Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
you said b 29 ..
b 29 is one of the most recent bomber of ww2 and have incredible tecnoligies advancements,but i don't conform that is the best bomber of ww2 due to his limited number of missions that partecipated.
He don't have sufficient time to prove that is the best bomber of ww2.
Hogwash....
As stated earlier in this debut, the B-29 entered service in 1944 and its impact was immediately felt. It was a technical leap ahead of ANYTHING flying during that period and the fact that by war's end there were over 1000 available was also a feat in itself.
Limited missions? Look here...
Army Air Forces in World War II
Actually its not - but I do know it was the best all round heavy bomber of WW2.ok i see that b 29 is your favorite bomber...
It is very interesting that the B-29 became one of the worst machine to fly in just few years later during the Korean Conflict.
And why is that? The B29 had a longer range, payload, defensive capability, electronics ECM and radar bombing capability and flew faster.The Lancaster is my choice if I were asked.
I see the Swordfish was the only aircraft capable of flying from the small MAC ships to provide air covers for the convoys in the Atlantic during 1943-44 period.
The B-29 maintained about a 10% combat loss rate from WW2 to Korea. It was far from the worse aircraft of the Korean War.I see the B-29 was by far the most advanced bomber aircraft in WW2. To me it is not exciting to compare the B-29 with Japanese airplanes like Ki-61s in terms of aviation technology, but the fighting is.
It is very interesting that the B-29 became one of the worst machine to fly in just few years later during the Korean Conflict.
The Lancaster was a half a generation behind the B-29 in terms of systems, configuration and capability.The Lancaster is my choice if I were asked. I see the Swordfish was the only aircraft capable of flying from the small MAC ships to provide air covers for the convoys in the Atlantic during 1943-44 period.
Ten percent? One percent combat loss is better make sense to me.The B-29 maintained about a 10% combat loss
For a heavy bomber that populated the 19th and 20th AF during the heaviest bombing of Japan plus its service in Korea against the Mig-15, 10 percent was a great number considering that totaled about 300 B-29s lost in both warsTen percent? One percent combat loss is better make sense to me.
My uncle was a B-29 radio operator. He had no problems with the B-29 but preferred the B-50 (which he also flew in). The only thing that passed up the B-29 was time and technology, but then again the Russians saw through this producing their own bootleg copy...My fault was not mentioning about the source; some veteran's comments in a very beautiful photo book "Korean Air War" by Dorr and Thompson on the pages71,72 and 85 about the bomber was mostly against it.
According to them during the Korean war the B-29s were still with power plant probelms, being obsolecent and heavy, and was difficult to fly. Even an ex-pilot mentioned on the book that he was advised to choose any type of the air force planes but the -29s before he got a wing.
These views were directed toward once the best bomber of the world just a few years back ,and are amazing things to me. Aviation technologies advenced or jumped so rapidly in and around the era.
Many of the remarks in the book are very interesting but are out of the focus on the forum, aren't they?
you said b 29 ..
b 29 is one of the most recent bomber of ww2 and have incredible tecnoligies advancements,but i don't conform that is the best bomber of ww2 due to his limited number of missions that partecipated.
He don't have sufficient time to prove that is the best bomber of ww2.
>their own bootleg copy...
Yes. They proved it was useless by themselves.
you said b 29 ..
b 29 is one of the most recent bomber of ww2 and have incredible tecnoligies advancements,but i don't conform that is the best bomber of ww2 due to his limited number of missions that partecipated.
He don't have sufficient time to prove that is the best bomber of ww2.
Based on the tactics of the day, equipment carried and the operational results, to pick a "best" bomber of WW2 it would have to be a heavy and with that falls back to the B-29. Even though you point out you could have several medium bombers for the cost of one heavy, all those heavies take away the need for the tactical requirement (in many cases) if you could shower your enemy with 500 pound bombs. I'm sorry Kris, no matter how you slice it as far as a dedicated bomber, be it light, medium or heavy, the B-29 still takes it.
That's because there was support needed for a moving army and that's where a tactical air force is needed and with the technology available of that day is why we seen the need for the medium bomber.Not sure if I understand, Joe. You're saying that strategic bombing took away the need for tactical bombing? But if that's true, why wasn't just strategic bombing of Germany sufficient to get the germans on their knees? With all the bombing a massive land-war was still needed to beat them and they needed close airsupport with that to succeed.
To a point - in later years when we seen the "medium bomber" disappear, carpet bombing was the flavor of the day and that's where you seen heavies used in a tactical capacity. If the "medium bomber" was a viable concept that would of been able to evolve, you would of seen it happen, instead the "medium bomber" in the tactical sense just about disappeared after WW2 as single engine fighter bombers were able to do the same job. The same thing happened to "night fighters" as the normal fighter attained all-weather capability.You cannot do that with a heavy bomber like the B29 but need a medium- or fighterbomber to do the job. Even in the pacific war, B29's alone were not sufficient to beat the Japanese. Tactical bombers (particulary divebombers) took care of the military defeat of Japan. The strategic bombing was neccesairy to confince the Japanese government in the end that all was lost. So were the divebombers less important then the B29 in beating Japan? One couldn't be done without the other.
8)I agree with you on B29 of technically being one of the most advanced bombers of WWII and being one of the most effective.
That's because there was support needed for a moving army and that's where a tactical air force is needed and with the technology available of that day is why we seen the need for the medium bomber.
To a point - in later years when we seen the "medium bomber" disappear, carpet bombing was the flavor of the day and that's where you seen heavies used in a tactical capacity. If the "medium bomber" was a viable concept that would of been able to evolve, you would of seen it happen, instead the "medium bomber" in the tactical sense just about disappeared after WW2 as single engine fighter bombers were able to do the same job. The same thing happened to "night fighters" as the normal fighter attained all-weather capability.
8)