Best Bomber

Best Bomber of WWII?

  • Mosquito

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lancaster

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • B-24

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • B-29

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • B-17

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • B-25

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Do-17

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Ju-88

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • He 177

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
B-25 was used more as an attack plane than a true medium bomber. I think the B-26 would have to get that nod. It actually ended the war with the lowest loss rate of any American bomber.
 
The B-17 doesn't deserve to be in the top 3, the B-24 was better for a start.

And it was better that the Tirpitz was in Norway than out in the Atlantic where the Germans really wanted it. And I hope you all know why it had to stay in Norway, the Tirpitz I mean.
 
Yep. Opperated by the Confederate Air Force and I am going to see it today. I think the Tirptize stayed in Norway because of the heavey attention given it by the Royal Navy as well as American naval forces under Royal Navy control.
 
No, the Americans actually had nothing to do with the Tirpitz staying in Norway, and the North Sea.
The Tirpitz was restricted to the North sea because of the daring raid the British Commandos conducted on the St. Nazaire dock in France, in 1942. The only dry dock big enough to take the Tirpitz on the Atlantic side. This meant that the only place the Tirpitz could be repaired was in Norway and Northern Germany. Hitler did not want to lose his pride and joy and ordered the Tirpitz to stay out of the Atlantic, out of harms way.
 
And part of that "harm" were units of the US Navy that have been temporarily transferred to the Royal Navy. That is what I was referring to.
 
The Americans had nothing to do with the Tirpitz staying in the North Sea, if the Americans weren't there it still would have stayed in the North Sea. If the Americans were there and the Commandos hadn't destroyed St. Nazaire dock it would have gone out into the Atlantic.

Americans have their own WW2 achievements, the Tirpitz is all Britains.
 
I never tried to claim it otherwise.

But if the ship was so devistating and Hitler really wanted to use it and show how strong it was why not turn it loos like Bizmark and the other big capital ships?
I understand that he was affraid of it being hit in the Atlantic, but holding it in port is not sinking transports. Or am I again missinformed and she did sail? If I am wrong please forgive me, I am just trying to understand things.
 
The Tirpitz was the Bismarcks sister ship, the Bismarck being released into the Atlantic one year before the St. Nazaire raid. This meant that the Bismarck still had a place to get repaired on the Atlantic side. So, it getting hit meant it could go to France and get repaired.

The Tirpitz while in the North Sea lost the only port big enough on the Atlantic side, to repair it, the St. Nazaire dockyard. If the Tirpitz was in the Atlantic and got damaged it had no where to be repaired except back in North Germany, or Norway that meant sailing through the Channel or over Scotland, both very hazardous.
 
Ok, but still if this great ship was ready to go it still could have been used in the North Sea against the convoys going the Russia! I find it a bit sad that a big capital ship would be reduced to sitting in port. Yes loosing the drydocks in France would be bad as would the trip around Scotland or the channel, but I just cannot see it sitting there in port waiting for its death.
 
The B-29 was on a tour by itself. We got a few pictures but sadly were not actually allowed in the plane. I did learn alot of neat stuff about the B-29 and had several of my questions about the plane answered.
 
Hitler did not want to risk any damage, the Royal Navy had the North Sea blockaded. And sailing out would have left it open to the Coastal Commands aircraft as well.
 
The Lancaster clearly was inferior to the B-29 and there is a lot of argument about how well it compared to the B-17 and B-24.
 
Sad that you could not get into the b-29. We to love to debate the B-24/Lancaster/B-29/B-17 use and vertues. Well that is what we should do. Untill we can have some controled study. What about useing a flight sim to try and get a direct compairision?
 
I've never been one to put much trust in flight sims. I have tried running some tests using them before and found that the results just didn't match up with my well-researched books.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
934
Vahe Demirjian
  • Locked
  • Poll
best ww2 bomber
Replies
9
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register