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
Glider
Captain
In order
2nd Best - B32 Dominator
3rd - Lincoln
4th - Lanc
2nd Best - B32 Dominator
3rd - Lincoln
4th - Lanc
parsifal
Colonel
Aha, but was it? What about the German jet bombers that entered service right at the very end of the war. Dont get me wrong, I am a BIG fan of the superforts. But the AR 234s and such were pretty good as well, at least from a technical standpoint
- Thread starter
- #484
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Glider, how did you come up with the B32 as being #2?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The only technical jump the German Jet bombers really had over the B-29 was it's propulsion system.
Glider
Captain
Its a personal view I admit, but I believe that the B32 had a number of problems that were not really solved including problems with its pressure system. Plus most of the guns were manual turrets not as sophisticated as the B29 and it was noisy.
Due to problems at altitude it spent most of its time on low medium missions which defeated the main idea of a high altitude bomber.
I agree that the AR 234 was a remarkable machine but lacked flexibility.
Was the Ar 234 going to carry 10,000lb of bombs and drop them on a target 2000 miles away?
- Thread starter
- #488
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Glider ... I have to look at some bomb bay drawings of the B32 .... but if it didnt have the big open style that the B29 and Lanc had, then this plane was nothing more than a "B24-improved"
parsifal
Colonel
No, but it was going to enter airspace completely dominated by enemy fighters, carry out its mission, and live to tell the tale. There are not many bombers, including the B-29 that could achieve that
Glider
Captain
Thats probably a little harsh, but basically true.
Glider
Captain
Sounds a bit like the Mossie !!!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And fly 2000 miles across an ocean to do it?
i'm not so sure that B-29 is the best bomber, i think it's hard fly a tactical mission over enemy line with a so large plane, i think need a split of problem in best tactical bomber and best strategical bomber, for strategical sure B-29 is best in its times, if talking for all WWII i think need take a bomber with a large timeframe like B-17 or Lancaster
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-29 was not designed to fly a tactical mission - it was a very heavy strategic bomber. It was the most advanced 4 engine heavy bomber platform that saw action in WW2 and was almost a generation a head of both the B-17 or Lancaster. No other ETO bomber of either side was capable of flying the mission the B-29 accomplished with its bombload.
parsifal
Colonel
My point exactly. there is this whole sub-class of bombers such as the Mosquito, the AR 234, the A-26, and the Tu-2, that pointed the way to the future, relatively small, fast, unarmed (defensively), relying on speed, altitude or similar for defence, and in WWII terms very survivable.
My criticism of the B-29 was that it was "old school", big, frightfully expensive, and in the end following an obsolete philospophy, namely the idea of a heavily armed and armoured, relatively slow moving behemoth, basically a moving target.
to be fair, the B-29 did have many great qualities. It flew relatively fast, and relatively high, and as the guys point out it carried a bucket load of bombs further than any other aircraft. it was also very accurate and strong. but i cant help wondering if a different concept had been tried, namely an unarmed, very high speed, and very high flying bomber had been tried, if the result would not have been cheaper and even less vulnerable. that was certainly the way of the bomber in the post war era
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Qualities for a tactical strike aircraft
And that "old school" way of thinking lasted almost 20 years after WW2 - it ended with ICBMs and even then the big heavy bomber took the low road and was still (and still is) functional in to days world.
You could not have saturated large industrial areas in a cost effective manner with light bombers alone - you would of needed thousands of light bombers to accomplish what you are proposing - even though a war was raging, there were still costs attached in fighting it and the large heavy bomber was cost effective - the B-29 lasted into the 1950s the Mossie, although a great aircraft did not have longevity in the post WW2 period, not only was it overtaken by the jet, it's construction doomed it in the long term unless an operator had the resources to deal with it's constrution.
parsifal
Colonel
its probably true that it was infeasible to use medium or light bombers in place of a a B-29. The range an payload issues are pretty daunting.
But consider this...there is a fairly strong argument to say that a Mosquito and a Stirling attacking say Berlin will deliver about the same tonnage of bombs over the target, and the Mosquito will do it much more accurately, and safely (about twice as safe actually) The Mosquito is able to do this, because it can bomb the target, return, reload, and bomb again, and still be back home before the Stirling. As stated above, it will do this with about half the casualties of "heavy" bomber (of the british kind). If you look at crew costs, the savings become even greater. The Germans were amazed that the British did not adopt this strategy
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
How, what and when are they bombing? - are we taking out a specific target like a small armory or are we trying to level an aircraft factory? Are we doing this at night or in foul weather? A Stirling could carry about 18,000 pound of bombs in it's short range configuration, a Mosquito could carry 4,000 pounds of bombs and I think could of been overloaded to 6,000 pounds.
Use a Lancaster for this comparison.....
Look at the reasons I just gave and you could see why that tactic wasn't adopted - the Germans discarded their strategic bomber concept and they spent most with little effective bomber offensive. It's a lot more complicated than you think and you could see why the allies utilized a strategic heavy bomber. In the end it was one of the reasons why the war was won.
parsifal
Colonel
I do agree that the strategic bomber offensive was a factor in the defeat of the germans. I believe it is a much maligned Allied initiative. In 1944 for example I have read estimates that suggest the germans suffered losses of about 35% productive capacity due to the bombers.
I also concede that the Mosquitoes would have only had any success if the very nature of the RAF Bomber offensive had changed. They could not haul the required tonnage of bombs (notwithstanding my rather flippant comments above), but they could haul enough bombs to be used strategically. But the offensive would have had to change from an area bombing approach, to one of precision bombing. However, the Mosquito apparently excelled at this sought of attack, taking out specific targets rather than bludgeoning entire cities.
I dont think either a Stirling or a Lanc can take their full bombloads to Berlin, but I do know that the Mosquito could haul a 4000 lb warload that far. Regulalry, Berlin was hit by 800-1000 heavies, with varying success. If production had concentrated on Mosquitoes, rather than Lancs and Halibags, I dont think I would be exaggerating (although I am theorising) to say that thestreams would have been in the 1500-2000 region.
I am aware of the german failure with their medium bombers. But my understanding is that at range the German mediums had to discard a significant proportion of their bombloads. I have heard that to attack the
midlands, for example, He111s could only carry about 2000 lbs (correct me if I am wrong, because my memory is hazy, and I havent checked like i should)
The late war Mosquitoes were much more efficient than that
Its an alternative strategy at least worth considering in my view
I also concede that the Mosquitoes would have only had any success if the very nature of the RAF Bomber offensive had changed. They could not haul the required tonnage of bombs (notwithstanding my rather flippant comments above), but they could haul enough bombs to be used strategically. But the offensive would have had to change from an area bombing approach, to one of precision bombing. However, the Mosquito apparently excelled at this sought of attack, taking out specific targets rather than bludgeoning entire cities.
I dont think either a Stirling or a Lanc can take their full bombloads to Berlin, but I do know that the Mosquito could haul a 4000 lb warload that far. Regulalry, Berlin was hit by 800-1000 heavies, with varying success. If production had concentrated on Mosquitoes, rather than Lancs and Halibags, I dont think I would be exaggerating (although I am theorising) to say that thestreams would have been in the 1500-2000 region.
I am aware of the german failure with their medium bombers. But my understanding is that at range the German mediums had to discard a significant proportion of their bombloads. I have heard that to attack the
midlands, for example, He111s could only carry about 2000 lbs (correct me if I am wrong, because my memory is hazy, and I havent checked like i should)
The late war Mosquitoes were much more efficient than that
Its an alternative strategy at least worth considering in my view
- Thread starter
- #500
syscom3
Pacific Historian
And what if the light or medium bomber has to hit its heavily defended target in bad weather?
No avioncs aids and its as good as useless.
No avioncs aids and its as good as useless.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
