The Best Bomber of WWII: #4
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
One might also observe that a manned ball turret was strictly and uniquely American in concept, applied only to heavy bombers and the evolotionary doctrine (say B-29) eliminated it.
I suspect that it was deemed less useful by RAF for night ops - even with intro of Schrage Musik tactics.
The unmanned turrets in the early B-17D, and B25C were discared later as 'useless' with their periscope sights
I suspect that it was deemed less useful by RAF for night ops - even with intro of Schrage Musik tactics.
The unmanned turrets in the early B-17D, and B25C were discared later as 'useless' with their periscope sights
militaryguyatl42
Recruit
- 2
- May 23, 2007
Very simply I think if you look at the overall record of the Lancaster versus the B24 you will find the lancaster the much better aircraft it was much more adaptable( as seen vis-a-vi the damnbusters and use of tall boy type bombs) had a longer service life spured further development with the Shakelton. It should also be noted that the B24 did get developed a a maritime patrol a/c this was a highly redeveloped a/c and should not have been counted as a B24 the only thing it truly carried over was the Davis wing and very basic fuselage structure ( all new tail and after fuselage ). Thats just my take.
drgondog
Major
Not to be overy picky with your synopsis, but the B-24D started out as the maritime patrol bomber for both RAF and USAAF and did just fine w/o the USN mods.
The Pb4Y-1 was the unmodified D. The XB-24K incorporated the first single tail (derivative of B-23 tail).. the production version of that would have been the B-24N - but it (the K) was the baseline a/c for the PBY4-2. True that many mods were made (no ball turret, two top turrets, different nose and tail turrets) but I am not aware of other major changes to actual fuselage and tail from the B-24N/K.. what might they have been?
Dambusters certainly innovative as low level attack -
But would you say more innovative than Low level August 1943 Raid at Ploesti? Was there a significant increase in innovation from skip bombing (tactics for sure) modified depth charges as contrast skip bombing HE with delayed fuses into the refineries?
I agree the Lanc a 'better bomber', particularly for RAF doctrine... it might have done as well (survivability in daylight ops 1943-1944) and did as well or better in accuracy in daylight ops in 1944-1945... but difficult at the end to truly compare as they didn't fly the same primary mission profile until Allies had air superiority over Germany.
Using "Much batter aircraft" may be too strong to describe the relative superiority as a heavy bomber, patrol bomber, mine layer, cargo ship, maritime bomber, low level/high level strategic bomber, etc... B-24 pretty darn good aircraft.
Regards,
Bill
Hugh Spencer
Airman 1st Class
- 120
- Jan 11, 2008
I witnessed the fact that the Lancaster was so reliable that it would bring us home although badly damaged. Sir Arthur Harris stated " It was the finest bomber of the war......could take ever increasing loads......easier to handle......fewer accidents and the casualty rate was below others" from his book "The Bomber Offensive".
Quote; "At the same time, at that range (Berlin) the Halifaxes and the Stirlings could only carry half or less of the bombload of the Lancaster."
from "The Bomber Offensive" by Arthur Harris, Greenhill Books, p.135.
That was the best and the clearest comment about three types of the British four engine bombers in WW2 I have ever read.
From other books it can be assumed that there had been significant difference existed between L/Ds of the Lancaster and the Halifax.
from "The Bomber Offensive" by Arthur Harris, Greenhill Books, p.135.
That was the best and the clearest comment about three types of the British four engine bombers in WW2 I have ever read.
From other books it can be assumed that there had been significant difference existed between L/Ds of the Lancaster and the Halifax.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Harris never flew a B-29!
While I certainly agree with you that the Lancaster was the best in the ETO it was no where close to the B-29.
Also the reason it had such a lower casualty rate is because it flew at night. If it had been used predominatly on day missions it would have had higher loss rates.
I understand CinC Harris' comment shall be restricted within what the Bomber Command had in the war. So what happened if the CinC actually had a chance to see, fly or to think about the B-29? I don't think he then satisfied with the Lincorn, a slightly modofied version of Lancaster and its successor.
I haven't read well about the reasons why the 8th AAF did not use the B-29s in ETO. The only thing I understand was that there were no airfields (infrastructure) in Britain where the B-29s can operate from.
I haven't read well about the reasons why the 8th AAF did not use the B-29s in ETO. The only thing I understand was that there were no airfields (infrastructure) in Britain where the B-29s can operate from.
- Thread starter
- #371
syscom3
Pacific Historian
There were plenty of airfields in England to allow the B29 to operate from.
Dont you think it would have been a tad better than in India, China or Guam?
One thing the B29 crewman and ground crews always harped about, was the shear boredom of the Mariana's. Absolutely nothing to do during your off watch hours.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The plan was to have the B-32 used in Europe. The program ran behind schedule and the war ended so that never materialized.
As I understand the wartime airfields in Britain, the runway lenghts was limited to 2000yds on Class "A" airfields. As can be read from Harris' book, the CinC Bomber Command even suffered with shortage of the airfields in Britain, from which the loaded bombers could operate, during 1941-42 period, and also wrote about the problem to get the larger ones with longer runways constructed rapidly.
I don't know how a large bomber like B-29 with higher wing loading can safely operate from such runways of 2000yds of length. In this context in India or even China should be better, simply to build longer ones almost all from scratch and this could be applied well to the Marianas. But these must have been quite a huge business to carry out, though.
RAF-lincolnshire.info :: Generic airfield layout
I don't know how a large bomber like B-29 with higher wing loading can safely operate from such runways of 2000yds of length. In this context in India or even China should be better, simply to build longer ones almost all from scratch and this could be applied well to the Marianas. But these must have been quite a huge business to carry out, though.
RAF-lincolnshire.info :: Generic airfield layout
Hugh Spencer
Airman 1st Class
- 120
- Jan 11, 2008
The B-29 Superfortress would have replaced the B-17 had Germany not surrendered earlier. Post war RAF Bomber Command was equipped to some extent with B-29's.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
No.
The B-32 was to replace the B-17 AND B-24...
"Initial plans to use the B-32 to supplement the B-29 in re-equipping B-17 and B-24 groups before redeployment of the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces to the Pacific were stymied when only five production models had been delivered by the end of 1944, by which time full B-29 operations were underway in the Twentieth Air Force."
Bomber Command received B-29s in 1950.
"In order to meet postwar British nuclear-capable bomber needs until the English Electric Canberra could be delivered in quantity, in 1950, 87 B-29s were loaned to the Royal Air Force as the Boeing Washington. Serials were as follows: WF434/448, WF490/514, WF545/574, WW342/355, and WZ966/968. The RAF Washingtons were all returned to the USAF by 1955. However two RAF Washingtons (WW345 and WW353) were turned over to the Royal Australian Air Force and were assigned the serials A76-1 and A76-2."
From "Joe"...
- Thread starter
- #376
syscom3
Pacific Historian
So the runways are extended. Not a big deal at all.
ToughOmbre
Senior Master Sergeant
Joe,
Wasn't the B-32 also intended (at least early on) primarily as insurance in the event B-29 development ran into problems? Or is that just revisionist history and/or over-active imaginations on the part of aviation historians?
TO
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It was true. A "plan B."
There was a plan to have it replace all the B-17s and B-24s in the ETO. It was so hopelessly behind schedule it barely made to the the Pacific.
>The B-32 was to replace B-17s and B-24s
In the case was the B-32 w/o pressurization?
Or what the XXXX was the B-32? It is easier to understand if it was equipped to the same level as the B-29, with pressure cabin, sophisticated defence firepower and similar performances, like the relationship of the Halifax and the Lancaster in Britain.
Could a just powered up version of the B-17/24 had any meanings in the sky over Europe can be an interesting question now.
In the case was the B-32 w/o pressurization?
Or what the XXXX was the B-32? It is easier to understand if it was equipped to the same level as the B-29, with pressure cabin, sophisticated defence firepower and similar performances, like the relationship of the Halifax and the Lancaster in Britain.
Could a just powered up version of the B-17/24 had any meanings in the sky over Europe can be an interesting question now.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
See Below...
Specifications (B-32)
General characteristics
Crew: 10
Length: 83 ft 1 in (25.3 m)
Wingspan: 135 ft 0 in (41.2 m)
Height: 33 ft 0 in (10.1 m)
Wing area: 1,442 ft² (132.1 m²)
Empty weight: 60,000 lb (27,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 100,000 lb (45,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 111,500 lb (50,580 kg)
Performance
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 575 km/h)
Cruise speed: 290 mph (252 knots, 467 km/h) Range: 2,600 nm (3,000 mi, 4,815 km)
Service ceiling 35,000 ft (11,000 m) Rate of climb: 658 ft/min (3.4 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.3 lb/ft² (341 kg/m²)
Armament
Guns: 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)
Here's more from "Joe." Consolidated B-32 Dominator
See Above
