The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

B-17engineer · Jan 15, 2008

"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 · Mar 21, 2008

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 · Mar 21, 2008

Flyboy2 said:
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 · Mar 22, 2008

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 · Mar 23, 2008

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

syscom3 · Mar 23, 2008

Célérité said:
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 · Mar 26, 2008

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

syscom3 · Mar 26, 2008

Old Wizard said:
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 · Apr 3, 2008

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

syscom3 · Apr 3, 2008

Hunter Hawk said:
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 · Apr 3, 2008

Old Wizard said:
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 · Apr 3, 2008

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

Are you sure your mossie can do that?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Apr 3, 2008

Hunter Hawk said:
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 · Apr 3, 2008

syscom3 said:
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 · Apr 3, 2008

Marcel said:
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 · Apr 4, 2008

syscom3 said:
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 · Apr 4, 2008

Marcel said:
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 · Apr 4, 2008

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 · Apr 4, 2008

syscom3 said:
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.

syscom3 said:
The Mossie was good in its role, but wasnt a world beater like the other four planes.

FLYBOYJ said:
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.

FLYBOYJ said:
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 · Apr 4, 2008

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

The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Colonel

Attachments

Senior Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman

Pacific Historian

2nd Lieutenant

Pacific Historian

Airman

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Private Chemtrail Disperser

rotartsinimdA

Pacific Historian

rotartsinimdA

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

rotartsinimdA

Recruit

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads