Best Allied Heavy Bomber

Colin1 · Nov 2, 2009

Regardless of how the B-29 was classified
it should not be penalised simply because that was where the technology had gotten to when it arrived. It served in WWII and with distinction. It could walk away with the title to the thread simply by its bringing of Japan to her knees with two specific raids, both raids added together comprising a mere handful of aircraft; compare this to the thousand bomber raids that swept over Germany and still did not (single-handedly) bring about German surrender.

Marcel · Nov 2, 2009

Colin1 said:
It could walk away with the title to the thread simply by its bringing of Japan to her knees with two specific raids, both raids added together comprising a mere handful of aircraft; compare this to the thousand bomber raids that swept over Germany and still did not (single-handedly) bring about German surrender.

I would give the credit to the bomb, but well....
For the rest I agree of course that the B29 was the most advanced and capable bomber of the war

Colin1 · Nov 2, 2009

Marcel said:
I would give the credit to the bomb, but well....
For the rest I agree of course that the B-29 was the most advanced and capable bomber of the war

Other than a B-29
how else would the bomb have reached the target?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 2, 2009

Colin1 said:
Regardless of how the B-29 was classified
it should not be penalised simply because that was where the technology had gotten to when it arrived. It served in WWII and with distinction. It could walk away with the title to the thread simply by its bringing of Japan to her knees with two specific raids, both raids added together comprising a mere handful of aircraft; compare this to the thousand bomber raids that swept over Germany and still did not (single-handedly) bring about German surrender.

Ditto...

Shortround6 · Nov 2, 2009

Colin1 said:
Other than a B-29
how else would the bomb have reached the target?

Lancasters with arial refueling

B-32.

Modified Lockeed Constellation.

How long would they have had to plan something else if they knew the B-29 wasn't working?

FLYBOYJ · Nov 2, 2009

The Connie actually started out as a bomber design.

parsifal · Nov 3, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
The Connie actually started out as a bomber design.

Now that I didnt know. Funny, I was daydreaming just the other day about how effective the Constellation might be as a lat war bomber.......silly I know....., but

FLYBOYJ · Nov 3, 2009

parsifal said:
Now that I didnt know. Funny, I was daydreaming just the other day about how effective the Constellation might be as a lat war bomber.......silly I know....., but

Lockheed XB-30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civettone · Nov 3, 2009

Shortround6 said:
Lancasters with arial refueling

B-32.

Modified Lockeed Constellation.

How long would they have had to plan something else if they knew the B-29 wasn't working?

They could also have the bomber ditch into the ocean on the way back, picked up by subs or Catalina's...

Kris

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Nov 3, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
Lockheed XB-30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting. Small bomb load though.

Shortround6 · Nov 3, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
Lockheed XB-30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for the link.

A problem the US had with ALL the alturnatives to the B-29 was that they all used the same engine, the Wright R-3350. Since the R-3350 caused a good amount of the problems with the B-29, until it was straightened out none of the alturnatives would have done any better.

The only other powerplant in contention was the Allison V-3420.

Marcel · Nov 3, 2009

Colin1 said:
Other than a B-29
how else would the bomb have reached the target?

Eh...good point...

riacrato · Nov 3, 2009

The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.

syscom3 · Nov 3, 2009

riacrato said:
The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.

The B29 ended the war.

No matter what the Russians like to say, there was no amphibious capability or doctrine (and training) for them to invade Japan with some measure of success.

Colin1 · Nov 3, 2009

riacrato said:
The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.

Sorry
but how do you reconcile failed negotiations for a conditional peace with the ability of your enemies to reduce your cities to ash, in the blink of an eye, from one aircraft as comparable contributors to Japan's surrender?

Japan wasn't about to surrender, they were about to inflict colossal casualties on incoming US forces as they tried to take mainland Japan - does that sound like a nation on the brink of collapse owing to flaky conditional peace talks? The most that senior Japanese commanders hoped to get from talks with the Soviets was to buy some time until that ground offensive started, they saw the considerable casualties they could inflict on US forces as the real leverage for conditional peace talks.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, next on the list was Kokura Arsenal and then Niigata - Groves was even preparing more targets for the eventuality that they didn't work; Japan surrendered before there was no Japan left to surrender.

FLYBOYJ · Nov 3, 2009

riacrato said:
The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy.

The Soviets were weeks if not months away from doing any serious damage to the japanese mainland. I'd agree japanese leaders had something to worry about, but it was the bomb that brought the Japanese Empire down.

BTW - I don't feel badly about the deployment of BOTH atomic bombs.

Now please stay on topic.

Civettone · Nov 3, 2009

I read it was the destruction of the last oil reserves which made the military realize that defeat was inevitable. But then the B-29 still did it ...
http://www.tony-kirk.com/WWIIsecret/main.html

I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??

Kris

edit: if the link doesn't work: http://www.worldwar-two.net/acontecimentos/40/

FLYBOYJ · Nov 3, 2009

Civettone said:
I read it was the destruction of the last oil reserves which made the military realize that defeat was inevitable. But then the B-29 still did it ...

I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??

Kris

Because they were made to think that each of their major cities were going to suffer the same fate.

syscom3 · Nov 3, 2009

Civettone said:
I read it was the destruction of the last oil reserves which made the military realize that defeat was inevitable. But then the B-29 still did it ...

I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??

Kris

There was only three days between the first and second.

They surrendered after the 2nd, once the political leaders realized just what was going to happen.

Colin1 · Nov 3, 2009

Civettone said:
I don't think the A-bomb was THE turning point. Why else did they not surrender after the first ??

Hirohito was desperate to end the war
his Army and Navy ministers were just as determined to hold the line. After Hiroshima, they and their senior staff still wanted to play the waiting game on the Soviets. After Nagasaki (and the near-simultaneous declaration of war by the Soviet Union), the same senior figures were split down the middle over the surrender issue; at this point Hirohito stepped in and tipped the vote in favour of surrender.

The bomb was THE turning point, the guy at the top in Tokyo saw that too

Best Allied Heavy Bomber

Which is the best Allied Heavy Bomber?

Avro lancaster

B-24 Liberator

B-17 Flying Fortress

B-29 Superfortress

Senior Master Sergeant

rotartsinimdA

Senior Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

rotartsinimdA

Senior Airman

Pacific Historian

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads