Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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 yardsSyscom
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 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
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."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.
The B-29 was not designed to fly a tactical mission - it was a very heavy strategic bomber.
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.
. 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
this is obvsiously and for this it can't be simply the best bomber
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.......
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?
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
no bomber, like all the others weapons, but ICBM if enemy haven't it, can win a war alone
If you call 2,000 miles of Pacific ocean "just around the corner."good point, but perhaps not so good if your own guys are just around the corner
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?