Best World War II Aircraft?

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


Not so clear, take for instance the B29:
1. How did it effect the war effort: ended it with only 2 bombs
2. Effect on aviation history: Showed that an aircraft means that a major war cannot be won anymore.
3. Compared to it's peers? What active heavy bomber came anywhere close to this aircraft?
4. Cost effectiveness: 1 flight, 1 bomb, 1 city is the most cost effective way of ending a war (for the winner) that I can imagine.


Sorry Joe, couldn't resist
 
My vote goes to the B-29 as well. I'm surprised that it's not more popular in this forum. The B-29 was really a contemporary of the B-17G but it was light years more advanced. It could carry twice the bomb load more than twice as far. The Japanese never really came up with any practical countermeasure. Imagine that the US lost every battle through 1943. Imagine there were no US outposts past Pearl Harbor. With the new carriers and other ships being built the US would have still been able to cross the ocean, take the Marianas and bomb Japan during 1944. With the B-29, Japan had to defend a perimeter over 1500 miles in radius just to keep their home islands safe.

Here's another interesting factoid. The Army Air Corp. experimented with arial refueling in the 1920s but abandoned the project until after World War II more for lack of practical need than for lack of success. Suppose the US never undertook an offensive campaign against Japan until 1945. With the atomic bomb and mid-air refueling the US would have still been able to destroy Hiroshima from bases on US soil.
 
The B-29 was my view..the greatest...

It was one of the most expensive programs of ww2...hugely technological achievement...vastly capable...easily outperformed any like wise machine...stayed in service well after the war.

And taught the Soviets how to make big aircraft...

A B-29 carrying a nuclear bomb is what put the fear into Stalin...
 
The Basket said:
A B-29 carrying a nuclear bomb is what put the fear into Stalin...
Click to expand...

Ive just been reading about the B 29 and the bomb since this thread was "bumped up". The B29 cost more than the Manhattan project which is a helluva achievement in itself.

Sadly the whole excercise just meant the world has had 3 generations living under mutually assured destruction, I hope Iran understands the rules.
 
michaelmaltby said:
B-29 - with or without the bomb: the B-29 raised the bar like no other operational aircraft except the M2-262 - and it was never going to carry an A bomb.

MM
Click to expand...

Without the bomb the B 29 was another very very expensive bomber that needed escorting, a lancaster could drop a nuclear bomb but not at the range of a B29. Without a nuclear bomb to drop or cities made of paper to ignite at night the B29 would have been the most expensive flop in history. Its targets (hiroshima) and potential targets (Moscow) made its name.
 
tail end charlie said:
Ive just been reading about the B 29 and the bomb since this thread was "bumped up". The B29 cost more than the Manhattan project which is a helluva achievement in itself.
Click to expand...

that might depend on how the accounting was done.

For instance the Chrysler corp. built a brand new factory just to build the R-3350 engines that had 82 acres under the roof. It was the only engine factory that took in raw materials at one end and put out finished engines at the other end. A redesign of the the factory structure saved enough steel to build 14 destroyers over the original building plans. Over 9,300 machine tools were needed to equip this factory.

I am sure similar stories could be told about other parts of the program which all add to the total cost except that these factories and tooling did not go away.
did the massive factories that built the B-29 airframes ( and were charged to the B-29 program) just vanish or were they used to build B-47s, B-52s and 707 airliners?
How much of the research and development that went into the B-29s gun turrets and fire control were used on the B-36?
As for the Chrysler corp and that factory and machine tools. See---

Ford City Complex Has A Past Most Don't Remember

Do you charge the entire build cost to the B-29 program?
 

If you ever flew any type of tail wheel aircraft, you would not want a nuke in the bomb bay of a Lancaster, even during takeoffs in calm winds.
 
I would vote in favor of the C-47 or Harvard/Texan or somethin. It got used as is, without any big modifications
 
The B-29 and its atomic bombload made the USA a superpower.

The entire German army couldnt destroy Moscow...but one airplane one bomb....can.

How much does that capability cost? To be invincible? To scare the living poop out of your enemy?

Its a big old stick and its better to be the hammer than the nail.

Whatever the cost...it was worth every penny.
 

Good points, and considering in the post war years it scared the Soviet Union so much they copied the B-29!
 


Well living within blast distance of Fylingdales I feel more like a nail than a hammer, unfortunately it scared most potential enemies so much they got their own.


PS Napoleon burned moscow on horseback lol
 
Last edited:
Shortround6;

The main buildings that were built for the B29:

The Marietta plant is still in use by Lockheed Martin
The Omaha plant is used by the USAF as a hanger at the old SAC base.
The Renton Washington plant was finally gotten rid of this month.
The Wichita plant is still in use.

The engine plant that was built in NJ, I think was eventually scrapped and torn down. I think I read somewhere were it was torn down in the 70's.
 
Last edited:
The Lancaster could carry a nuke but did not have the altitude capability, speed or range to deliver the bomb. The B29 and the nukes saved many lives both Japanese and Allied in WW2 and later probably also.
 
A weapon that saves live is BS. No matter what a weapon is designed to kill people.
If amerika wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered dec 8 1941.
 
looney said:
A weapon that saves live is BS. No matter what a weapon is designed to kill people.
If amerika wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered dec 8 1941.
Click to expand...

If AMERICA surrendered in 1941 it would be spelled AMERIKA. You are an idiot. I do hope you limit your posts here because you're bleeding off brain cells with every stroke on the keyboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Historic World War II aircraft hidden in plain sight
Replies
0
Views
687
GTX
What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
War Weary
Replies
14
Views
862
Snautzer01
T
Identify a aircraft from WV II
Replies
19
Views
904
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register