Strategic bombing in itself neither, if you don't have an army and tactical bombers to conquer some airbases for you.
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
Strategic bombing in itself neither, if you don't have an army and tactical bombers to conquer some airbases for you.
- Thread starter
- #562
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Japan was defeated without an invasion. The submarine blockade brought Japan to its knees and the B29's delivered the coup-de-grace.
Now just what did the mossie do that was superior to the Lanc and b29?
Ah, so you think the whole war in the Pacific wasn't necessary? Just blocking and bombing should have been enough?
And what do you think makes you able to compare Mossies to Lanc's and B29?
I would think for instance the Lanc could have been adequate enough to perform the same missions.Just the same situation as the Mossie vs the Ju88. Even better, the Lanc, B17, B24 and Halifaxes did that in the ETO, and against a much harder enemy.
Don't get me wrong, I do see the B29 as the best heavy bomber, but the others weren't bad, either.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
B29 just has to be the best bomber of the war but not the most effective I think there is a big difference, the B29 effectively combined the best traits.
But as it was a relitive late comer to the conflict it had less impact.
I know it dropped the A bombs but it was the bombs not the plane that was significant. The B17 and the Lanc had far more overall impact on the bombing campaign. Pay load goes to the Lancaster, durability to the B17 the B29 achieved both in one aircraft add better and more sofisticated technoledgy therefore this must end up as the best aicraft.
However as with all the WW2 weaponry it was the mass produced tools that did the greatest amount of work From the Sherman to the Jeep or the Lee Enfield to the M1 Garand.
In the bombing campiagn it was the Lanc and the B17
But as it was a relitive late comer to the conflict it had less impact.
I know it dropped the A bombs but it was the bombs not the plane that was significant. The B17 and the Lanc had far more overall impact on the bombing campaign. Pay load goes to the Lancaster, durability to the B17 the B29 achieved both in one aircraft add better and more sofisticated technoledgy therefore this must end up as the best aicraft.
However as with all the WW2 weaponry it was the mass produced tools that did the greatest amount of work From the Sherman to the Jeep or the Lee Enfield to the M1 Garand.
In the bombing campiagn it was the Lanc and the B17
Why are we comparing the Mossie to the B-29.
Two different kind of aircraft, two different kinds of missions....
Two different kind of aircraft, two different kinds of missions....
drgondog
Major
Actually history takes note from various Japanese sources that the night firebombing missions were devasting to Japan. The Japanes concentrated far more of their industry within the city boundaries and the 20th AF literally burned every city above the size of Nashville to the ground. Proportionately the B-29 may have done more damage to Japanese Industrial targets than the US Strategic and RAF Bomber Command combined.. (and it may not have).
I'm a little unclear how one compares the quantitative results between the three bombing campaigns but the Japanes were effectively throttled on sea by US sub fleet and B-29 Inland water mining campaign.
The B-29 simply ran out of large targets on the mainland - all effectively occurring from March 1945 when LeMay figured out that the Japanese were nowhere as formidable as the Germans relative to either Fire departments, fire containment or night fighting capability.
This was a mission that could not even start with Lancs, B-24s or B-17s until Okinawa was consolidated and the job was pretty much done by then.
My point exactly.
drgondog
Major
Would you consider that they tried everything in their technical grasp and political will but did not succeed? In other words what Could have happened, in effect, Did happen?
I have no problem with a "Men not Machines" thesis, but point out that bombing Japan with a bomber took place via the USS Hornet early and China/Marianas land bases late... and none at all on US from either Japan or Germany - and how badly do you suppose they would like to have achieved that for propaganda purposes?
Dragonsinger
Airman
Drgondog
All I am saying is that because of an unbalanced leader pushing resources and men beyond sensible limits Germany ran out of time to fulfil the promise of some very strange ideas. The Germans made plenty of crazy ideas work and they are all there in the records and many of them read like science fiction projects, ICBMs, cruise missiles, atomic bomb research, stratospheric jet bombers, flying wing aircraft. THEN we go on to the weird stuff! This was the mid 1940s and over half a century on we are still refining these ideas.
The Germans never, as far as I am aware, did launch an attack on the North American continent, but to deny point blank that they would not have been able to is not a tenable position. For example no one seems to have bothered to check up on the German carrier "Graff Zeppelin". Had she taken part in an offensive backed by U-Boats and surface vessels a large area of the North American continent would have been considered within range.
From a Japanese point of view I need only say Torra! Torra! Torra! If they could achieve that there is no argument about the vulnerability of the West coast of the North American continent. I will accept that like the attack on Pearl Harbour this would have been only a one shot strategy but I would welcome your opinion on it's value as a propaganda or terror tactic, and although I do not particularly like the comparison I would urge you to compare it to the effect achieved by 911.
Regarding Tinker Belle then if Tinker Belle is the idea of in flight refuelling and fairy dust paraffin (kerosene) from a towed tanker, I agree.
As far as sarcasm goes if it illustrates the point then use it. It is a valued tool in debate but be very aware that it can bite the user as well as the recipient.
I will be perfectly happy to continue this debate but should it be on this thread?
Regards
Dragonsinger
All I am saying is that because of an unbalanced leader pushing resources and men beyond sensible limits Germany ran out of time to fulfil the promise of some very strange ideas. The Germans made plenty of crazy ideas work and they are all there in the records and many of them read like science fiction projects, ICBMs, cruise missiles, atomic bomb research, stratospheric jet bombers, flying wing aircraft. THEN we go on to the weird stuff! This was the mid 1940s and over half a century on we are still refining these ideas.
The Germans never, as far as I am aware, did launch an attack on the North American continent, but to deny point blank that they would not have been able to is not a tenable position. For example no one seems to have bothered to check up on the German carrier "Graff Zeppelin". Had she taken part in an offensive backed by U-Boats and surface vessels a large area of the North American continent would have been considered within range.
From a Japanese point of view I need only say Torra! Torra! Torra! If they could achieve that there is no argument about the vulnerability of the West coast of the North American continent. I will accept that like the attack on Pearl Harbour this would have been only a one shot strategy but I would welcome your opinion on it's value as a propaganda or terror tactic, and although I do not particularly like the comparison I would urge you to compare it to the effect achieved by 911.
Regarding Tinker Belle then if Tinker Belle is the idea of in flight refuelling and fairy dust paraffin (kerosene) from a towed tanker, I agree.
As far as sarcasm goes if it illustrates the point then use it. It is a valued tool in debate but be very aware that it can bite the user as well as the recipient.
I will be perfectly happy to continue this debate but should it be on this thread?
Regards
Dragonsinger
- Thread starter
- #572
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Trackend, if the B29's only had a need for a 500 mile range to bomb targets, its payloads would have been immense by the standards of the time.
Its better to compare the Lanc's flying 1600 mile missions (with all the gadgets the B29's carried) and carrying a usefull payload.
If you want to argue which aircraft was the best bomber of the war in Europe, then the Lanc wins hands down.
Its better to compare the Lanc's flying 1600 mile missions (with all the gadgets the B29's carried) and carrying a usefull payload.
If you want to argue which aircraft was the best bomber of the war in Europe, then the Lanc wins hands down.
BIG BIRD
Airman
The Piaggio P.108 was the most advanced and importint bomber of world war two because it was instrumental in the pioneering of features that made the super fortress so successful.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Could you elaborate on that please?
BIG BIRD
Airman
The Piaggio P.108 was the first aircraft that used remote controle guns. I will need some time to find more elaborate details, but many B-29 features were used on the p 108 wich came first.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The P.108s remote control turrets were just that - the B-29's system was a computerized fire control system light years a head of the P.108.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Ahhhh, no.........
Although an advanced aircraft, the B-29 was light years a head of the P.108. Again another large taildragger from a by-gone era that was 100 mph slower than the B-29. It had half the range and the B-29 had a service ceiling 6000 feet higher. Although the P.108 first flew in 1939 be assured that it did nothing to "pioneer" anything related to the B-29. Designers at Piaggio were attempting to match the B-17 and they barely were able to do that.
BIG BIRD
Airman
Well I think your right but the Piaggio P.108 was developed 4 years ahead of the b-29, and until the b-29 started active duty the p 108 was the most technologicly advaned, not nesicarily the best bomber. Compared with other italian bomers it a marvel.
BIG BIRD
Airman
Giovanni Casiraghi an italian designer who helped lead the p.108 project went to america and picked up info, do you now if he had a part to play in the B-17 ,b-24 or b-29 project.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Later model B-17s (Fs and Gs) were still better in terms of performance, bomb load and reliability. The P.108 had engine reliability problems since day one and that affected it's operational deployment - Mussolini's son was killed in one.
I'd compare it to a B-17 C or D - there was no real technological breakthroughs with this aircraft when compared to US or British 4 engine bomber designs - it did offer good defensive armament but that's about it. The P.133 was supposed to be a vast improvement to the 108 but the program was cancelled.
Giovanni Casiraghi lived in the US in the 1930s and actually worked for Waco for a short time. He was inspired by the B-17 and actually wanted to build a better aircraft than the B-17. He came close if you want to compare the P.108 to the B-17D but by the time the P.108 was operational, B-17Fs, Gs, and the Lancaster eclipsed it.
