The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[B-17engineer]

"15 were operational and 40 were used as training. A mission were 2 B-32's destroyed alcohol industries so the Japanese couldn't use alcohol as fuel. The B-32's bombed at 20,000 feet. The Zero's on the first pass knocked out the pressure system and the pilots dove to 10,000 feet. 3 of the 20 men on both B-32's were injured. THere was one casualty his name was Anthony J. Marchione. He was the last casulaty of the USAAF.

THe Names of the B-32's were Hobo QUeen and Hobo Queen II



THe B-32 had a pressurized cabin, remote control Gunnery, and reversible pitch propellers that allowed it to slow down on landing."

From a book called BOmber Missions of WWII

 

[Flyboy2]

I have that book too!! Pretty cool paintings.
Why wouldn't have they used the B-29 over Europe, it carries more bombs right.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have that book too!! Pretty cool paintings.
Why wouldn't have they used the B-29 over Europe, it carries more bombs right.

B-17s and B-24s were in place. You have to consider crew training, logistics, supply and tactics. The war in Europe was winding down, it was evident the B-29 would be better served in the Pacific.

 

[comiso90]

I've been amazed for years at the breadth of advancements and innovations made during the war years. The difference between a B-17 and B-29 is drastic.

 

[Célérité]

The most surprising comparison is to think that a Skyraider could transport the same load as a B17.

 

[syscom3]

The most surprising comparison is to think that a Skyraider could transport the same load as a B17.

But not as far, nor high, nor defend itself.

Two different airplanes for two different roles.

 

[Old Wizard]

Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the Mosquito is hard to beat.

 

[syscom3]

Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the Mosquito is hard to beat.

What if the target is 1600 miles away and defenses require the mossie to fly at high altitudes?

 

[Hunter Hawk]

FOr the best Bomber/fighter bomber you can't go past the DH98 Mosquito!!!

 

[syscom3]

FOr the best Bomber/fighter bomber you can't go past the DH98 Mosquito!!!

I think the B17, B24, B29 and Lancaster is better than the Mossie. For the long range bombing role.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the Mosquito is hard to beat.

How about a B-29 with one a bomb?

 

[syscom3]

How about lugging 6000 pounds of bombs 1000 miles from target?

Are you sure your mossie can do that?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

FOr the best Bomber/fighter bomber you can't go past the DH98 Mosquito!!!

Well condidering the thread is about the best bomber, no I dont agree with you. Mossie is a great plane but there are plenty of bombers that are better.

 

[Marcel]

I think the B17, B24, B29 and Lancaster is better than the Mossie. For the long range bombing role.

Depends on what you want to bomb on a long range. The mossie had the range in the same category, but not the same bomb load as those 4. But for city bombing, I guess the B29 beats them all.

 

[syscom3]

Depends on what you want to bomb on a long range. The mossie had the range in the same category, but not the same bomb load as those 4. But for city bombing, I guess the B29 beats them all.

The B17, B24, B29 and Lanc beats the Mossie for range and payload.

 

[Marcel]

The B17, B24, B29 and Lanc beats the Mossie for range and payload.

Right, but does that make them the best bomber? The Mossie had a different role, another kind of bombing and it did it brilliantly, a role that could not be performed by the Lanc, B17, B24 or B29. So why are the latter better? They were better in their own role, but as I pointed out in this thread some months earlier, you cannot speak of a "best bomber" as it's like comparing apples to pears when you try to compare a B29 to a mossie.

 

[syscom3]

Right, but does that make them the best bomber? The Mossie had a different role, another kind of bombing and it did it brilliantly, a role that could not be performed by the Lanc, B17, B24 or B29. So why are the latter better? They were better in their own role, but as I pointed out in this thread some months earlier, you cannot speak of a "best bomber" as it's like comparing apples to pears when you try to compare a B29 to a mossie.

Start a thread on 2 engined bombers, then we can rank it.

The Mossie was good in its role, but wasnt a world beater like the other four planes.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Mossie was a great aircraft - a battle winner. The heavies, especially the B-29 were campaign and war winners.

And again, looking at the technical aspects of the B-29 when compared to other WW2 heavies, it was in a class by itself.

 

[Marcel]

Start a thread on 2 engined bombers, then we can rank it.

Already done, last time we debated this in this thread, Adler started the "Top medium bomber" thread.

The Mossie was good in its role, but wasnt a world beater like the other four planes.

The Mossie was a great aircraft - a battle winner. The heavies, especially the B-29 were campaign and war winners.

Don't agree. The only time strategic bombing with a 4 engine was really decisive on its own during WW2 was Hiroshima, which was not as much a feat of the bomber as of the bomb itself. For the rest, they just played their part, just like all the other a/c during the war. I agree, the mossie couldn't have flown the same missions as these 4 heavies, but neither could they have flown the mossie missions. I firmly believe that the role of strategic bombing is fairly overestimated. It was a factor in winning the war, but only amongst others.

And again, looking at the technical aspects of the B-29 when compared to other WW2 heavies, it was in a class by itself.

That I agree with, although at the end of the war, also some advanced medium bombers were emerging.

 

[ssmith996]

OK, I am late to the discussion. Why is the B-29 omitted? The Russians sure liked it.