Best Bomber of ww2

the lancaster kicks ass said:

yes but you hit it with a very much smaller punch......

Click to expand...

I dont know about that.

For instance the RAF goes in and drops 100 tons of bombs over a 10 square mile area, when the actual target is somewhere within that 10 square mile area.

Or the USAAF goes in and drops 10 tons of bombs in a one square mile area that contains the target.

Both get the job done but which is more efficient? Which gives a larger "punch"?

Y'see, '' daylight raids eliminating problems with navigation '' was quite a cop-out....Although the Norden bombsight was an excellent piece of equiptment, there were still alot of problems with accuracy....

Bomber Command started-out quite unprepared in WWII, it was really uphill, those gallant early-war crews in their Hampdens, Blenheims and Whitleys were asked to fight a battle against almost impossible odds....no radar, puny bombloads and the opposition, both from the ground and in the air was formidible...look at the trouble the 8th AF had with it later-on. Weather played a large part in the success or failure, but those early BC crews and aircraft never faultered, buying valuable time for Britiain to develop from dropping propaganda leaflets, to set forth on one of the longest, costliest, most destructive, and finally, most murderously effective bombing campaigns the world has ever witnessed.....that chancy beginning was so different from the thousand-bomber armadas that rode forth in later years......

But it was navigational accuracy first that got them there [and back]...in the dark, and it was a combination of radar and bomb-aiming tactics that gave Britain it's accuracy, even installing bombing-cameras that took another half-minute of the bomb-run to take the picture, to ensure that ' bombing-creepback ' didn't interfere with accuracy......

Against a picture of that sort of Strategic Night-bombing Campaign, dropping a few bombs in daylight with escort, seems a doddle, where you can see the fighters, where flying the bombers another 10,000 ft higher can't have helped accuracy, and right throughout the War, the German Anti-aircraft Arm was MOST formidible, day and night, didn't matter what height you were at.....

As far as accuracy went, the formation of RAF 617 Sqn. gave Britain a unit that became specialists, still going today....

When you think about '' Best Bomber '', sure the B-29 was great, but it was built from data gleaned from B-17 B-24 experience in the ETO, and the B-29 only became effective from the tactics gleaned off Bomber Command....Remember, both Paul Tibbetts and Curtis Le May cut their flying teeth in the 8th's early days in the ETO......

This is why I vote the Lancaster as '' Best Bomber '', because it was the instrument that became Germany's harbinger of Defeat, from it's introduction to the end of conflict, it consistently and incessantly delivered a vast bombload to all corners of the Reich, over and above any other aircraft....

The Mosquito comes second, because for what it was, and what it did, made it ' hand-in-glove ' with the Lancaster's work.......

Gemhorse said:

When you think about '' Best Bomber '', sure the B-29 was great, but it was built from data gleaned from B-17 B-24 experience in the ETO

Click to expand...

The Model 345 (B-29) was designed to answer an Army design specification issued on January 29, 1940. The formal design from Boeing was submitted on May 11, 1940.
First orders were taken for the B-29 on May 17, 1941 with the first XB-29 flight coming on September 21, 1942.

The first B-17 raid over Europe was launched on August 17, 1942.

And the main reason that the B-29s didn't achieve much success over Japan was due to the jet stream air currents encountered at altitude.

To begin with the B-29 diedn't have success but they learnt from the Brits that night bombing from lower altitudes did the trick. The B-29 was sent with a bombload consisting almost entirely of incendiaries at low level and at night. This produced results

A fair amount of the incendiary missions were conducted in daylight as well. Although the incendiary missions gather a lot of the limelight, bombing with general purpose 500, 1000 and 2000 pound bombs occured just as frequently.

I've got quite a few mission log details from B-29 crews on Sallyann's B-29 Yahoo group and there is a pretty even mix between incendiary and general purpose bombing.

One crew log I'm looking at right now shows 22 missions spanning between May 7 and Aug 15 1945. Of these 8 were general purpose and 14 were incendiary.

Another crew however shows 14 missions between April 1 - June 10 1945. Of these 9 were general purpose and only 5 were incendiary.

And finally for the entire 9th Bomb Group between Feb 1 - Sept 2 1945, 75 missions. 28 were general purpose/high explosive missions, 28 were incendiary, 14 mining missions, 1 shipping search, 1 POW mission, 3 Display of Power missions.

All of these were randomly scattered with no grand pattern of GP or incendiary either.

Most altitudes were between 8000 to 28000 feet with a few extremes on each end.

So there was some traditional high-altitude bombing over Japan. And this did achieve a level of success (granted not that in the ETO).

Yep sure did. Just about every mission list using GP or HE bombs was at fairly high altitude in daylight against a known specific target like aircraft factories, ship yards and steel works.

Heres an excerpt from a couple of the precision bombing missions.

"7 April 45- Mitsubishi's Aircraft Engine Works, Nagoya was two thirds ruined today, bringing total destruction to 94%. Anti-aircraft fire was intense and accurate, enemy fighter defense vicious. We claimed our first fighter kill and probably destroyed one more and damaged five.

9 June 45 - The Aichi Atsuta Aircraft Plant in Nagoya was our main target one of the multiple attacks on various Empire targets. Dropping 184 Tons of high explosive bombs, the target was practically wiped out. 95% of the aircraft works and over 50% of the engine works were destroyed. We met slight fighter opposition while anti-aircraft fire was generally meager. "



Every incendiary mission just lists a town, like Osaka or at most a section of a town like Tokyo Urban area.

Bombing Japan was more difficult than bombing Germany.

First off, the 8th AF was working out of England. That's a lot easier than working off some God forsaken island in the middle of nowhere.

Second, it was a much longer trip to reach Japan than Germany.

Third, it was much more difficult to navigate across the ocean than accross the land.

Forth, it turned out there was a very strong jet-stream around Japan at high altitude that did not exist in Europe, and its characteristics were unknown.

Fifth, there was very little human intelligence about Japanese targets. With Germany, spies were able to provide tremendous details about the German war machine, but with Japan, this all had to be surmised from pre-war data and recon photos. Post mission damage assesements were likewise much more difficult.

Because of these difficulties, plus the nature of the Japanese defensive capabilities (much weaker than those of the Germans), the decision to switch to night bombing was made relatively early in the bombing campaign. This decision was also encouraged by an analysis of Japanese building techiniques, which utilized wood to a far larger extent than European cities, making them extremely vulnerable to incendiary bombing. Because effective daylight bombing was not really a viable option until more B-29's were available, it made sense to switch to night bombing until that time. However, once the B-29 force was up to strength, significant daylight raids were conducted, especially once forward bases to launch fighter escorts from were established (such as Okinawa), and longer range escorts such as the P-47N were available.

As for the B-29 being based upon experiance with the B-17 and B-24, this is only partially true and not within the context suggested. The B-29 was suggested well before (the US involvement in) WWII, and was very quickly made a priority once the US was in the war with Japan because it was clear a longer range bomber was going to be needed. Also, the need to have something capable of dropping the A-bomb further motivated the B-29's development. It was also thought that Germany would hold out longer in Europe, and the larger payload and higher altitude capability of the B-29 might be needed there as well. The B-29 was certainly not a "response" to experiance with the B-17 and B-24, as almost no such experiance had been had with those planes when the commitment to the B-29 project was made.

The Lancaster was a great bomber, but the B-29 was even better.

=S=

Lunatic

Dang skippy!!!!! or as the kids today say Foshizzle!!

DaveB.inVa said:

the lancaster kicks ass said:

yes but you hit it with a very much smaller punch......

Click to expand...

I dont know about that.

For instance the RAF goes in and drops 100 tons of bombs over a 10 square mile area, when the actual target is somewhere within that 10 square mile area.

Or the USAAF goes in and drops 10 tons of bombs in a one square mile area that contains the target.

Both get the job done but which is more efficient? Which gives a larger "punch"?

Click to expand...

oh come on, the americans were carpet bombing just as much as us, you didn't really aim with the intention purely of destroying only a single target..........

that's a good point, you say the B-17 was more accurate than the lanc, it was two lancaster Sqns (9617) that became the most accurate heavy bomber squadrons of the war..........

I dont see any mention of the B-17 at all in my post.

sorry i was refering to the cencsus in the conversation in general.........

The destruction of a V-1 site:

Mossie did it with 39.8 t

B-17 did it with 165.4 t

B-25 did it with 182 t

B-26 did it with 219 t

nice stats...........

the lancaster kicks ass said:

that's a good point, you say the B-17 was more accurate than the lanc, it was two lancaster Sqns (9617) that became the most accurate heavy bomber squadrons of the war..........

Click to expand...

Ummm... British measurements of "accuracy" were different than USAAF measurements. Yes the Lanc's were more accurate at landing their bombs with the confines of a city than the USAAF bombers were of landing them within 1000 feet of the target structures.

=S=

Lunatic

KraziKanuK said:

The destruction of a V-1 site:

Mossie did it with 39.8 t

B-17 did it with 165.4 t

B-25 did it with 182 t

B-26 did it with 219 t

Click to expand...

Been over that before. The mossie targets were very specific. The B-17 targets were much more general. Since the targets were not identical, the stats are meaningless.

Ah? A V-1 site is target specific.

Yes, the B-29's development first started with an official letter, containing Request for Data R-40B and Specification XC-218, arriving on the desk of Phillip G. Johnson, President of the Boeing Corporation........

Yes, I know ALL about the B-29's development, Combat Deployment Preparation, the raids from China, the early raids from the Marianas, through to the Destruction of Japan with the Fire raids and Nukes.......
I see you've mentioned some very choice raids in 1945 running-up to the final dropping of the nukes......

I could mention for example, the first arrival in India, April/May 1944, of 148 B-29's, supplying of bases over the Himalayas [the ' Hump '], into China, where at the best deliver-rate of fuel that was assigned to the B-29's to deliver, ''was 2 gals of fuel to deliver one, at worst that rose to 12 for every one gallon delivered, that just the flight over, negotiating the weather, was counted as a ''combat mission'' with a camel painted on the side.......''

The early raids from China, with finally the first raid on Japan, on 14 June 1944, against the Imperial Iron Steel Works at Yawata, on Kyushu, of the 47 bombers that made it there [ they lost six to accidents and one to enemy fire], only one hit was recorded, and that was 3/4 of a mile from the Aiming point......that was the first B-29 raid on Japan...........

Now you can pick all the choice plums of the B-29's eventual successful raids, or you can thoroughly read it's WHOLE History of Development and Service in WWII, and arrive at a really self-honest appraisal of it's terribly lengthy and serious teething-troubled development, and the lengthy and costly development of it's Combat Career, to eventual successful VLR Bomber...... and THEN compare that to the Model 683 Avro Lancaster.......

The Lancaster was born of a compromise, and derived from a design of a medium bomber, and emerged as THE most successful Heavy Bomber to serve with any of the combatants in WWII......Of the 7,300 built by War's end, they flew more than 150,000 sorties between 1942-45, dropping over 600,000 tons of bombs, loosing 3,345 missing in action, and the only operational aircraft [as we all know,] to drop 22,000 lbs of bomb......

Although the Manchester development started in mid- late 1930's, the decision to start the Lancaster design was initiated on 15 Nov. 1940, it first flew 9th Jan 1941 and was first operational on 3rd March 1942.....

In my mind, the ''Best Bomber'' would have a good strong development and service career, be economical both in crew and fuel, and be able to show it's ability to defend itself and absord some punishment, as well as deliver it's ordinance successfully, over and above any ''choice'' successful missions it may have performed.......

While I agree the B-29 was the biggest bomber of the War, and had it's special features, and although it was NOT designed specifically to carry a Nuke, because in still ironing-out it's bugs in development, some were re-assigned for modification and they got the job.....

At the cessation of War in the ETO, Lancasters were underway to form 'Tiger Force'', to happily continue on after Germany and bomb Japan to rubble too......

If you were to post-up the B-29's FULL history, as I could on the Lancaster, the General Consensus, in all honesty, would show the B-29 wanting on many aspects.....all I'm asking for here is some latitude around our respective patriotism, and what service is, was, and both aircraft played important roles during the War....While the B-29 was of a more futuristic design, of high altitude, armaments and strategic delivery, the Lancaster gave exemplary service from start to finish, was developed under extreme pressure of War and was extremely well built in those circumstances, with a minimum of well-trained crews and delivered hard against an entrenched and formiable enemy who still had Air Superiority.....for awhile...and in ALL weathers.....

KraziKanuK said:

Ah? A V-1 site is target specific.

Click to expand...

The V1 sights that the Mossies hit were very specific targets with detailed photos. Those hit by the B-17's were more general area targets.

We just discussed this recently, if I have time I'll dig out that info again but it's already on this board somewhere.

=S=

Lunatic