland domestic transport.

Forgive me if I'm repeating someone else's point on this, but I think the B-29 has much more to be proud of than just the atomic attacks.

And yes, I know I'm replying to an old post.

I'll go back to reading ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 20, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I've only started reading this thread, but I'd argue that the firebombings prior to the A-bomb attack had as much to do with ending the war. It also laid thousands of mines, interdicting interisland domestic transport.
> 
> Forgive me if I'm repeating someone else's point on this, but I think the B-29 has much more to be proud of than just the atomic attacks.
> 
> ...


I realize too that this is an old thread but I'm in total agreement, I think the B-29 was a major influence in shortening the war in the Pacific and you've stated the reasons quite well.

I do believe that it got to the point where there was perilously little to bomb or firebomb by August 1945. I consulted my uncles diary, when he did some of the POW flights and then the flyover during the surrender ceremony they were low and slow. According to him the devastation was eye popping / horrifying. I believe he felt quite a bit of guilt later on, only once did he let slip about his feelings over civilian deaths that he felt responsible for.

It was an unnerving experience I can tell you, I idolized him along with my dad and my other uncles, but once he really almost fell to pieces talking about it, after quite a few drinks that is. He didn't go to reunions and really didn't even seem to like the B-29, or perhaps the memories seeing one brought back. There are some hairy mission narratives in his diary to say the least. 

Sorry, I ramble on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 20, 2022)

Yeah, 

 Peter Gunn
, at a certain point it started looking like bouncing the rubble around, using hindsight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2022)

You guys digging up old threads.

I read some of my older, less educated, and hot headed posts and it makes me cringe. Aging does make you calmer and wiser.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You guys digging up old threads.
> 
> I read some of my older, less educated, and hot headed poste and it makes me cringe. Aging does make you calmer and wiser.


I'll second that especially in retirement mode!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Feb 21, 2022)

Attached is an excerpt from a lecture given by Professor Thomas Childers of U Penn, on the War, in this excerpt he discusses dropping the bomb. ©1998 The Teaching Company, LLC (P)1998 The Great Courses


----------

