The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Marcel]

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.

I think weare repeating ourselves. The AR234 was not designed for strategic bombing, a the B24 wasn't designed for tactical support. Both were the best in their classes, so voting for both of them is basically right. If the requirement are as you described, the thread should have been "Best strategic bomber".

 

[parsifal]

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.

Syscom

I dont know the avionics fit that goes into a mosquito, but i think its record speaks for itself. It was a precision bomber able to operate at night. That is a pretty self explanatory and high standard of navigation.

 

[pbfoot]

Syscom

I dont know the avionics fit that goes into a mosquito, but i think its record speaks for itself. It was a precision bomber able to operate at night. That is a pretty self explanatory and high standard of navigation.

I don't think it was anymore accurate then any other bomber and the CEP of the avionics gave it a accuracy measured in hundreds of yards

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

You've answered your own question but had the B-29 been deployed over Europe, it "would of" been able to carry it's full 22,000 pound bomb load to Berlin. Going back to the original statement - The B-29 hands down was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Syscom

I dont know the avionics fit that goes into a mosquito, but i think its record speaks for itself. It was a precision bomber able to operate at night. That is a pretty self explanatory and high standard of navigation.

It operated at night in clear weather for the most part. Again it was limited by bomb load and range. Comparing it to any heavy is "apples and oranges."

 

[Vincenzo]

The B-29 was not designed to fly a tactical mission - it was a very heavy strategic bomber.

this is obvsiously and for this it can't be simply the best bomber

 

[trackend]

You've answered your own question but had the B-29 been deployed over Europe, it "would of" been able to carry it's full 22,000 pound bomb load to Berlin. Going back to the original statement - The B-29 hands down was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

Agreed The other bombers Lancs, B17's etc had done most of the work but the B-29 was far more modern and had learned from it's pedecessors what was required for a heavy bomber just as later the B59 used hindsight in its development to its advantage.
I agree many of the wartime aircraft carried on for some years later IE the Mossie lasted till 1955 ending as PR or the DC3 which still flys.
But by the end of WW2 most aircraft designs had had their day the B29 being a late comer was bound to go on for sometime.

 

[parsifal]

. Comparing it to any heavy is "apples and oranges."

Exactly, so how can a conclusion be made about which is best...you prefer apples, and Im partial to oranges. Surely it would depend on which aircraft did its designated task the best, and then you have to work out the measures by which doing the job "best" is measured. all this table thumping and grandstanding gets nowhere fast.

I never said, or implied that the B-29 was a bad, or even a worse aircraft. What i did say, or imply was that it represented perhaps the best of its kind, but that post war, the idea of a relatively slow moving, heavily armed (defensively) was seen by many as a dated concept, and that there was trend toward the smaller faster, more difficult to intercept aircraft. You have not refuted that. But if I can now commit an act of self harm, you could have countered it, very effectively......in the early 30's the trend was precisely what I have advocated, smaller, faster etc. that led to such aircraft as the Blenheim and the early He-111s. Against the early fighter aircraft of the '30s, these types were largely unstoppable, but as fighter performances improved through the late '30s, the speed/altitiude/size formula appeared to become obsolete. The result was the heavily armed and armoured big bombers, that culminated in WWII with the B-29. But then a few designers doubled back and produced improved versions of the small/fast/high flying types that led to the alternative breeds, like the Mosquito, A-26, even the B-26. I'll put it to you that both philosophies have merit, and that the question of "best bomber" is not nearly so clear cut as you would like

 

[syscom3]

parsifal, if you consider that the B29 carried an atomic bomb, 1600 miles from base.....

I think we can say its payload was 15,000 tons.

Now what other airplane could do that?

 

[drgondog]

Exactly, so how can a conclusion be made about which is best...you prefer apples, and Im partial to oranges. Surely it would depend on which aircraft did its designated task the best, and then you have to work out the measures by which doing the job "best" is measured. all this table thumping and grandstanding gets nowhere fast.

I never said, or implied that the B-29 was a bad, or even a worse aircraft. What i did say, or imply was that it represented perhaps the best of its kind, but that post war, the idea of a relatively slow moving, heavily armed (defensively) was seen by many as a dated concept, and that there was trend toward the smaller faster, more difficult to intercept aircraft. You have not refuted that. But if I can now commit an act of self harm, you could have countered it, very effectively......in the early 30's the trend was precisely what I have advocated, smaller, faster etc. that led to such aircraft as the Blenheim and the early He-111s. Against the early fighter aircraft of the '30s, these types were largely unstoppable, but as fighter performances improved through the late '30s, the speed/altitiude/size formula appeared to become obsolete. The result was the heavily armed and armoured big bombers, that culminated in WWII with the B-29. But then a few designers doubled back and produced improved versions of the small/fast/high flying types that led to the alternative breeds, like the Mosquito, A-26, even the B-26. I'll put it to you that both philosophies have merit, and that the question of "best bomber" is not nearly so clear cut as you would like

If I may slither back to this debate, both for WWII and beyond.

The speed, altitude, size formula was countered to a large extent by very late war increases in interceptor and radar technologies - but for strategic airpower, range and payload dominated the landscape.

Until mid air refueling, the smaller ships did not have the range despite being able to carry say a small/medium nuc (F-105/A4 comes to mind).. but interceptor ranges had increased to point where mid air refueling near a strategic target was infeasible... so the small, fast ship can't get anywhere close to USSR in cold war.

Tactics and technologies continued to make say, the B-52 relatively unstoppable in a practical sense - first with low altitude - below radar tactics, second via 'stand off' capabilities with either small hard to detect dash nuclear missles - Mach 3 capable with 2-6 MT payloads or Cruise Missles

The key in WWII (and today) is range combined with payload combined with survivability.

Back to WWII. Mossie doesn't work during WWII because of the ranges required.. lancaster does to a degree but in PTO the B-24, then even moreso, the B-29 was the only weapon system capable of taking heavy loads to the Empire. (Yes I know B-32 was capable, but not as capable)

It, then the B-36, became the intermediate threat to USSR until the B-47 and B-52's arrived. The B-36 dominantly because it was the Only beast in the world that could carry the H-bomb for several years. The ultimate stick that weighed more than the medium (conventional) and light bombers of the day.

I agree that in hindsight it might have been interesting for strategic planners in ETO to take a hard look at Mossies in many strategic objectives and achieved great things with it - but destroying Japanese cities and ending the war would not have been one of its achievements, nor would it have been the nuclear deterrent for the next five years after WWII.

I think you have persuasive arguments, but I like my choice for most of the reasons stated.

 

[drgondog]

this is obvsiously and for this it can't be simply the best bomber

If every air force in the world was posed the question "Which single bomb carrying airplane would you choose for your air force (not navy), which do you choose?"

Your choice depends on your strategic Doctrine but if it is to drop many bombs on targets far away, you narrow the choices down very quickly.

For those that wish to pursue that doctrine, the choice narrows to one, in my opinion.

If your choice is that I want a multi role weapon system capable of fast recon, intermediate range level bombing, low level attack capability, night fighter capability and I don't need long to very range strategic capability to achieve my national objectives then you would not choose the B-29

 

[Kruska]

I never said, or implied that the B-29 was a bad, or even a worse aircraft. What i did say, or imply was that it represented perhaps the best of its kind, but that post war, the idea of a relatively slow moving, heavily armed (defensively) was seen by many as a dated concept, and that there was trend toward the smaller faster, more difficult to intercept aircraft.......

Hello parsifal,

I would tend to see that differently. For example Vietnam:

You had Ar234's (F-105's and F-4's) and you had a B-29 (B-52). IIRC the only thing that stopped or was capapble to stop the Tet offensive was at the end masses of B-52's pounding the living daylights out of those Vietmin and Vietcong's in order to safe those beleaguered Marines and GI's.

In the First Gulf war B-52's, B1's and B2's also took over that role in the first wave, then came in the strike aircrafts.

So I would conclude that for smaller - precision strike - targets a Ar.234 or a B-25/A-26 was just the right aircraft but in terms of bombing capability (inflictable mass bombing damage it was the B-29.

The two terms used nowadys are not a (medium bomber, heavy bomber) but a Strike Aircraft and a Bomber. So since the thread is about Best Bomber you would have to choose a bomber IMO not a strike aircraft.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Vincenzo]

there is some trouble here why best bomber is synonymous of best strategical bomber?

 

[parsifal]

parsifal, if you consider that the B29 carried an atomic bomb, 1600 miles from base.....

I think we can say its payload was 15,000 tons.

Now what other airplane could do that?

good point, but perhaps not so good if your own guys are just around the corner

 

[parsifal]

Hi Kruska

I guess if you are going to put the mediums into a different category, which kinda does make sense, then the B-29 is head and shoulders in front of the opposition. Heck, the russians even copied it from a coupe that were interned at Valdivostock at the end of the war (I believe they were the TU-4)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

Which is going to win the war though?

Dont take me wrong. I am not trying to take anything away from the smaller medium tactical bombers, but the few Ar 234's were not going to win the war for any side.

 

[Vincenzo]

no bomber, like all the others weapons, but ICBM if enemy haven't it, can win a war alone

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

no bomber, like all the others weapons, but ICBM if enemy haven't it, can win a war alone

This is WW2, there are no ICBM's. Stay on topic...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

good point, but perhaps not so good if your own guys are just around the corner

If you call 2,000 miles of Pacific ocean "just around the corner."

 

[Marcel]

parsifal, if you consider that the B29 carried an atomic bomb, 1600 miles from base.....

I think we can say its payload was 15,000 tons.

Now what other airplane could do that?

You guys keep on repeating that, and it only proves that the B29 was the best strategic bomber of WW2. There's no argument about that, but Parcifal is right claiming it's like comparing apples to oranges when you say it's better than a mossie or an ar234.