# Poll: Best strategic bomber of Cold War (1950-1970)?



## ShVAK (Aug 24, 2012)

Which bomber would you want on your side most at the height of the Cold War?

Vote here!


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 24, 2012)

You've got a problem, you start your period of coverage too early.
Only one of those aircraft was operational in 1950, the B-36. The rest you'd have to wait till 56 or so until they became operational, some hadn't even had their first flights till several years after 1950.

If the period was 1956-, i'd be a no brainer to me, the B-52.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 24, 2012)

I should've specified that as "in service from '50-'70 at any given point" if that makes any sense. Not that they were operational by '50. Same with the interceptor poll.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2012)

Same as the figher question. The Cold War went on longer than 1970...


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 24, 2012)

Yes I know, but once we get into mid-70s and 80's we're talking hardware that is largely still being used today. I wanted to see how 50's and 60's designs are evaluated by the folks around here.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 24, 2012)

The Tu-95 and B-52 both had their first flights in 1952, both became operational in 56, and both are still operational today, with maybe plans to stay operational for ANOTHER 20 years.

So i'd guess it'd come down to a choice between those two, afterall they have stood the test of time.
I'd pick the Buff, the B-52.

Just think of that, a weapon system staying in use 80 years. 
How long did some of the great fighting sailing ships of the 18th and 19th century stay in use?


----------



## stona (Aug 25, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Just think of that, a weapon system staying in use 80 years.



The longbow......ruled the battlefield for over 200 years 

Seriously I'd go with the B-52 as well,though I do love the Vulcan.

Steve


----------



## yulzari (Aug 25, 2012)

Were it available the Valiant B.2. Why (and how) on earth did a bankrupt Britain fund 4 different strategic bombers. By the way, in the cold war period, the Vulcan was an awesome very high altitude fighter were it so armed. At extreme height I have been reliably told of one out maneuvering an F14 with ease.


----------



## glennasher (Aug 26, 2012)

Just think of the 1911 Colt autopistol, designed over 100 years ago, and the USMC just signed a contract for MORE.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 26, 2012)

B-52 the best, Vulcan, B-58 and Tu-95 the coolest.


----------



## starling (Aug 26, 2012)

Backfire.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 26, 2012)

starling said:


> Backfire.



Wasn't in service until 1972.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 27, 2012)

These types of threads make me nuts. Can you choose a 1970s bomber for operation in 1950? And if you choose an early bomber, say B-36, are you stuck with it until the '70s?


----------



## davebender (Aug 27, 2012)

The Madsen machinegun is probably still in service somewhere, 110 years after it was introduced. 9 years longer then M1911 pistol. 

*2009 photo of Madsen machinegun in service with Brazilian police.*
The Madsen machine gun, not quite dead yet


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 27, 2012)

Wow that's crazy. I'm sure Brazil has the means to replace it with something in house or imported that is modern and vastly simpler* by now but it's still kicking. Amazing for a gun that pretty much disappeared from continental Europe after WWII. 

*The Madsen is actually an extensively modified Peabody-Martin lever action. I've seen a gif of it and still don't know how it works so well, let alone works at all.


----------



## davebender (Aug 28, 2012)

I've seen similiar statements by gun experts. The designer was either genius or extremely lucky.

What amazes me is the Madsen machinegun continued to sell right up to about 1950. By then it was competing against BAR, ZB vz.26 (i.e. Bren), MG34, MG42 and quite a few other LMGs that were more modern.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 28, 2012)

Speaking of which, I think some countries still use the MG42 (MG3) design in 7.62 NATO and swear by them. 70 years after conception and it's still the best damn GPMG ever built.


----------



## davebender (Aug 29, 2012)

I agree. MG42/MG3 will probably remain in German service as long as they continue to use the 7.62mm NATO cartridge.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 24, 2017)

I'm surprised they were worried about the B-58 being able to penetrate enemy air-space at high-altitude. From what I remember

Our MIM-14 missile batteries had a great deal of difficulty being able to carry out a successful mock-intercept against them; the SA-2 and MIM-14 were said to have similar capabilities
The MiG-21, Su-9, Yak-28, Su-11, and Su-15, and Tu-28 all had speeds that were either inferior to the cruise speed to superior to cruise, but inferior to top-end dash-speed, and IIRC, the first two, third, and fifth needed rear-quarter intercepts at first.

Comparisons against the F-106's were unrealistic as the USSR did not have anything similar to the Genie (I'm not sure if the USAF thought otherwise...)
I do know that the SA-2's did have variants with nuclear warheads as of 1964: I'm not sure whether we knew that or not, but that does seem a good way to make interceptions greatly more likely! I could imagine wanting to fly in the weeds rather than stay up high


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 25, 2017)

I got some questions regarding two designs

Vulcan vs Victor

Vulcan was better down-low than the Victor at the least for metal fatigue issues
Was the Victor able to maneuver better than the Vulcan at altitude?
Bear vs Buff

There does not seem to be any area the Bear has an advantage over the BUFF in terms of survivability, though it seems to have a greater internal payload

The Tu-95 down low with turboprops: Could it fly further?


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 25, 2017)

Each has some good points, but, like all these kind of polls, it all comes down to how does one define best. The Cold War never really turned hot, except for proxy wars in places no one really cared about except for their value as tokens in the proxy war, so one can't really evaluate their combat performance (had it done so, we would look back, with nostalgia, at the electric light)

On the issue of the RAF: the V-bombers were all great aircraft, but for all the reported penury of the British governments' defence budget, why three aircraft for the same mission?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 25, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> On the issue of the RAF: the V-bombers were all great aircraft, but for all the reported penury of the British governments' defence budget, why three aircraft for the same mission?



actually four.

Short Sperrin





First flew in 1951, only two built. Was always the fall back position in case the other three failed. Belt, suspenders and tape?


----------



## The Basket (Apr 25, 2017)

Muggins turn.
Instead of making the best aircraft just build to keep factories open and people employed. Probably best explanation. 
Vulcan rules!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 25, 2017)

other for me. specifically f-111 early marks introduced from july 1967. Still the best bomber in 2017, able to combine strategic and tactical functions with extremely high survivability rates, and with updated avionics very high first round hit rates. They are sorely missed in the RAAF inventory.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 25, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm surprised they were worried about the B-58 being able to penetrate enemy air-space at high-altitude. From what I remember
> 
> Our MIM-14 missile batteries had a great deal of difficulty being able to carry out a successful mock-intercept against them; the SA-2 and MIM-14 were said to have similar capabilities
> The MiG-21, Su-9, Yak-28, Su-11, and Su-15, and Tu-28 all had speeds that were either inferior to the cruise speed to superior to cruise, but inferior to top-end dash-speed, and IIRC, the first two, third, and fifth needed rear-quarter intercepts at first.
> ...


I think they were more worried about the B-58's poor serviceability, high loss rate, and insufficient range.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 26, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I think they were more worried about the B-58's poor serviceability, high loss rate


I know it was maintenance intensive, I'm not sure what caused such a high loss-rate: Sometimes it gave me the vibe that it performed so much like a fighter that they couldn't keep up with all the checklist items, and were looking at so many dials and switches as they barreled down the field and into the air that they lost situational awareness.

As for insufficient range, I was told they had enough range to make it across the Atlantic, and in that record flight, they lost an engine. I know they were going to carry out periodic course corrections and that takes up more space than a straight-line course, but it's only about 600-900 nm from the border of Russia to dead center (not sure where they would refuel).


----------



## Zipper730 (May 12, 2017)

To the OP: I was thinking you should have created the post around different eras: I would go from the following eras

1935 to 1939: He-111, Blenheim, B-17, B-24, Ju-88

1939 to 1945: Ju-88, He-111, B-17, B-24, B-25, Avro Lancaster, Avro Lincoln, B-29

1945 to 1950: B-29/B-50, B-36, B-45, B-47, Canberra

1950 to 1957: B-29/B-50, B-36, B-45, B-47, B-52, Canberra, Vulcan, Victor, Mya-4, Tu-16 

1957 to 1965: B-47, B-52, B-58, V-Bombers, Canberra/B-57

1965 to 1975: 

1975 to 1992:
1992 to Present:
Or something like that


----------



## fubar57 (May 12, 2017)

The OP hasn't been here for 4 years


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2017)

this new format catches me like that all the time. it lists 'similar threads 'which I will sometimes go to. I need to keep reminding myself to check the dates on stuff. many of these old threads are well past their use by dates I think


----------



## Zipper730 (May 12, 2017)

Should I just create a new thread around this purpose or just let it be?


----------



## stona (May 13, 2017)

I dunno, but its a bit of a stretch putting the Ju 88 in 1936-1939 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (May 13, 2017)

Likewise the B-17 and B-24. The XB-24s first flight was December 29, 1939.


----------

