The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[looney]

What did you not like about it?

Probably cause it served in PTO only and is less known, the B-17 is much more sexy. I'm from Europa and that is probablythe reason I'm biased to the ETO and Atlantic.

If I have to choose a favorite bomber I'd have to go with the B-17, there where a few lanc squadrons wich did remarkable things with it, but overall it was a non combatant killer. Understandably why they got such missions but I don't like it.
The B-29 has similar problems and dropped a nuke, killing even more non combatants.

P.s. I like the hypocrisy of the US disallowing a nuke to any nation (except Israel, Pakistan and other frienly states who allready have em), by stating they will use it. When all things considered the US is the only country who used them in War.

Hitting a moving tank is not the job of a heavy bomber. So why would the Lanc be penalized for that? Using that logic, the B-29, B-27, B-24 are all terrible bombers.

I know but couldn't think of a propper small target for a heavy. I meant to say that any heavy is a terrible weapon (any meaning you like). Due to the carpet bombing with several planes, your bombs will hit a large area. You will need a lot more bombs to do the job.
That is why the F117 only caries 2 bombs they hit their mark!

To bad no1 reacts to my idea of trying to get the emotion out of the discussion. The table and assigning points for each bomber.

 

[Juha]

Hello Shortround6
yes, the system was an answer to a difficult problem, how to use bombers against small, hard targets when there was not more suitable planes to handle that urgent problem. Again, IIRC RAF Blenheim crews first tried to make individual attacks on individual tanks but results were very poor even if best crews succeeded, or at least thought that they have succeeded, disable a tank now and then. Then some insurance mathematicians analysed the results and concluded that carpet bombing should produce better results, even if predicted results were not anything spectaculiar. And yes, it was a bit like individual shots vs one shotgun shot against a flock of birds. Or a bit like how we were trained to use our assault rifles against fighter bombers,probably copied from Vietnamise tactics. Even mine-laying patterns were based on probability analyze.

Juha

 

[Shortround6]

I know but couldn't think of a propper small target for a heavy. I meant to say that any heavy is a terrible weapon (any meaning you like). Due to the carpet bombing with several planes, your bombs will hit a large area. You will need a lot more bombs to do the job.
That is why the F117 only caries 2 bombs they hit their mark!

Rather different technology don't you think?

To bad no1 reacts to my idea of trying to get the emotion out of the discussion. The table and assigning points for each bomber.

OK, try to explain how the assigning points would work please?

How do you assign points for crew?
1 point for each man? or, since I assume we are working for a point total in which the most points means the best bomber, reverse it so that the bomber with the biggest crew gets the least points and the bomber with the smallest crew gets the most? Now do we use a sliding scale for crew size or do we stick with one man= 1point? from a humanitarian view each man should count the same but in real life not every air crewman could be trained to be a pilot, or even a navigator/bombardier, so you can't take one B-17 crew and make 4- 5 Mosquito crews out of it. It also leaves out the cost/time it took to train a pilot vs training an air gunner.

How do you assign points for defensive weapons?
How many points for a .30/8mm MG gun? How many for a 12.7mm MG?
What is the difference between a hand-held gun (free swinging) and a gun in a power turret?
What is the difference in field of fire?
THE 2 .50s in the top turret of a B-17 were more than twice as effective as the .50 cal poking out through the roof of the radio compartment.
What about planes that had more than one gun position per gunner?
Early JU-88s doubled their firepower, going from 3 guns to 6, but 4 of the guns were 'crewed' by one man so only one of the four could fire at any one time. It did considerable expand the field of fire though.

How do you assign points for range?
1 point per 100 miles?
Carrying what bomb load?
a 2000 mile range carrying 8,000lbs is more useful than a 2000 mile range carrying 4,000lbs but is it worth exactly double?

And how does it relate back to crew points?
Is 200 miles of range with bomb load XXXX worth 1 crewman point or two crewman points?

I think there would be more than enough emotion in assigning the points

 

[Glider]

Probably cause it served in PTO only and is less known, the B-17 is much more sexy. I'm from Europa and that is probablythe reason I'm biased to the ETO and Atlantic.

Before I start I should add that I am also from Europe and the best bomber without question was the B29. As for Sexy, whatever turns you on.

If I have to choose a favorite bomber I'd have to go with the B-17, there where a few lanc squadrons wich did remarkable things with it, but overall it was a non combatant killer. Understandably why they got such missions but I don't like it.
The B-29 has similar problems and dropped a nuke, killing even more non combatants.

Ouch. The crews did the job that they were assigned to do, they didn't choose the missions. To imply that the Lanc with the B29 was mainly non combatant killer and the B17 wasn't, is crap. Its worth reminding you that the most infamous Dresden raid was a combined raid with the Lancs bombing at night and the B17's by day.

 

[looney]

My point about the 117 was that it only needs to have 2 bombs to complete it's mission. The Ju-87 delivered 80% of the time it's payload on target. Thus it did not need a lot of bombs to destroy it (granted it suffered a lot in other fields). A heavie needs more bobs and aircraft to do the same, but it's much more defendable and will get the job done more easy!

Basic comparison imho between bombers. 4 bombers 4 points to spend.

Example: Mossie vs Blenheim. (2 points to spend (1 and 0))
Crew: mossie vs blenheim (same amount of bombs (1000lbs normally), mossie 2 crew Blenheim 3. Point for mossie.
Speed: Mossie was much faster thus a clear win noted to the mossie.
Defence is a hard one: Mossie no rear defence gun (it did not need one due to speed) but the 1 peashooter for the Blenheim still gives it a win.

So in above little example Mossie vs Blenheim: 2-1 win for the mossie.

I only had 2 aircraft and 3 points to devide but we can increase the number of aircraft and points to infinity.

This way we at least can make a better judgment than simply saying: Plane X is best.

 

[Shortround6]

Hello Shortround6
yes, the system was an answer to a difficult problem, how to use bombers against small, hard targets when there was not more suitable planes to handle that urgent problem. Again, IIRC RAF Blenheim crews first tried to make individual attacks on individual tanks but results were very poor even if best crews succeeded, or at least thought that they have succeeded, disable a tank now and then. Then some insurance mathematicians analysed the results and concluded that carpet bombing should produce better results, even if predicted results were not anything spectaculiar. And yes, it was a bit like individual shots vs one shotgun shot against a flock of birds. Or a bit like how we were trained to use our assault rifles against fighter bombers,probably copied from Vietnamise tactics. Even mine-laying patterns were based on probability analyze.

Juha

Hello Juha.

I understand what you are saying and I understand how it works.
I may be wrong but I think the carpet bombing in Normandy was against German positions in general and not against tanks specifically. Tanks were certainly in the area. I am sure they were hoping to knock out a fair number ( just as enough artillery can break up a tank attack, while single artillery pieces or even single battery's are almost useless against tanks at long range). taking out accompanying infantry, soft vehicles (fuel trucks?), supporting artillery and anti-tank guns were just as much targets as the tanks.

I think the whole idea of firing rifles against fighter bombers was a much to help the morale of the infantry (give them the idea/hope of fighting back vs hiding in a ditch and taking it) as it was with actually damaging/bringing down an attacker. Given one estimate of the Americans needing 50,000 rounds of .50 cal ammo to bring down one German aircraft in the last year of the war (on average) the statistical chances of assault rifle fire bring down planes must be rather small

 

[Glider]

My point about the 117 was that it only needs to have 2 bombs to complete it's mission. The Ju-87 delivered 80% of the time it's payload on target. Thus it did not need a lot of bombs to destroy it (granted it suffered a lot in other fields). A heavie needs more bobs and aircraft to do the same, but it's much more defendable and will get the job done more easy!

Basic comparison imho between bombers. 4 bombers 4 points to spend. Crew: mossie vs blenheim (same amount of bombs (1000lbs normally),

Mossie normal bomb load of 1,000lb?

mossie 2 crew Blenheim 3. Point for mossie. Speed same.

Speed the same?

Defence is a hard one: Mossie no rear defence gun (it did not need one due to speed) but the 1 peashooter for the Blenheim still gives it a win.

Blenheim a win?

Someone needs to check their facts

 

[looney]

Before I start I should add that I am also from Europe and the best bomber without question was the B29. As for Sexy, whatever turns you on.



Ouch. The crews did the job that they were assigned to do, they didn't choose the missions. To imply that the Lanc with the B29 was mainly non combatant killer and the B17 wasn't, is crap. Its worth reminding you that the most infamous Dresden raid was a combined raid with the Lancs bombing at night and the B17's by day.

I said in a earlier post: I also think the B-29 was the best bomber. It's just not my favorite.

If I remember correctly the US tried to target factories etc etc (ballbearings at Schweinfurt etc etc). While the brits simply tried to destroy the enemy morale, thus destroying cities at night (exceptions noted like dambusting raid). And night bombardements can't hope to achieve the same accuracy as daylight bombing.

I understand why they made that decision, and I know the crew did exceptional feats of bravery. There is however enough controversy to at least make the case that it had the impression of being warcrimes (hindsight I know).

P.s. I know the Lanc is a great bomber, but I find it hard to see it not as a city leveler. Same with the B-29. The B-17 and B24 did level cities also but they at least try to hit a factory.

Addendum on last post by glider (before this one)
I'm at work and I noted the payloads for both aircraft from memory. I thought standard bombload for both was 2x 250kg bombs (roughly 1000lbs).

I clearified the post on the speed in my excample.
Blenheim could defend itself by means of it's peashooter on the back, the mossie couldn't. So yes the Blenheim was better in that reflect. If we get a bigger table the advantages of the Mossie will soon show itself, just as my small excample showed on 3 points.

 

[Juha]

Hello Shortround
IIRC the carpet bombing against tanks was initiated during North Africa Campaign, there need to do something to panzers was acute and the open terrain made the finding them, especially the moving ones, much easier for bombers.

On the assault rifle stuff, instructions were, never try to bring down fighter-bomber attacking on your squad, the difference of fire-power was much too great, idea was to try to disrupt attacks on neighbouring troops and maybe with luck hit some planes. Idea came from analysis on Korean and Vietnam wars were infantry fire bought down fairly big number of planes, saying nothing on helicopters. It was group firing on the command of squad/platoon leader. Of course the chances to bring down an individual plane wasn't high, the idea was to produce attrition on long run and hopefully force the attacking planes higher. Typical poor man's tactics, at that time we didn't have man-portable AA missiles, our army got first of those a couple years after my service was over.

 

[Juha]

Hello Looney
Lanc vs B-17 the difference was partly based on tactics. Lacs of 617 Sqn many times carried only one, but big, bomb and their success rate was fairly good against ships, bridges and tunnels. The sqn had highly trained crews, but so were the crews of succesfull divebomber sqns. Dive bombing was inheritedly more accurate than level bombing but with good crews with sophisticated bomb sight could bomb fairly accurately.

And against what sized of target Stukas got 80% accuracy? Against defended small target, for ex a bridge, accuracy wasn't nearly that good during WWII.

Juha

 

[Glider]

I said in a earlier post: I also think the B-29 was the best bomber. It's just not my favorite.

If I remember correctly the US tried to target factories etc etc (ballbearings at Schweinfurt etc etc). While the brits simply tried to destroy the enemy morale, thus destroying cities at night (exceptions noted like dambusting raid). And night bombardements can't hope to achieve the same accuracy as daylight bombing.

I wouldn't be quite so fast on that statement. Peenemünde is but one example. A main force raid that did huge damage to a specific fairly small target. The many raids on flying bomb sites including one on this day in 1944. 28th June raids on the rail yards at Blainville and Metz. the Raid on the 30 June at Villers Bocage stopping a major German attack. The raids on the towns got the news and publicity but its a major mistake to think that they were the only raids that happened.
18/19th August is a good example
288 bombers hit Bremen. The German official report 10 pages long didn't list the damaged industrial buildings, simply stating that to do so would be impossible as the list would be endless. It did say that the port was devastated, 61 vessels being seriously damaged and 18 sunk.
234 bombers hit a synthetic oil refinary at Sterkade and the reports were that the plant was seriously damaged.
144 bombers hit a railway station and sidings at Connantre in France, again the reports stated that much damage had been done
108 bombers hit oil storage tanks at Ertvelde Rieme and the reports stated that severe damage was done.

Clearly there were days when the targets were not as well hit as this but that applies to any airforce. The point is to emphasise that a lot more was done against military targets than you seem to realise, as these targets were all hit on one night.

P.s. I know the Lanc is a great bomber, but I find it hard to see it not as a city leveler. Same with the B-29. The B-17 and B24 did level cities also but they at least try to hit a factory.

Normally, not every time I do grant you but normally the industrial areas of the cities were targeted.

Addendum on last post by glider (before this one)
I'm at work and I noted the payloads for both aircraft from memory. I thought standard bombload for both was 2x 250kg bombs (roughly 1000lbs).

Mosquito normally carried 4 x 500lb bombs internally with another 2 x 500lb on wing racks. Those with the bulged bomb bay carried 1 x 4,000lb bomb internally or 6 x 500lb bombs intrnally and 2 x 500lb bombs on wing racks.
Note If you wanted to do lasting damage to a heavy enginering plant then you needed the lrger boms, bombs the B17 couldn't carry.

I clearified the post on the speed in my excample.
Blenheim could defend itself by means of it's peashooter on the back, the mossie couldn't. So yes the Blenheim was better in that reflect. If we get a bigger table the advantages of the Mossie will soon show itself, just as my small excample showed on 3 points .

If you prefer the 2 x LMG in the turret (not 1) over the extra 130mph speed and ability to run from nearly all the German front line fighters you can keep the LMGs, and I will take the speed.

 

[parsifal]

Mosquito also had a higher effective ceiling and was far more manouverable than the blenheim. The strength of its airframe was legendary, despite its wooden construction. The laminar construction technique gave it an exceptionally good damage resistance.

And if you are really wanting to take defensive weaponary with you, because you dont believe in superior speed, armour protection (and yes mossies did carry armour, whereas all but a few unsuccessful Blenheim subtypes did not) hull strength altitude, and horizontal manouverability then you could take along a far heavier forward firing armament just for a laugh, as the Fighter bomber variants carrying the 1500-2000 lb warloads did all the time.

Mosquitoes were a much feared opponent over the continent.....whereas the blenheims were not ever described as dangerous or deadly that I can recall

 

[looney]

@Glider and Parsifal: You miss my point.

Of course I rather fly the Mossie. And I know it didn't really needed the rear gun. Fact remains that Blenheim could defend it's rear, the Mossie couldn't. So the point goes to the Mossie. That is probably the only point it would get against a Mossie. And if we would compare all points the Mossie is way better only in that 1 point not.

In my table you want to look only at the point you need to examine. You got plane X and plane Y, only difference between X and Y is 1 has 1 gun facing rearward for self defence the other not. SO if you're in it, in which you rather be getting attacked by an enemy fighter. Forget all other stuff you know about the plane.

I want to something similar to this: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm on that page the different guns are compared. As objectively as possible.
As a reply to all the technical stuff:
I stand corrected, however they didn't matter much for my example. I only compared 3 points. And the number of LMG in the Blenheim depends on which mark we talking about.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

My point about the 117 was that it only needs to have 2 bombs to complete it's mission. The Ju-87 delivered 80% of the time it's payload on target. Thus it did not need a lot of bombs to destroy it (granted it suffered a lot in other fields). A heavie needs more bobs and aircraft to do the same, but it's much more defendable and will get the job done more easy!

You are comparing apples and oranges. These aircraft all were built for different roles and missions.

Read up on:

Tactical Bombing and Strategic Bombing

 

[parsifal]

"Of course I rather fly the Mossie. And I know it didn't really needed the rear gun. Fact remains that Blenheim could defend it's rear, the Mossie couldn't. So the point goes to the Mossie. That is probably the only point it would get against a Mossie. And if we would compare all points the Mossie is way better only in that 1 point not".

I think the only person here missing the point here is yourself. The Mossie protected its rear by means other than having a rear gunner. If it had a rear gunner it would have had its primary defences - its speed agility and forward armament- reduced and in this way have become a vulnerbale death trap like so many other bombers, including the Blenheim.


In my table you want to look only at the point you need to examine. You got plane X and plane Y, only difference between X and Y is 1 has 1 gun facing rearward for self defence the other not. SO if you're in it, in which you rather be getting attacked by an enemy fighter. Forget all other stuff you know about the plane.

Your table is simplistic and misleading, to the point of being downright wrong. What you are failing to appreciate is that putting a rear mounted gun on an aircraft puts penalties on that aircraft in all sorts of ways. Putting inadequate defensive armament on a light bomber was a bad idea, that added nothing to its defensive capabilities, and actually increased its vulnerbaility. Your table does not take that performance issue into account, deliberately I believe.

 

[looney]

Cause I think the penalties will show in other points. What I'm trying to do is to get a clear and practical means of making a decision.

 

[Glider]

@Glider and Parsifal: You miss my point.

Nope I don't. My concern wasn't your points system which does have the merit of an idea but is way too simplistic.

My beef was the Stereotyping of the Lanc and B29 as only being city crushers which is both wildly inaccurate, and unfair on the crews who risked and often lost so much.

 

[syscom3]

Nope I don't. My concern wasn't your points system which does have the merit of an idea but is way too simplistic.

My beef was the Stereotyping of the Lanc and B29 as only being city crushers which is both wildly inaccurate, and unfair on the crews who risked and often lost so much.

Looney, the B29 had the most accurate and destructive weapons system in the world at that time.

One bomb destroying one city.

What other bomber had that distinction?

 

[looney]

Nope I don't. My concern wasn't your points system which does have the merit of an idea but is way too simplistic.

My beef was the Stereotyping of the Lanc and B29 as only being city crushers which is both wildly inaccurate, and unfair on the crews who risked and often lost so much.

Why? the Brits knew they couldn't hit their target in daylight so they resorted in carpet bombing at night. That was the whole point of Bomber Command (RAF Bomber Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia check the casualties bit), and the land was their primary bomber. I have the utmost respect for the men doing their job, but in my opinion there is to much "collateral damage".

I don't know how many sorties where tactical (like on Peenemünde, or dam busting raids). Fact is most sorties where made to break the morale of the German people (carpet bombing of cities) which it failed to do, just like similar bombardments on Rotterdam, Coventry etc. failed to do.

I have the luxury to think about history and put my morals on top, this is a luxury NO soldier can afford. I am very grateful for the sacrifice they made for my freedom. I do however not agree with the means and strategies they used to achieve that. I find weapons extremely interesting, but I wish they weren't around any more.

Looney, the B29 had the most accurate and destructive weapons system in the world at that time.

One bomb destroying one city.

What other bomber had that distinction?

I already agreed that the B-29 was the best. And no1 knows how accurate it was, it (nuke) could have been miles of target.

 

[BombTaxi]

The B-29 is undoubtedly the best bomber of the war, although I would argue that syscom's '1 bomb 1 city' argument is entirely spurious, as any a/c capable of carrying a nuke could have achieved the same distinction, and accuracy was not really an issue with that type of weapon - as long as it was dropped in the correct postcode, the entire city would be flattened. Hardly precision bombing is it?

I'm not sure why the Mossie vs Blenheim argument rumbles on, the Blenheim was highly vulnerable and suffered heavy losses, while the Mossie was the opposite in both respects on the same types of mission. Martin Bowman's Reich Intruders is a great place to start to get an airman's perspective of the difference between the two types.