The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Milosh · Jul 4, 2010

Glider said:
3400 22.12.42 Flak: 2. lei.Abt. 847 I-III. Zug 2./847 Mosquito £ E. Axel: 50 m. (Zeeland) 16.47 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr. - - C.2027/I
1 Mosquito was lost this day

Isn't this an AAA 'kill'?

So German fighters only 'killed' 11 of the 25 they claimed (44% accurate) they made for Mossies in 1942.

skeeter · Jul 5, 2010

Hands down, the best bomber of WW2 has to be the B-29 Superfortress. Can there be ANY dispute about that? If so, you climb into your favorite WW2 bomber if other than a 29 and let's go on a bombing mission. Try to keep up and join up at altitude. Try not to run out of fuel if you don't have the range for the given mission profile and bomb load. Crew comfort was also much improved with pressurization. The Japanese had a heck of a time intercepting it at altitude if one is to believe what Saburo Sakai wrote, although it did happen. Yes, the Superfort had it's share of problems, engines and otherwise, but it was a major weapons system with advanced technology for the time being brought online under war time circumstances. The Germans are just lucky that the war ended when it did or Der Furerher (yeah I misspelled it big deal) would have had more egg on his goose stepping face.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 5, 2010

Good thing you edited your post, because Nimitz Class Carriers, B-2 Stealth Bombers and Obama have nothing to do with the best bomber of WW2...

Glider · Jul 5, 2010

Milosh said:
Isn't this an AAA 'kill'?

So German fighters only 'killed' 11 of the 25 they claimed (44% accurate) they made for Mossies in 1942.

It looks like an AA kill but don't know for sure so left it in. Kurfurst may be able to help but he seems to have gone quiet.

looney · Jul 5, 2010

What difference would have the B-29 made in the ETO? after 1943 the Germans couldn't keep enought fighhters in the air to stop any bombardement. Or are you talking about the NUKE? All german cities already where bombed to crap. Heck even in the PTO it is disputable if a NUKE was more deadly compared to simple incendairy bombes.

P.s. I reckon 75% at least thinks the B29 is the best bomber. I just want to see what the B29 biggest assets are compared to it's rivals.

parsifal · Jul 5, 2010

I actually think pushing the b-29 into the ETO may have had some definite negatives. Sure it was an advnaced design, but it was also a phenomally expensive aircraft to put into the air. It would NOT have been invulnerable in Europe, although its loss rates compared to the B-17/B-24 mix would have been much lower, But when your unit costs are ten or twenty times those of the aircraft you are replacing, which is roughly what they cost, and the bomber offensive was all about numbers and tonnages, I dont think a force of 500 or so B-29s could hope to have the same effect as 3 or 4000 B-17s/B-24. And though their loss rates might be lower, they are not going to be ten or twenty times lower. They might be half or even a quarter as vulnerable, but would still lose out.

And one other thing....B-29s were not effective as conventional bombers operating at high altitude. they either had to carry a nuke, or incendiary bomb at low altitude. This meant they had to bomb at night, and develop night bombing techniques, something that was not really within the grasp of the US until late in the war.

I dont like Allied propagandists any more than I do German ones......

looney · Jul 6, 2010

I heared that the B29 was relative vulnarable also in the PTO until they could be escorted by P38 and P51. After that the Japs had the same problem as the Germans, not enough bomber killers in the air. And the ones you do have are being killed slowly, rookies faster.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 6, 2010

looney said:
I heared that the B29 was relative vulnarable also in the PTO until they could be escorted by P38 and P51. After that the Japs had the same problem as the Germans, not enough bomber killers in the air. And the ones you do have are being killed slowly, rookies faster.

I think only the P-51 escorted B-29s.

As far as being vulnerable - not nearly in the same terms as bombers over Europe. I think B-29 crews would worry more about flak and the weather than being intercepted by fighters, especially at high altitude and at night.

Please don't use the term "Jap."

Milosh · Jul 6, 2010

FLYBOYJ said:
I think only the P-51 escorted B-29s.

Several P-47N units were based on Ie Shima and Okinawa.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 6, 2010

Milosh said:
Several P-47N units were based on Ie Shima and Okinawa.

Yep - you are correct

renrich · Jul 6, 2010

I am under the impression that the B29 raids from high altitude over Japan were relatively ineffective because the high velocity of the winds aloft made accurate bombing very difficult. IMO, the B29 would have been at least as effective at high altitude precision bombing as the other Allied bombers were.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 6, 2010

renrich said:
I am under the impression that the B29 raids from high altitude over Japan were relatively ineffective because the high velocity of the winds aloft made accurate bombing very difficult.

True

renrich said:
IMO, the B29 would have been at least as effective at high altitude precision bombing as the other Allied bombers were.

Again true, but they were bringing up to 3 times the bomb load at twice the range with a very effective fire control system. Bomb run speeds were a bit faster as well.

renrich · Jul 6, 2010

I was trying to be conservative in my statements about the B29 but frankly, I believe that the B29, if used in Europe in 1945 for conventional bombing would have many times more lethal than the B17s, B24s and Lancs.

syscom3 · Jul 6, 2010

Parsifal, youre correct.

The B29's were not available in huge quantity untill Jan/Feb 1945. By that time the war in Europe had been decided.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 6, 2010

renrich said:
I was trying to be conservative in my statements about the B29 but frankly, I believe that the B29, if used in Europe in 1945 for conventional bombing would have many times more lethal than the B17s, B24s and Lancs.

Agree...

syscom3 said:
Parsifal, youre correct.

The B29's were not available in huge quantity untill Jan/Feb 1945. By that time the war in Europe had been decided.

and agree...

syscom3 · Jul 6, 2010

Just for the record; triple digit production was not reached untill Sept 1944, and that was with only 122 (Boeing-Omaha only built 10 in the whole month).

It wasn't until Jan 1945 that monthly production reached 221.

looney · Jul 7, 2010

renrich said:
I was trying to be conservative in my statements about the B29 but frankly, I believe that the B29, if used in Europe in 1945 for conventional bombing would have many times more lethal than the B17s, B24s and Lancs.

But there weren't any B29 to send to Europe. To be effective you need a lot of planes (harder to stop). I think that if they sent 50 B29's to Europa they would get slaughtered.
There is savety in numbers.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 7, 2010

looney said:
But there weren't any B29 to send to Europe. To be effective you need a lot of planes (harder to stop). I think that if they sent 50 B29's to Europa they would get slaughtered.
There is savety in numbers.

Not if you are going to drop one bomb.

Kurfürst · Jul 7, 2010

parsifal said:
I actually think pushing the b-29 into the ETO may have had some definite negatives. Sure it was an advnaced design, but it was also a phenomally expensive aircraft to put into the air. It would NOT have been invulnerable in Europe, although its loss rates compared to the B-17/B-24 mix would have been much lower, But when your unit costs are ten or twenty times those of the aircraft you are replacing, which is roughly what they cost, and the bomber offensive was all about numbers and tonnages, I dont think a force of 500 or so B-29s could hope to have the same effect as 3 or 4000 B-17s/B-24. And though their loss rates might be lower, they are not going to be ten or twenty times lower. They might be half or even a quarter as vulnerable, but would still lose out.

Average Unit Cost of Airplanes

B-17 $ 204,370
B-24 $ 215,516
B-29 $ 605,360

Just thought that people so much in love with maths might find it interesting. 8)

Milosh · Jul 7, 2010

Kurfürst said:
Average Unit Cost of Airplanes

B-17 $ 204,370
B-24 $ 215,516
B-29 $ 605,360

Just thought that people so much in love with maths might find it interesting. 8)

Those are 1944 costs.

Average Unit Cost of Airplanes Authorized, By Principal Model: Fiscal Years 1939 to 1945
Army Air Forces in World War II

The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Captain

Airman 1st Class

Colonel

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Chief Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Airman 1st Class

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads