Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Lancaster was the only 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.
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
Grand Slam on B-29 were external load
The B29 had two large unpressurized bomb bays that were in similar design to the Lanc, in that there was no fuselauge obstructions like that of the B17/B24.
Go see the B29 thread that provides information of the B29 carrying not one, but two Grand Slams.
The B29 was a magniture better than the other three.
You missed my point, but it was my own fault as I wasn't clear.
in 1945 the B-29 was still only conducting trials with these weapons. It was about 2 weeks away from its first operation when the war ended. The Lancaster was a proven operational type that actually dropped them on the enemy. Thats quite a difference. I actually support the B-29 as the best bomber of the war if you read my post.
Yes it was, but how does that contradict what I said?
'Easy' would be a standard aircraft bombed up in the normal way to my mind. The fact was that without the Lancaster, none of these bombs would ever have been dropped operationally as the B-29 would have been too late.
How about the B29 carrying an atomic weapon and the Lanc couldnt?
The B29 also carries the large aerial mines that finally sutdown the japanese inland seaways. The lanc couldnt do that.
Explain that in more detail. You lost me on it.
And the Mossie could have been used in more light bomber roles, but it wasnt
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
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.
river said: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.
The Lancaster was the only 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.
Waynos said: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
It also carried aerial mines, and also an atomic bomb. None of the other three could carry those two weapons.
.
The B-29 was modified to carry the Grand Slam. The Lancaster had to be modified as well to carry it.
I believe the Lancaster was second to the B-29, beating out the 17 and 24 only because of its bomb load.
1. Was the B-29 not the most advanced bomber built during the war?
2. Was the B-29 not the bomber that could carry the heaviest bomb load over the farthest distance?
3. Did the B-29 have superior performance to the majority of other bombers out there?
4. What bombers were more superior to the B-29?
Answer those questions and you will see that that best heavy bomber built during WW2, was the B-29. Fact is fact, that can not be argued.
...
...
Then you should say which was the bomber that contributed the most. Contributing the most, does not necessarily mean the best.
Actually that is false. The Lancaster carried mines on a regular basis. In fact the first operational mission by Lancasters was by RAF Sqaudron No. 44 which was deploying mines on March 3,1942 in the Helgoland Bight.
Hi,
It could be argued the Arado AR234 jet bomber was more advanced than the B29. Maybe not in the weaponry department, but certainly in the power plant area.
Carrying the heaviest bombload the furthest distance is great for long distance missions, like those in the PTO. However, in the ETO there was less emphasis on range. Having said that, I admit that if the B29 was used in the ETO it no doubt could of carried almost double the bombload of the exisiting heavy bombers, when considering the less distances involved.
Basically, if we are focusing purely on performance and outright payload capacity, then yes, the B29 was the best bomber of WW2. But,again, this is one definition of "the best".
Personally, I define the best as to which machine contributed the most, which would puts the emphasis on the Lanc, B17 and B24.
If the best is defined as versatility and enduring the entire war, perhaps it would go to the Ju88 or the Mosquito.
We need a better definition of what the best actually means, or nmore specific questions such as..
1) Best technically
2) Best dispatch/reliability
3) Best contributor
4) Best economically (ie bombload vs crew vs fuel/engines)
I am just throwing the above questions up as basic examples, and each question would probably provide a different answer.
Perhaps a weighting system, based on numerous factors, and the final result provides an answer. If so, what are the salient factors that are important for a bomber. For example...
1) Bombload
2) Speed
3) Altitude
4) Accuracy
5) Range
6) Defensive ability
7) Crew
) Theartres of operation
9) Reliability
Again, just examples. and to include light and medium bombers, items such as bombload could be done as a percentage of weight of the laden aircraft.
But.. I fear that perhaps I am looking at all of this a tad too seriously and therefore the best comes down to personal choice/favourite with a smattering of selected facts to help support your decision.
river
Great post, Parsifal.
My.02 is that taking into consideration ALL aspects of bombers and the missions needed during WWII in almost all theatres, the Ju 88 would win. From mission requirements to bomb load to areas of operation and adaptability, the Ju 88 was mostly effective for the Luftwaffe.
my further two cents worth. This is going to ruffle feathers, but I need to put in a reality check for you guys, in the same way as the uber panzer guys need to take a reality pill once in a while.
For exactly the same reasons as the Tiger tank cannot be viewed as the "best tank of wwii, the B-29 cannot make that claim either. Oh its a technical marvel alright, head an shoulders above everybody else, but only if you view it from the narrow technological point of view.
So where does the B-29 fail?
I have two criticisms. Firstly, the B-289 could not undertake all functions successfully. Its maritime strike capability was limited, as was its ability to provide ground support to battlefield situations.
Secondly my opinion is that in the context of WWII, it fails on the grounds of cost. I read that the 3500 B-29s produced cost more to build than the entire 19000 B-24 program. How would 3500 B-29s fare, compared to 19000 B-24s over germany? They would have been cut to pieces, simply because there would not have been enough of them. If we assume similar deployment rates to Germany as was done historically in the PTO, th en ther would have been about 300 by the end of 1944, rising to about 500 by March 1945. At that same time, ther were thousands of B-24s and B-17s battling the Luftwaffe. I doubt that the B-29, despite its higher individual survivability, would have fared better overall, when viewed as agroup. There simply were not enough of them, and that was because they cost so much per unit to produce.
So while I agree they are the best from a technological point of view, from an operations point of view I see them as having rather limited potential in the WWII context.