The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In agreement with Joe as well. You also have to see what is doing more damage to the enemy. A few medium bombers or streams of Heavy Bombers night and day?

Of all Bombers it was the Heavies that won the war.

 

[Marcel]

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.

I see your point and can agree to some point. One objection, tho. As you said, after WWII stronger engines (particular jet engines) rendered the medium bombers absolete as it enabled smaller aircraft to carry as much load and taking over the role. But we're talking about WWII and in WWII, medium bombers were still a valid concept. They did the job and some of them were maybe as advanced as the B29.
As I said, I agree with you on the B29 being one of the best planes in WWII. But it's difficult to say it was better than one of the medium bombers as the roles they were used were much different. I don't think the B29 could have done the same job as for instance the A26 or the other way around.

 

[syscom3]

I see your point and can agree to some point. One objection, tho. As you said, after WWII stronger engines (particular jet engines) rendered the medium bombers absolete as it enabled smaller aircraft to carry as much load and taking over the role. But we're talking about WWII and in WWII, medium bombers were still a valid concept. They did the job and some of them were maybe as advanced as the B29.
As I said, I agree with you on the B29 being one of the best planes in WWII. But it's difficult to say it was better than one of the medium bombers as the roles they were used were much different. I don't think the B29 could have done the same job as for instance the A26 or the other way around.

But can medium bombers arry 10,000 pound payloads 1600 miles from base?

Or can medium bombers carry oversize payloads like what the Lanc carried?

 

[Marcel]

In agreement with Joe as well. You also have to see what is doing more damage to the enemy. A few medium bombers or streams of Heavy Bombers night and day?

Of all Bombers it was the Heavies that won the war.

Not wanting to disagree with you, but a lot of people are still not sure about the value of the strategic bombing on Germany (or on London). In Japan it proved it's worth, but only after Japan almost had been militairy defeated. IMHO only a few of those missions really did matter, the bombing of the Romenian oilfields is the first one that comes to my mind at this time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But we're talking about WWII and in WWII, medium bombers were still a valid concept. They did the job and some of them were maybe as advanced as the B29.

The closest one might be the Douglas B-26 or Arado 234. In either case if given a choice of 20 medium bombers vs. 10 heavies, I think the heavies would win out

As I said, I agree with you on the B29 being one of the best planes in WWII. But it's difficult to say it was better than one of the medium bombers as the roles they were used were much different. I don't think the B29 could have done the same job as for instance the A26 or the other way around.

No but look at the impact of the aircraft along with it's systems and capabilities. I think the world would still be the same if the A26 never entered service, i don't think we could say the same about the B-29.

 

[Marcel]

No but look at the impact of the aircraft along with it's systems and capabilities. I think the world would still be the same if the A26 never entered service, i don't think we could say the same about the B-29.

On this I fully agree.
But (of course wanting to have the last word ) what would the world have been without those divebombers at Midway?

 

[Marcel]

But can medium bombers arry 10,000 pound payloads 1600 miles from base?

Or can medium bombers carry oversize payloads like what the Lanc carried?

Could heavy bombers have sunken all those carriers at midway? I think they tried..

 

[FLYBOYJ]

On this I fully agree.
But (of course wanting to have the last word ) what would the world have been without those divebombers at Midway?

True, but do we consider an SBD a medium bomber in the sense of the tactical application seen in Europe? I don't think so. In terms of a twin engine aircraft, yes....

 

[Marcel]

True, but do we consider an SBD a medium bomber in the sense of the tactical application seen in Europe? I don't think so. In terms of a twin engine aircraft, yes....

No, but it is a bomber, right?
Sorry Joe, I was probably not clear on the point I was making. What I was trying to say is not that one of the medium bombers should be chosen as one of the best bombers. I'm not even diagreeing with you on your statement that the B29 should be considered as the best Bomberaircraft of WWII. What I'm saying is comparing a B26 to a B29 is like comparing apples to pears. IMO you cannot say that the B29 or any else was the best overal bomber. If you would say: "the B29 was the best heavy bomber" I would fully agree.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not wanting to disagree with you, but a lot of people are still not sure about the value of the strategic bombing on Germany (or on London). In Japan it proved it's worth, but only after Japan almost had been militairy defeated. IMHO only a few of those missions really did matter, the bombing of the Romenian oilfields is the first one that comes to my mind at this time.

The Heavy Bombing of Germany did several things. It effected the Industry and it demoralized the German people.

Thats a pretty big impact in my opinion.

 

[Marcel]

The Heavy Bombing of Germany did several things. It effected the Industry and it demoralized the German people.

Thats a pretty big impact in my opinion.

Don't know about the demoralisation effect of the bombing. I heard that usually people got more hatred towarth their enemy an became more resolved to fight on because of this bombing. But I'm no way an expert on that

About the impact on industry:

At Regensburg, the Messerschmitt factory was so devastated that it was first decided not to resurect it, but start up afresh on another site. Then it was discovered that the vital machine tools had suffered less than had been feared. Four months later the works had fully regained their former output. As for Messerschmitt, Augsburg, it resumed production om March 9th-i.e. only two weeks after the "double blow"

From The luftwaffe War diaries about "Big Week"
So aparently the industry did suffer some but not really that desicive. In fact, despide a massive bombing on aircraft factories by the US, the overal output of planes in Germany rised to recordhights. I speculate that other industry were also less hindered by the bombing than should be expected.

 

[syscom3]

The USSBS analysis of the strategic bombing showed that the destruction of the German oil industry was the single biggest contributor to the defeat of the German military and industrial capabilities.

Only Lancs, B17's and B24's could attack the refineries. Medium bombers cant.

 

[comiso90]

So aparently the industry did suffer some but not really that desicive. In fact, despide a massive bombing on aircraft factories by the US, the overal output of planes in Germany rised to recordhights. I speculate that other industry were also less hindered by the bombing than should be expected.

The direct annihilation of some factories is certainly a factor used to determine success. But I believe the effect of destroying the Luftwaffe's fighters and the bleeding of massive amounts of Germans resources had the greatest effect.

Yes, the amount of destroyed targets could have been better.

Why weren't they? Because the nazi's did a pretty good job at defense and recovery. Take away strategic bombing and all those resources used to repel the bombers would have resulted in money spent else where.

If they weren't building exotic interceptors and building and manning flak installations, they woulda built more submarines, more tanks , more fighters (less interceptors).

The strategic bombing offensive kept them off balance and allowed us to dictate the terms of battle. Also, it took some heat off the Russians until we could land troops

,

 

[Marcel]

The direct annihilation of some factories is certainly a factor used to determine success. But I believe the effect of destroying the Luftwaffe's fighters and the bleeding of massive amounts of Germans resources had the greatest effect.

Yes, the amount of destroyed targets could have been better.

Why weren't they? Because the nazi's did a pretty good job at defense and recovery. Take away strategic bombing and all those resources used to repel the bombers would have resulted in money spent else where.

If they weren't building exotic interceptors and building and manning flak installations, they woulda built more submarines, more tanks , more fighters (less interceptors).

The strategic bombing offensive kept them off balance and allowed us to dictate the terms of battle. Also, it took some heat off the Russians until we could land troops

,

Agreed and I don't want to claim that strategic bombing didn't have any value. More that other bombers had value of their own and were equally important. Syscom is right claiming the bombing of the oilfields was a major contributor to the defeat of Germany. But you just don't defeat a country by strategic bombing. You'll need to defeat them military. While strategic bombing helps, you'll also need a tactical airforce consisting of fighter bombers, medium bombers, dive bombers etc. And they can be as decisive as well, as the Midway showed. No heavy bomber could do that. In fact B17's joined the battle, making no impact at all. Without that, the B29 woud not have been able to bomb Japan like that.

 

[syscom3]

Marcel, the attacks on the German petro industry was extremely damaging to their economy. The fact the LW commited so many resources to protect it is an indixation how sensitive they viewed the matter.

Only the heavy bombers could attack them.

 

[plan_D]

I can't help but see this discussion turning into an argument over heavy bombers taking on the role of tactical bombers.

Marcel has a valid point; to be able to truly discover what was the best you should see which was the best at doing their job - not every other job in the war. Meaning, a tactical bomber could have been better at doing its job than the B-29 was at doing its job - otherwise you're comparing two different aircraft doing two different jobs (just dropping bombs was a strategic bombers job description, not the same for a tactical bomber).

And syscom;

"Marcel, the attacks on the German petro industry was extremely damaging to their economy. The fact the LW commited so many resources to protect it is an indixation how sensitive they viewed the matter.

Only the heavy bombers could attack them."

9th May, 1942 - Operation C-170

6 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

8th June, 1942 - Operation C-191

12 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

27th November, 1942 - Operation (?)

2 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack oil refinery at Maasluis.

Just three operations with 88 squadron operating the Boston Mk.III. It wasn't a case of only heavy bombers attacking them. I'm sure you'll rant and rave about how ineffective these attacks were...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

From The luftwaffe War diaries about "Big Week"
So aparently the industry did suffer some but not really that desicive. In fact, despide a massive bombing on aircraft factories by the US, the overal output of planes in Germany rised to recordhights. I speculate that other industry were also less hindered by the bombing than should be expected.

And thats 4 months that it was not putting out maximum production. That helps.

Dont take me wrong I do not want to take away from the medium bombers. I think that they made a major effort to the war in the use of tactical bombing.

 

[eddie_brunette]

Im to scared to post.......there is war in the forum

i would say the best bomber must be the most accurate bomber(no use in using a blind sniper), but I only starting to research my comment and I might be complely wrong.

 

[Civettone]

I can't help but see this discussion turning into an argument over heavy bombers taking on the role of tactical bombers.

Marcel has a valid point; to be able to truly discover what was the best you should see which was the best at doing their job - not every other job in the war. Meaning, a tactical bomber could have been better at doing its job than the B-29 was at doing its job - otherwise you're comparing two different aircraft doing two different jobs (just dropping bombs was a strategic bombers job description, not the same for a tactical bomber).

And syscom;

"Marcel, the attacks on the German petro industry was extremely damaging to their economy. The fact the LW commited so many resources to protect it is an indixation how sensitive they viewed the matter.

Only the heavy bombers could attack them."

9th May, 1942 - Operation C-170

6 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

8th June, 1942 - Operation C-191

12 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

27th November, 1942 - Operation (?)

2 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack oil refinery at Maasluis.

Just three operations with 88 squadron operating the Boston Mk.III. It wasn't a case of only heavy bombers attacking them. I'm sure you'll rant and rave about how ineffective these attacks were...

I think Plan_D sees the big picture here.

The reasoning behind chosing the B-29 seems to be that strategic bombers are considered to be more important that tactical ones as they have a larger impact. And the B-29 was the best strategical bomber.
Sure, we can say that strategic

But I wonder if that's the way you should look at it. Why chose? I believe both tactical and strategical bombers were important. Plan_D already gave the excellent example of the A-20. Same thing goes for the Mosquito or Ju 88 which could do both jobs which cannot be said about the B-29.

And again, the Mosquito, Boston and Ju 88 had been around for years when the B-29 became operational. I think that should also be a factor as else only 1944/1945 aircraft can be regarded as best ... of WW2.

Kris

 

[syscom3]

And syscom;

"Marcel, the attacks on the German petro industry was extremely damaging to their economy. The fact the LW commited so many resources to protect it is an indixation how sensitive they viewed the matter.

Only the heavy bombers could attack them."

9th May, 1942 - Operation C-170

6 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

8th June, 1942 - Operation C-191

12 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

27th November, 1942 - Operation (?)

2 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack oil refinery at Maasluis.

Just three operations with 88 squadron operating the Boston Mk.III. It wasn't a case of only heavy bombers attacking them. I'm sure you'll rant and rave about how ineffective these attacks were...

Whoop-de-doo.

Limited and small attacks in 1942 of small oil plants.

Now lets talk about the RAF/USAAF raids in 1944 on Leuna, Lutzkendorf, Brux, Magdeburg, Politz, Polesti, Hamburg, blah, blah, blah.