Best Bomber of ww2 (1 Viewer)

[Anonymous]

Gem,

Had the B-29 been given the mission of the Lancaster, it would have done equally well from the start. Also, the B-29 could do the night missions the Lanc could do, but the Lanc could not do the daylight missions the B-29 could do. Comparing success levels in highly different combat missions is apples and oranges. The ETO was a much easier theater of operations to work in than the PTO.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DaveB.inVa]

Yes, I know ALL about the B-29's development.....

I see....

I did not say the B-29 was perfect, I didn't say it was imperfect either. I was just pointing out that the ratio of incendiary v. GP/HE bombing was around 50/50.

Your the one who said the B-29 was built (key word built) from data gleaned from B-17, B-24 experience in the ETO. I simply stated that the B-29 development was well underway before any of this experience could be gleaned. Shoot, by the time the B-29 flew they're wasn't much info at all to be gleaned from anyway! But like you said you already knew that.

BTW. What was the name of Jimmy Doolittles B-29 and whats its claim to fame?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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..........

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

are you aware of the exploits of 9 and 617 Sqn?? if the B-17 was carrying a single bomb could it use it to sink a ship?? if 3 of them were carrying a single bomb could all 3 hit it in quick succession?? again if some B-17s were attacking a bridge, each with a single bomb, could the B-17s drop 2 bombs to land at almost the same time, both hitting either end of the bridge, blowing it completely into the air, THEN, whilst the bridge was in the air, put a third bomb straight down the middle?? could the B-17 fly at less than 100ft into one of germany's most heavily defended areas by night, and drop a single mine into a dam with a widow of error of half a second?? didn't think so...........

and i'm with Gem on this one, could the B-29 fly the kinds of missions the lanc was flying in 1943?? no, because it wasn't even around at the time........

 

[Anonymous]

You're saying the Lancaster could? From altitude? Bahhh!

Yes the B-29 was a later plane. How is that relevant to this thread?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

You're saying the Lancaster could? From altitude? Bahhh!

that's exactily what 617 and 9 Sqn did, apart from the dambusters bit but the B-17 didn't have a hope in hell of doing what the lancs did that night.........

 

[Anonymous]

You're saying the Lancaster could? From altitude? Bahhh!

that's exactily what 617 and 9 Sqn did, apart from the dambusters bit but the B-17 didn't have a hope in hell of doing what the lancs did that night.........

The bombsights on the Lancaster were in no way superior to those of the B-17. Asside from the ability to carry more bombs than the B-17, and to carry the huge bombs, it had no advantage for such a mission.

Besides, I was never comparing the B-17 to the Lanc. The B-17's only advantage over the Lanc was its toughness.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DaveB.inVa]

I'm not saying the Lancaster was a bad aircraft at all. Not in the least, but I am saying that the B-29 was superior in speed, ceiling, range and load carrying capability plus it had a co-pilot and pressurization.

As far as bombsights I dont know. I only know a little about the British sights used. Most if I remember right required the bomb aimer (see I'm sensitive to British terms) to call out course corrections to the pilot to get things on target. Whereas the Norden when dialed in was flying the aircraft through the autopilot.

I do seem to remember one of the British sights was capable of withstanding a fair amount of evasive action during the bomb run without disrupting its gyros. I do know you didn't want to do that with the Norden.


Lanc I really think the whole 617, 9 Squadron stuff was more about crew training than anything else. I really don't believe you could pull just any old crew out of any RAF or USAAF unit and expect them to do what those squadrons did. Although I do believe you could give a competently trained and albeit brave aircrew from any airforce that job and with the proper equipment pull it off. The Lancaster wasnt the only aircraft that ever could do it though.

Heres a quote I found on a website comparing bombsights.

"In 1943 the Norden M-series was delivered to the USAAF. It is estimated that this version was 6 to 8 times more precise than the Mk XIV bomb-sight used by the Royal Air Force. It is estimated that the RAF was capable of putting only 5% of its ordinance within a mile (1.61 km) of their aiming point under combat conditions. In contrast, the 8th Air Force was believed to be able to put 24% of their bombs to within 1,000 yds (914.4 m) of their targets. By 1944 this figure would rise to 40% to within 500 yds (457.2 m). The Norden bomb-sight enabled Allied bombers to fly above the flak and still hit their target with reasonable accuracy in clear weather. The daylight bombing strategy became a viable option to take the war to Germany and bring the war to a quick end."

Sorry bout that: http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/nord.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Can you give the url for the site from which you got the quote? In general, when quoting it is good form to give the source.

Thanks,

=S=

Lunatic

PS: I'd like to save the link

 

[Gemhorse]

For a start, the formation of RAF 617 Sqn., and also with the specialist 'pathfinder' RAF Sqn.'s, was selected from the cream of Bomber Command aircrew, on a volunteer basis.....

And although RAF BC had the Mk.XIV Bombsight, that was entirely adequate when used in conjunction with the various navigational bomb-aiming radar that the RAF developed and used....being an established fact that they were THE leading exponents of this....why, they even bent the German's 'Knicklebein' bombing-radar for them.....

In the ETO, it wasn't really fair, the 8th really only had the Norden.....the RAF BC had the primo equipment and tactics, suited to their designated night-time bombing technique, working hand in glove with Mosquito Pathfinder and Master-bombers, able to put hundreds of bombers over a pin-pointed factory or such in like 15-20 minutes....along with Mosquito Nightfighters floatin' around....
With ' Oboe, Gee, Gee-H, H2S etc., ' along with all the accessory ones like 'Monica, Perfectos and Serrate,' etc., they worked their style into a truly massive and cohesive bombing campaign....

And a great deal of that technology assisted the B-29 campaign in Japan..

The point I'm trying to make is as 'Best Bomber', the assumption that because the B-29 was futuristic, faster, of greater capacities etc. and BIGGEST bomber of the War, and dropping the nukes certainly embellished that, it's effective War-time service spanned from June 1944 to August 1945....period.
The Lancaster flew from March 1942 through to April 1945...it broke in all the night-flying tactics and associated equipment....it effectively proved to be the Most successful Heavy Bomber in the ETO.....

The B-17 B-24 if adopted for the night-bombing in the ETO would've been very successful using the RAF tactics and equipment, although not quite the same bomb-tare...and with at least 4 less guns.....

But their daylight missions in Europe DID greatly contribute to B-29 development....it being so plagued with problems, and taking so long to get sorted-out............

'' In addition, as work on the B-29 prototypes progressed, the AAC insisted upon a phenomenal number of design changes, totalling nearly 900 between mid-1940 and late '42, in light of lessons emerging from the war in Europe''...
....which especially entailed the development of the Sperry/General Electric turrets and fire-control systems.....

When they finally sorted-out the Wright R-3350 engines, the props and all the aircraft's other problems, starting crew training in late '43, using returning B-24 crews from the ETO and N.Africa, that volunteered, they were practising in old B-17's for a spell, of a near 100 B-29's then made, only 16 were flyable.....

The point here is, it took SO long to get the B-29 'viable'...... and all that time, the Lancaster was establishing it's legendary, reliable, dependable and deadly service as 'Best Bomber''......... the B-29 finally achieves a reasonable year's service , drops a coupla nukes, and you think that gives it automatic status as the 'best'...... not in my view !!

 

[DaveB.inVa]

Hey... it only took a year

How bout we say the Lancaster was the best bomber of the war... in Europe... at night.


So are yall sorta curious as to what Jimmy's B-29 did?? I'll tell!!

 

[Erich]

you are of course aware of the US 15 AF special missions group that did fly all black B-24's at night during 44-45 ? bombing, leaflets and dropping of agents and getting shot down by NJG 100's Ju 88G-6's......

E ▼

 

[DaveB.inVa]

Ive only read a little about them and saw a few pictures. I always thought the black B-24's looked really cool. I didnt know they did any real bombing though!! Do you have any more details on that??

 

[Erich]

yes I'll be back with more goodies for everyone

 

[Anonymous]

For a start, the formation of RAF 617 Sqn., and also with the specialist 'pathfinder' RAF Sqn.'s, was selected from the cream of Bomber Command aircrew, on a volunteer basis.....

And although RAF BC had the Mk.XIV Bombsight, that was entirely adequate when used in conjunction with the various navigational bomb-aiming radar that the RAF developed and used....being an established fact that they were THE leading exponents of this....why, they even bent the German's 'Knicklebein' bombing-radar for them.....

In the ETO, it wasn't really fair, the 8th really only had the Norden.....the RAF BC had the primo equipment and tactics, suited to their designated night-time bombing technique, working hand in glove with Mosquito Pathfinder and Master-bombers, able to put hundreds of bombers over a pin-pointed factory or such in like 15-20 minutes....along with Mosquito Nightfighters floatin' around....
With ' Oboe, Gee, Gee-H, H2S etc., ' along with all the accessory ones like 'Monica, Perfectos and Serrate,' etc., they worked their style into a truly massive and cohesive bombing campaign....

This is the RAF spin on the success of the radar bombing campaign. What it leaves out is that each radar bombing technique took over a year to develop, in most cases more than two years, and was typically defeated in less than 3 months by German counter-technology.

For a short time each technology (Oboe, Gee, etc...) was relatively effective, then its effectiveness was negated and the next technology had to be brought on line. The figures typically quoted for accuracy of British night bombing concern a few specific raids where the technology was working well and the Germans had not yet had time to counter it. There was a documentary on THC or DWINGS recently that went into the night bombing technology war between the British and the Germans in great detail.

And a great deal of that technology assisted the B-29 campaign in Japan..

"Some" is a more accurate description. Most of the British methods were not usable against Japan for a number of reasons, mostly having to do with the distance from friendly transmitter stations and the lack of any "underground" assistance. The whole "pathfinder" system depended on friendlies on the ground to point out where the targets really were so the Mossie's could mark them - that was not available against Japan!

The point I'm trying to make is as 'Best Bomber', the assumption that because the B-29 was futuristic, faster, of greater capacities etc. and BIGGEST bomber of the War, and dropping the nukes certainly embellished that, it's effective War-time service spanned from June 1944 to August 1945....period.
The Lancaster flew from March 1942 through to April 1945...it broke in all the night-flying tactics and associated equipment....it effectively proved to be the Most successful Heavy Bomber in the ETO.....

The B-17 B-24 if adopted for the night-bombing in the ETO would've been very successful using the RAF tactics and equipment, although not quite the same bomb-tare...and with at least 4 less guns.....

But their daylight missions in Europe DID greatly contribute to B-29 development....it being so plagued with problems, and taking so long to get sorted-out............

'' In addition, as work on the B-29 prototypes progressed, the AAC insisted upon a phenomenal number of design changes, totalling nearly 900 between mid-1940 and late '42, in light of lessons emerging from the war in Europe''...
....which especially entailed the development of the Sperry/General Electric turrets and fire-control systems.....

When they finally sorted-out the Wright R-3350 engines, the props and all the aircraft's other problems, starting crew training in late '43, using returning B-24 crews from the ETO and N.Africa, that volunteered, they were practising in old B-17's for a spell, of a near 100 B-29's then made, only 16 were flyable.....

The point here is, it took SO long to get the B-29 'viable'...... and all that time, the Lancaster was establishing it's legendary, reliable, dependable and deadly service as 'Best Bomber''......... the B-29 finally achieves a reasonable year's service , drops a coupla nukes, and you think that gives it automatic status as the 'best'...... not in my view !!

How long the plane served is not the issue. "Best" means in a head to head comparison which was better for the same job? You are arguing for what bomber was the "most significant" of WWII, a different topic. I would agree that to be considered the plane in question should have been used in reasonable quantities during the war, but I think there is no question the B-29 meets this criteria.

Had the B-29 only been tasked with the job of the Lancaster, most of the problems you've pointed out in its development would have been avoided. It was designed to take on a much more difficult mission. The B-29 could do anything the Lancaster could do, but the Lancaster could not do everything the B-29 could do. In my view, that makes the B-29 "best".

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DaveB.inVa]

OK I'll tell about Jimmy Doolittles B-29.

It was a B-29B assigned to him when the 8th AF transferred to Okinawa in July 1945.

The aircraft was named The Challenger and in May 1946 it established a record by carrying a 24,200 pound internal load to 41,561 feet.

Later on May 15, General Frank Armstrong's B-29 named Fluffy Fuzz IV reached 47,910 feet (Major Ross as AC) with an internal load of 2,200 pounds.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Hey... it only took a year

How bout we say the Lancaster was the best bomber of the war... in Europe... at night.


So are yall sorta curious as to what Jimmy's B-29 did?? I'll tell!!

the lanc was comfortably the best in europe..............

and LG has made a good point, even me, a British Lancaster lover has admited that technicly the B-29 was the better bomber, but the Lancaster was far more significant...........

but what you're saying about the B-29 being able to do more than the Lanc, it's important to remember the lanc was out there in '42 doing it's thing, the B-29 didn't do anything until '44, and it's a completely different generation of bomber, the B-29 would have been useless in Europe purely because it came late, if it was around in '42 it would have been useless because of all the problems it had...........

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yes lanc ill agree with that. The Lancaster was easily the most successful/significant bomber of the war, but that does not mean best (look at the Swordfish, for example). By 1945, when the Superfortress' problems were ironed out it was comfortably 'the best'.

If the B-29 was around in '42, then it would only really take until late '42/early '43 for its teething problems to be sorted. Then it could lay claim to the best bomber of the war, in all circumstances.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well no if it was around in '42 it wouldn't have the engines or allot of technology it had in '44 as they weren't around and if they were there in their primative forms they'd have loads of problems................

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yes that is true, what im saying though is that if the B-29 was in the exact form it was in in '45 in '42/'43 it would have been the best, no contest.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes it would, but it wasn't, the two bombers were of a completely different generation, you have to take into considderation that it wasn't around in '42 and if it was it would have sucked........