Best Allied Heavy Bomber

[Civettone]

Why is that? The question is what was the best heavy bomber? That is clearly the B-29.

Sure sure, I also think it has to be the B-29.

But my point is that with these "best ... of WW2" one is automatically stuck with "the best of 1945" as equipment always improved and the stuff from 1945 is better than that of 1940.
It becomes a very shallow discussion if one only looks at it that way. The best stuff will be the Me 262, the B-29, Panther G, StG 44, ... all from the end of the war.
But what does this say about the war as a whole? WW2 as a six-year conflict? What about all the pre-1944 stuff?

So it depends on how one interprets the question.

Just compare it to athletes. Who is the best athlete ever? Anyone who holds the current world record?
Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Marcel is 100% correct.

This is the 3rd or 4th thread about the best heavy bomber. Fact is fact and fact remains that the B-29 was the best heavy bomber built during WW2. Arguing it is futile.

A much better question is what was the 2nd best. That can at least be debated and discussed. I too go with the Lancaster as the 2nd best bomber.

 

[Civettone]

little notes

Stirling I first mission february '41
Halifax I first mission march '41
Fortress I first mission july '41
Pe-8 first mission august '41
Lancaster I first mission march '42
B-24D first mission june '42

Not as much time between some as I thought. Thanks Vincenzo !

Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sure sure, I also think it has to be the B-29.

But my point is that with these "best ... of WW2" one is automatically stuck with "the best of 1945" as equipment always improved and the stuff from 1945 is better than that of 1940.
It becomes a very shallow discussion if one only looks at it that way. The best stuff will be the Me 262, the B-29, Panther G, StG 44, ... all from the end of the war.
But what does this say about the war as a whole? WW2 as a six-year conflict? What about all the pre-1944 stuff?

So it depends on how one interprets the question.

Just compare it to athletes. Who is the best athlete ever? Anyone who holds the current world record?
Kris

I see what you mean. I think if you really want to discuss the heavies and what is best, you either have to do one of three things.

1. Discuss what is the 2nd best overall in the war. That will make for a fun debate.

2. Break it down by time period of the war. You can say best bomber pre-1941. Best bomber 1942 to 1944, etc...

3. Just discuss certain bombers, i.e. Lanc vs. B-17, etc.

If you are going to talk about the bombers in general, there really is no debate.

 

[Civettone]

What I do know is that neither Enola Gay nor Bock's Car (Nagasaki)
triggered an air raid warning, as the Japanese did not regard single aircraft/small formations to pose a great enough threat, although I'm not sure what advantage there is to be gained from catching the Japanese out in the open when the payload of choice is a nuke. A bomber group would have triggered an air raid warning, a swarm of interceptors and a statistical chance at least of Enola Gay being shot down before delivering the goods.

So I suppose the Americans were already counting on them being left alone. The Japs were conserving fuel and would only oppose American aircraft when really necessary. I even recall reading that in the last weeks they didnt even bother intercepting bombers at all. Saving everything for the invasion.

But I still wonder if it is possible to drop a nuke when part of a larger fleet. I suppose that is my real question!

Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

But I still wonder if it is possible to drop a nuke when part of a larger fleet. I suppose that is my real question!

Kris

I don't think you would want to. A large bomber fleet would be more difficult to get away from the blast area.

 

[vikingBerserker]

1st - B-29

2nd - Consolidated B-32 Dominator - though it only flew 2 combat missions. 10 x .50 cals, 20k lb bombload, ceiling of 35k feet, 365 mph and a max range of 3,800 miles.

3rd - IMO the Halifax was more versitile then the Lancaster.

 

[Waynos]

You might also ask which has the greated design longevity?

Although at first you would say the 1939 Manchester to the Shackleton retired in 1991 (via the Lanc and Linc) is pretty good going, but if you look closely, there is still a trace of the B-29, albeit a faint one, in the fuselage architecture, in the Tu-95 still operated today.

This lineage is more clearly seen by looking at the Tu-80 and then Tu-85 evolution from the Tu-4 starting point, the Tu-95 was essentially a turboprop powered Tu-85 with swept wings

Also, there was never a hit single about a Lancaster! (I refer to OMD's 1981 hit single "Enola Gay")

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

To kind of get this into a more realistic discussion (I mean one that might be more interesting than discussing why the B-29 is the best overall) about the other heavy bombers before the B-29. The ones that were already in service from the start of the war up to the B-29.

Here is the thread:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/rank-allied-heavy-bombers-1939-1944-a-21485.html

 

[Colin1]

Fortress I first mission july '41

It's probably more accurate to compare full-swing Lancaster operations with full-swing B-17 operations. The RAF took on what? Around 30 Fortress Is? ...operated them at too high an altitude to bomb accurately, too low an altitude to evade the Luftwaffe (even the Bf109E could reach it), missed just about everything they bombed, lost 8 aircraft and withdrew them 2 months later.

By full-swing B-17 operations I mean the daylight bombing campaign initiated by the 8th AF vis a vis the full-swing night bombing operations conducted by the RAF. These were commenced within 4 or 5 months of each other in 1942.

I would hardly call the B-17 decisive or best as a result of its RAF operations.

 

[Milosh]

Why is that? The question is what was the best heavy bomber? That is clearly the B-29.

The B-29 shouldn't considered since it was very heavy bomber.

 

[Gnomey]

Very true that the B-29 is the best overall bomber of the war of that there is surely no question. As has already been said this has been discussed many times before. As for the 2nd best that is an interesting discussion which has also been done in bits and pieces before. I would say it is between the B-32, B-17, and Lancaster, of the three I lean towards the Lancaster but they are all good aircraft in their own way.

 

[Civettone]

To kind of get this into a more realistic discussion (I mean one that might be more interesting than discussing why the B-29 is the best overall) about the other heavy bombers before the B-29. The ones that were already in service from the start of the war up to the B-29.

Here is the thread:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/rank-allied-heavy-bombers-1939-1944-a-21485.html

Nice !


So about the nuclear blast, I was discussing this last year with somebody. You would basically need a lone bomber or a very small formation if you were planning to drop an atomic bomb, right? So that means you would need to have air superiority before you could launch the mission. That is an interesting thought for what-if scenarios, more specifically the one I had with him: allied A-bombs over Germany if the war had dragged on (for instance because the Luftwaffe would regain air control.)


Kris

 

[Vincenzo]

It's probably more accurate to compare full-swing Lancaster operations with full-swing B-17 operations. The RAF took on what? Around 30 Fortress Is? ...operated them at too high an altitude to bomb accurately, too low an altitude to evade the Luftwaffe (even the Bf109E could reach it), missed just about everything they bombed, lost 8 aircraft and withdrew them 2 months later.

By full-swing B-17 operations I mean the daylight bombing campaign initiated by the 8th AF vis a vis the full-swing night bombing operations conducted by the RAF. These were commenced within 4 or 5 months of each other in 1942.

I would hardly call the B-17 decisive or best as a result of its RAF operations.

it's true the RAF have only 20 Fortress I ,afaik they haven't loss in the first mission (but was not a successfull mission many don't find the target). all bomber first mission it's not related at large number of planes Halifax first mission were 6 planes, Lancaster first mission 4 planes.

i add the Liberator II first mission on list, and i'm looking on Liberator I first mission

 

[Sparbolt]

I would have to agree that the B-29 was the best allied bomber,once all those engine fires were cured. Wonder what would have happened if all those teething problems of the R-3350 had been cured earlier........... food for thought.
Taking into accout the ETO, if you discounted the B-29's performance in the PTO, I would have to lean toward the B-17, (please all B-24 supporters, don't freak).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The B-29 shouldn't considered since it was very heavy bomber.

In World War 2, a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber.

Come on now...

Nice !


So about the nuclear blast, I was discussing this last year with somebody. You would basically need a lone bomber or a very small formation if you were planning to drop an atomic bomb, right? So that means you would need to have air superiority before you could launch the mission. That is an interesting thought for what-if scenarios, more specifically the one I had with him: allied A-bombs over Germany if the war had dragged on (for instance because the Luftwaffe would regain air control.)


Kris

That is a very interesting thought. If the war had carried on more than few more months, that would mean that Germany would have had to regain control of the skies. In that case, I think a bombing might have been to risky.

 

[Vincenzo]

In World War 2, a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber.

i'm agree that for our comparation B-29 it' simply a heavy bomber, but milosh it's right was classified very heavy bomber from USAAF

 

[syscom3]

In World War 2, a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber, was a heavy bomber.

Come on now...

Technically he is right, in that the B24 and B17 were designated as "heavy bombers", while the B29 did have the desgnation "very heavy bomber".

Its a moot point though, since 999/1000 aviation enthusiasts would disallow the designation in a debate.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When the B-36 came along the B-29 was actually designated as a medium bomber!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Technically he is right, in that the B24 and B17 were designated as "heavy bombers", while the B29 did have the desgnation "very heavy bomber".

Its a moot point though, since 999/1000 aviation enthusiasts would disallow the designation in a debate.

I agree, that technically he is correct. For all intensive purposes however it was a heavy bomber.