The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[syscom3]

There were no B29 missions in Europe.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thankyou sys that is what I was getting at.

 

[wingnuts]

The RAF used 70 Boeing B29Ds between 1950 and 1958 as a stopgap until the V bombers came into service such as the Vickers Valiant, Avro Vulcan and HP Victor. The B29s were called Washingtons by the RAF and they were based at Coningsby and Marham.

Article 1

 

[bf109 Emil]

best bomber??? the one that brings you home..

 

[pbfoot]

I'm going to change my vote from the Lanc to the B17 or B24 although they carried less they had more to do with the demise of the LW then the bomber command types. The fact the USAAF needed a long range fighter to accompany the heavies and hence draw the Luftwaffe into battle was far more important then the highly inaccurate forays that bomber command was able to complete . It's been mentioned about Gee and Oboe made the night mission more accurate well Berlin was out of range for either of these beams because both beams were limited by line of sight . Gee had an CEP an oval 2 x 6 miles and Oboe was better at several hundred yards . H2S was unable to pick Berlin out do to lack of distinguishing features

 

[syscom3]

Funny how I was convinced that the B24 was #2 and then switched my vote to the Lanc.

And now you're saying the B24 was better than the Lanc?

 

[pbfoot]

Funny how I was convinced that the B24 was #2 and then switched my vote to the Lanc.

And now you're saying the B24 was better than the Lanc?

I'm not just looking at the payload I'm looking at the fact if not for the 8th AF performing the daylight missions the Luftwaffe would have been very much stronger . The fact being the USAAF were forced to develop long range escorts which also forced the LW to meet the challenge of attacking bombers with a protective fighter screen which if you follow the bouncing ball caused the LW high losses .

In short the presence of USAAF bombers and fighters in strength over Germany proper in daylight was a far bigger part in the destruction of germany and the LW then night bombing hence the 24 or 17 was more important .

 

[Old Wizard]

Didn't the USAAF get a long range fighter becausr the British ordered a fighter from North American who came up with the Mustang. Add the Merlin engine and the rest is history.

 

[syscom3]

The US already had a long range fighter called the P38

 

[johnbr]

I would like to now why on the B29 they did not give it the RR Dart Turbine.I think it would have been a good combo .

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I would like to now why on the B29 they did not give it the RR Dart Turbine.I think it would have been a good combo .

2 reasons - B-47 and B-52........

 

[Waynos]

I'm not just looking at the payload I'm looking at the fact if not for the 8th AF performing the daylight missions the Luftwaffe would have been very much stronger . The fact being the USAAF were forced to develop long range escorts which also forced the LW to meet the challenge of attacking bombers with a protective fighter screen which if you follow the bouncing ball caused the LW high losses .

In short the presence of USAAF bombers and fighters in strength over Germany proper in daylight was a far bigger part in the destruction of germany and the LW then night bombing hence the 24 or 17 was more important .

But how is that indicative of the qualities of the bomber itself? That would have applied equally if the USAAF had been flying Wellingtons or B-23's surely? That is a tactical benefit, not proof of the B-24.

Technologically it is certain that the B-29 was the best bomber of WW2, but in terms of what was the best bomber available for operations for most of the war, it has to be the Lancaster for heavies or the Mosquito or Ju-88 for the smaller classes in my view.

 

[Waynos]

2 reasons - B-47 and B-52........

The RAF never had either of those, so I wonder if the question related to RAF Washingtons?

BEA operated Dart powered Dakotas successfully for several years but the engine wasn't powerful enough for the B-29. The reason we probably didn't bother re-engining our aircraft (with bigger turboprops like the Proteus) was cost and timescale, they were only ever going to be a short term stop gap in the RAF.

 

[pbfoot]

But how is that indicative of the qualities of the bomber itself? That would have applied equally if the USAAF had been flying Wellingtons or B-23's surely? That is a tactical benefit, not proof of the B-24.

Technologically it is certain that the B-29 was the best bomber of WW2, but in terms of what was the best bomber available for operations for most of the war, it has to be the Lancaster for heavies or the Mosquito or Ju-88 for the smaller classes in my view.

Which one was more responsible for the downfall of the Germans certainly the b17/24 combo as they drew the LW fighters to them . With the LW fighters facing a tougher opposition they incurred heavier losses . Now the 8th had bad losses in daylight without the escorts but they in the end did get escorts and this combo wrecked the LW .
The best bomber is the one that caused the most havoc IMHO . Its to bad Portal advised Churchill that long range fighters that would be able to hold their own against the LW fighters was an impossibility

 

[Waynos]

The best bomber is the one that caused the most havoc IMHO

Yes, I can see where you are coming from with that view. However I would class that as more a case of being 'most effective use of the bomber' rather than which was the most capable aircraft, which is where my opinion differs.

If I understand your definition, if the equipment was reversed and the USAAF flew Lancs and Halifaxes on these raids then they would get your vote?

 

[pbfoot]

Yes, I can see where you are coming from with that view. However I would class that as more a case of being 'most effective use of the bomber' rather than which was the most capable aircraft, which is where my opinion differs.

If I understand your definition, if the equipment was reversed and the USAAF flew Lancs and Halifaxes on these raids then they would get your vote?

I don't think they could fly the same mission as they were woefully underarmed with the 303's and no ventral armament . as it was the the germans could sit back out of range of the 303's and have a free shot. I am not knocking the RAF or RCAF who flew the bulk of these night missions , its with hindsight that I believe that the resources could have been put to better use.

 

[Waynos]

I am not knocking the RAF or RCAF who flew the bulk of these night missions ,

No, I can see that and I don't disagree with the logic of what you are saying. I just don't think it illustrates which was the best bomber. If you are saying their contribution was to draw up the LW fighters for the USAAF fighters to shoot down, then the bombers own armament doesn't matter does it? Any bomber could have flown those missions. You seem to talking about their usefulness as bait rather than as bombers, unless I have misunderstood you?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think what's missing here is the ability to cause the "most havoc" but also have the best survival rate based on the mission at hand. While the efforts of the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster can be recognized, their participation is still over a 3 year period in an environment that was not far from the enemy. the B-29 had a deployment a little over a year and had to fly thousands of miles to bring the fight to the enemy and sometimes the flight there was more dangerous than the actual mission. IMO the B-29 is still out in front.

 

[Waynos]

There is another good way of looking at it. If you had a choice, which bomber would you choose to fly?

For me that would be a Mosquito

 

[pbfoot]

No, I can see that and I don't disagree with the logic of what you are saying. I just don't think it illustrates which was the best bomber. If you are saying their contribution was to draw up the LW fighters for the USAAF fighters to shoot down, then the bombers own armament doesn't matter does it? Any bomber could have flown those missions. You seem to talking about their usefulness as bait rather than as bombers, unless I have misunderstood you?

no their contribution was to bomb but at some point you must be able to defend yourself and the Bomber Command heavies were lacking that ability. Although both airforces had the priority of hitting the oil refinerys the USAAF also tacked on the destructiopn of the LW, The Commonwealth in sending 20 or 30 Havocs over France with a fighter cover in the 200's was not going to draw up the LW the USAAF by hitting Germany in daylight sure did .