Poll: Best strategic bomber of Cold War (1950-1970)?

Discussion in 'Post-War' started by ShVAK, Aug 24, 2012.

?

Which is your pick for best Cold War strategic bomber?

  1. Avro Vulcan

    3 vote(s)
    10.7%
  2. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

    19 vote(s)
    67.9%
  3. Boeing B-47 Stratojet

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Convair B-58 Hustler

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  5. Convair B-36 Peacemaker

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Handley-Page Victor

    2 vote(s)
    7.1%
  7. Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear"

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  8. Tupolev Tu-16 "Badger"

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Other

    2 vote(s)
    7.1%
  1. ShVAK

    ShVAK Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Which bomber would you want on your side most at the height of the Cold War?

    Vote here!
     
  2. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    You've got a problem, you start your period of coverage too early.
    Only one of those aircraft was operational in 1950, the B-36. The rest you'd have to wait till 56 or so until they became operational, some hadn't even had their first flights till several years after 1950.

    If the period was 1956-, i'd be a no brainer to me, the B-52.
     
  3. ShVAK

    ShVAK Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I should've specified that as "in service from '50-'70 at any given point" if that makes any sense. Not that they were operational by '50. Same with the interceptor poll.
     
  4. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42,012
    Likes Received:
    788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Same as the figher question. The Cold War went on longer than 1970...
     
  5. ShVAK

    ShVAK Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yes I know, but once we get into mid-70s and 80's we're talking hardware that is largely still being used today. I wanted to see how 50's and 60's designs are evaluated by the folks around here.
     
  6. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    The Tu-95 and B-52 both had their first flights in 1952, both became operational in 56, and both are still operational today, with maybe plans to stay operational for ANOTHER 20 years.

    So i'd guess it'd come down to a choice between those two, afterall they have stood the test of time.
    I'd pick the Buff, the B-52.

    Just think of that, a weapon system staying in use 80 years.
    How long did some of the great fighting sailing ships of the 18th and 19th century stay in use?
     
  7. stona

    stona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,305
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The longbow......ruled the battlefield for over 200 years :)

    Seriously I'd go with the B-52 as well,though I do love the Vulcan.

    Steve
     
  8. yulzari

    yulzari Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    805
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    Gentleman
    Location:
    Limousin
    Were it available the Valiant B.2. Why (and how) on earth did a bankrupt Britain fund 4 different strategic bombers. By the way, in the cold war period, the Vulcan was an awesome very high altitude fighter were it so armed. At extreme height I have been reliably told of one out maneuvering an F14 with ease.
     
  9. glennasher

    glennasher Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    kitchen countertop laminator
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Just think of the 1911 Colt autopistol, designed over 100 years ago, and the USMC just signed a contract for MORE.
     
  10. nuuumannn

    nuuumannn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,872
    Likes Received:
    472
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Engineer
    Location:
    Nelson
    B-52 the best, Vulcan, B-58 and Tu-95 the coolest.
     
  11. starling

    starling Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    none,disabled..
    Location:
    bomber command hq.
  12. ShVAK

    ShVAK Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Wasn't in service until 1972.
     
  13. Matt308

    Matt308 Glock Perfection
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20,140
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Washington State
    These types of threads make me nuts. Can you choose a 1970s bomber for operation in 1950? And if you choose an early bomber, say B-36, are you stuck with it until the '70s? :confused:
     
  14. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,424
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The Madsen machinegun is probably still in service somewhere, 110 years after it was introduced. 9 years longer then M1911 pistol. :)

    2009 photo of Madsen machinegun in service with Brazilian police.
    The Madsen machine gun, not quite dead yet
    madsen1.jpg
     
  15. ShVAK

    ShVAK Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Wow that's crazy. I'm sure Brazil has the means to replace it with something in house or imported that is modern and vastly simpler* by now but it's still kicking. Amazing for a gun that pretty much disappeared from continental Europe after WWII.

    *The Madsen is actually an extensively modified Peabody-Martin lever action. I've seen a gif of it and still don't know how it works so well, let alone works at all.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,424
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I've seen similiar statements by gun experts. The designer was either genius or extremely lucky.

    What amazes me is the Madsen machinegun continued to sell right up to about 1950. By then it was competing against BAR, ZB vz.26 (i.e. Bren), MG34, MG42 and quite a few other LMGs that were more modern.
     
  17. ShVAK

    ShVAK Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Speaking of which, I think some countries still use the MG42 (MG3) design in 7.62 NATO and swear by them. 70 years after conception and it's still the best damn GPMG ever built.
     
  18. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,424
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree. MG42/MG3 will probably remain in German service as long as they continue to use the 7.62mm NATO cartridge.
     
  19. Zipper730

    Zipper730 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    #19 Zipper730, Apr 24, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2017
    I'm surprised they were worried about the B-58 being able to penetrate enemy air-space at high-altitude. From what I remember
    • Our MIM-14 missile batteries had a great deal of difficulty being able to carry out a successful mock-intercept against them; the SA-2 and MIM-14 were said to have similar capabilities
    • The MiG-21, Su-9, Yak-28, Su-11, and Su-15, and Tu-28 all had speeds that were either inferior to the cruise speed to superior to cruise, but inferior to top-end dash-speed, and IIRC, the first two, third, and fifth needed rear-quarter intercepts at first.
    • Comparisons against the F-106's were unrealistic as the USSR did not have anything similar to the Genie (I'm not sure if the USAF thought otherwise...)
    • I do know that the SA-2's did have variants with nuclear warheads as of 1964: I'm not sure whether we knew that or not, but that does seem a good way to make interceptions greatly more likely! I could imagine wanting to fly in the weeds rather than stay up high
     
  20. Zipper730

    Zipper730 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I got some questions regarding two designs

    Vulcan vs Victor
    • Vulcan was better down-low than the Victor at the least for metal fatigue issues
    • Was the Victor able to maneuver better than the Vulcan at altitude?
    Bear vs Buff
    • There does not seem to be any area the Bear has an advantage over the BUFF in terms of survivability, though it seems to have a greater internal payload
    • The Tu-95 down low with turboprops: Could it fly further?
     
Loading...

Share This Page