Glider
Captain
An excellent link giving a very good description of the development of gun turrets. Thanks
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
Joe thanks for posting those links, they have some good info. We seem to go though this every few months don't we?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep!
Joe thanks for posting those links, they have some good info. We seem to go though this every few months don't we?
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I sometimes wonder if the waist gunners in the heavy bombers ever hit anything except by accident. Obviously they could score some hits but when you think about the leads and angles involved it must have been difficult. I had a friend in Colorado who was a fight engineer and top turret gunner on a B26 and at least in his later years a topflight rifle and shotgun shooter. I asked him if he ever thought he hit anything from his turret and he said no because it was very difficult.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Heard the same thing, that's why when I heard "the Germans figured that less that 9,000 of it's fighters were lost to b-17s" well I felt likw buying one of these...
The Universal Bullshit Detector Watch™ - Cool Humorous Gadget Watch
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
No way there is any way to discover this but wouldn't it be interesting if one could determine how many hits each gun position on a heavy bomber was responsible for. My bet would be the tail gunner with the most. Another one would be which gunnery runs were most favored by the LW, rear from six o clock, headon, etc. and which ones were the most productive and then of course how many LW fighters were actually shot down by bomber guns and which types were more likely to be shot down.
drgondog
Major
The first thing you would have to do is sort out claim versus 'actual' - I think impossible to do for bombers. Hard enough for fighters with witnesses and gun camera film to back up.
flakhappy
Airman
Nobody in all this debate has contributed much but dry statistics to fit individual biases. Like debating how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. My great-grandson would say: Grandpa! Get a life!
- Thread starter
- #669
syscom3
Pacific Historian
flakhappy
Airman
You bet, but during WWII, whenever anybody started spouting meaningless statistics some wise old owl told us to stop choosing the wallpaper while the house was on fire.
RAF Liberators
Airman 1st Class
Well the RAF B-24 was way better than the US version, it had to be because my Grandad flew them....
An American airman, was told at Briefing to 'Go in at 30,000 feet and keep out of the flak."
"If I go in a 20,000 feet, what will happen?' asked the airman.
"You'll probably be mentioned in despatches", answered the officer.
"If I go in at 10,000 feet, what will happen then ?" he asked.
"In that case you will probably get the Congress Medal", he was told.
"And if I go in at 5,000 feet?' he inquired excitedly.
"Don't be a fool, man", replied his superior, "you'll go and bump into the R.A.F. at that height."
Thought the subject needed to be lightened up a bit, life's too short, don't take it so seriously
An American airman, was told at Briefing to 'Go in at 30,000 feet and keep out of the flak."
"If I go in a 20,000 feet, what will happen?' asked the airman.
"You'll probably be mentioned in despatches", answered the officer.
"If I go in at 10,000 feet, what will happen then ?" he asked.
"In that case you will probably get the Congress Medal", he was told.
"And if I go in at 5,000 feet?' he inquired excitedly.
"Don't be a fool, man", replied his superior, "you'll go and bump into the R.A.F. at that height."
Thought the subject needed to be lightened up a bit, life's too short, don't take it so seriously
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Perhaps you're right. But then again, there's also the aspect of simply providing defensive fire even if it's not very accurate...
It also depends on the angle: if the enemy aircraft advances from the side or from the back makes a huge difference. A passing fighter coming from the back seems an extremely difficult target for the waist gunners.
Kris
river
Airman
Hi,
Yes there is. I doubt it.
seeyuzz
river
Great post. I am sure your credentials mean a lot to this discussion!
Why don't you give some real reasons why you do not think it is the best, instead of spamming a thread with something like that????
river
Airman
Hi,
The B29 was a wonderful machine, but it was not used throughout the entire war, and served only in the PTO, where the air defense of Japan was not as robust or as experienced as that of the Germans.
So, the B29s had a more "easy" time than the bombers that served in the ETO. I am not belittling the B29 or the job it did or the crews who manned her. Far from it, I do think it is a superb bomber.
But, from the perspective of enduring the war and being used on all fronts, I'd say the B17, Lancaster or B24 would be regarded as the best heavy bombers of WW2.
Considering the various types of bombers, each tailored for a speciic task, I don't beleive it is possible to say any single bomber was the "best". Sure, it is possible to discuss with more relevance which bomber was best in it's respective category (ie light, medium and heavy bombers), but I can't see how it is possible to pick a single bomber and say it was the best - at least without defining boundaries of what "best" means.
seeyuzz
river
The B29 was a wonderful machine, but it was not used throughout the entire war, and served only in the PTO, where the air defense of Japan was not as robust or as experienced as that of the Germans.
So, the B29s had a more "easy" time than the bombers that served in the ETO. I am not belittling the B29 or the job it did or the crews who manned her. Far from it, I do think it is a superb bomber.
But, from the perspective of enduring the war and being used on all fronts, I'd say the B17, Lancaster or B24 would be regarded as the best heavy bombers of WW2.
Considering the various types of bombers, each tailored for a speciic task, I don't beleive it is possible to say any single bomber was the "best". Sure, it is possible to discuss with more relevance which bomber was best in it's respective category (ie light, medium and heavy bombers), but I can't see how it is possible to pick a single bomber and say it was the best - at least without defining boundaries of what "best" means.
seeyuzz
river
- Thread starter
- #676
syscom3
Pacific Historian
How about the B29 incorporated all of the best features of the other three?
Bigger payload, longer ranged, sophisticated (for its day) integration of defensive and offensive avionics, etc.
river
Airman
Hi,
If you define best as having the biggest "routine" bombload (as the Lancaster could carry 22,000lbs, but for shorter range and it had to be modified to carry the Grand Slam), plus the incorporation of the best features of the pre-existing bombers, then you could make a case and say the B29 was the best heavy bomber of WW2.
But, if you define the best as to which bombers flew the most missions, endured the longer hardships of war, was produced in greater numbers, and was used in multiple theatres of operation, then I don't think you could include the B29.
If you define the best as which bomber carried the most payload per crew, then perhaps it would be the Mosquito.
river
If you define best as having the biggest "routine" bombload (as the Lancaster could carry 22,000lbs, but for shorter range and it had to be modified to carry the Grand Slam), plus the incorporation of the best features of the pre-existing bombers, then you could make a case and say the B29 was the best heavy bomber of WW2.
But, if you define the best as to which bombers flew the most missions, endured the longer hardships of war, was produced in greater numbers, and was used in multiple theatres of operation, then I don't think you could include the B29.
If you define the best as which bomber carried the most payload per crew, then perhaps it would be the Mosquito.
river
- Thread starter
- #678
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B29 could easily carry the Grand Slam, and even two of them for shorter ranged missions. It also carried aerial mines, and also an atomic bomb. None of the other three could carry those two weapons.
The Lanc, B17 and B24 did not have the avionics the B29 carried. Nor was the defensive firepower comparable to the B29.
And as events proved in the Pacific, the B17 didnt have the range to make it usable. The B24 and Lanc were on the outer edges of payload vs range. But only the B29 could combine a usefull payload over long ranges.
And the Mossie could have been used in more light bomber roles, but it wasnt.
The Lancaster was the only operational bomber of WW2 that could accomnodate the Grand Slam bomb. That was entirely due to its bomb bay design which placed no limitation on the size and shape of the weapon carried (an idea carried over in todays Nimrod) the US practice of having smaller individual bays prevented any American type from doing this without major modification or some sort of separate cradle being developed so I don't know how you get a B-29 'easily' carrying two of these huge weapons syscom? Due to the reasons I said the Lanc could carry anything that any other bomber, B-29 included, could carry.
Having said that I would readily agree that the B-29 was the best bomber of the war. It was a technological leap forward over all preceding aircraft and the speed, range and altitude at which it could deliver these weapons was unprecedented, Remember the B-29, As the Washington B.1, was a standard bomber type with the RAF until 1957.
Defining best can be a dodgy business, but if you simply take is as being the finest performance and capability for a bomber by 1945 then you have the Mosquito and B-29 above all.
If you want the best 'mainstay' heavy of the war, ie actually operated over a number of years rather than the latest tech, then it would have to be (for me) the Lancaster over everything else, but if you put in proviso's to allow your favourite aircraft to win, it starts to get a bit pointless
Having said that I would readily agree that the B-29 was the best bomber of the war. It was a technological leap forward over all preceding aircraft and the speed, range and altitude at which it could deliver these weapons was unprecedented, Remember the B-29, As the Washington B.1, was a standard bomber type with the RAF until 1957.
Defining best can be a dodgy business, but if you simply take is as being the finest performance and capability for a bomber by 1945 then you have the Mosquito and B-29 above all.
If you want the best 'mainstay' heavy of the war, ie actually operated over a number of years rather than the latest tech, then it would have to be (for me) the Lancaster over everything else, but if you put in proviso's to allow your favourite aircraft to win, it starts to get a bit pointless
Last edited:
