The Best Bomber of WWII: #4 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I would say not. The price is subject a number of external factors, such as availability of materials, cost of labour, size of orders placed etc, which are affected by the circumstances of the war itself. The cost price does not have any effectiveness of the airframe itself, and an aircraft that is good value for money at a given point in time may not be at another point, due to the factors mentioned.
Shortround6
Major General
Cost would be one or more threads all on it's own.
Granted cost should be a factor in a planes effectiveness but measuring cost from country to country is almost impossible, you not only have the different currencies but different cost accounting and cost breakdowns.
Even something as simple as a British 4 engine bomber with different engines, while the airframe was about the same cost, what is the cost of a Merlin engine vs the cost of a Hercules? does the cost of the Merlin include the radiators?
Granted cost should be a factor in a planes effectiveness but measuring cost from country to country is almost impossible, you not only have the different currencies but different cost accounting and cost breakdowns.
Even something as simple as a British 4 engine bomber with different engines, while the airframe was about the same cost, what is the cost of a Merlin engine vs the cost of a Hercules? does the cost of the Merlin include the radiators?
drgondog
Major
have to consider fully burdened cost of deploying B-29 - unit cost of production version including overhead, spares cost, trainining cost, daily maintenance and overhaul, etc in comparison with B-17 and B-24.
It starts to matter less if the mission may be performed only by the B-29.. otherwise it better have at least same efficiency of bombs on target and about 80% (or fewer) losses per sortie - mission effectiveness equal. Europe was not a battleground where that kind of performance/mission superiority could be achieved for the B-29 in comparison with B-17 and B-24.
On the other hand the B-17 and B-24 could not perform the B-29 mission from the Marianas or carry the nuclear weapon to Japan.
It starts to matter less if the mission may be performed only by the B-29.. otherwise it better have at least same efficiency of bombs on target and about 80% (or fewer) losses per sortie - mission effectiveness equal. Europe was not a battleground where that kind of performance/mission superiority could be achieved for the B-29 in comparison with B-17 and B-24.
On the other hand the B-17 and B-24 could not perform the B-29 mission from the Marianas or carry the nuclear weapon to Japan.
I understand the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden was one of the most able of Japanese fighters when it came to intercepting the B-29. Ironically, Le May said bomb low, pickle those bombs at low altitude so as not to worry about crosswinds taking the bombs off target. During the fire raids on Tokyo and elsewhere, that seemed to be the way to do it. As I write this, it is still August 6th where I am at, the anniversary of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I've never understood the handwringing over why the United States did it. People seem to want to re-write history an they want apologies. My father was in the Navy at the time and had been for over three years. He probably would have been involved in an invasion, and I'm supposed to feel bad that he wasn't? No apologies from me. No sir. Now somebody made a wise crack about my earlier post and my having edited it. I don't know where that came from, but it was a cheap shot.
I fully agree with your 1st 2nd choice although I'm biased towards the Lanc as my Father, uncle, cousin flew them.
The Superfort couldn't lift the Tallboy-Large @ 22,500lbs.
However, I don't agree with your statement re. Mosquitoes:
How do you dismiss an a/c which would make 2 (yes, TWO!) trips to Berlin, with 2 men + a 4,000 lb. bomb load, in the same 8 hour span that a B17 or B24 would take to deliver 1/2 the total bomb load...... with 10 men, @ half the speed????????????????????????????
I didn't even mention the tragic difference in loss ratio!
Cheers.
Paul
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
It seems there are a lot of iffs and buts
I dont think an airoplane can take the credit for the bomb it dropped the B29 dropped the nuclear bomb but that wasnt its role when designed. It started life as a design in 1939 but wasnt really sorted until 1944/45 and had its role changed from daylight high altitude bomber to nightime low altitude due to numerous problems. It was the most technically advanced bomber of WW2 but if it was the only bomber then the war would be over in Eurpe and Pacific before it got itself sorted.
My vote goes for the mosquito. Designed and flown in a year despite opposition to the concept. Fast light with a two man crew able to use electronic guidance to make precision raids by day or night dropping a bomb load almost the same as heavy bombers on long raids without escort. Also made of a composite laminate material that pointed the way in the future.
If all the merlins used on Lancs halifaxes were put into mosquitos the war would have been different. Without an escort it could carry a bomb load almost equal to a B17 over Berlin and what was it used for? It was used to mark targets while its fighter variant was used to protect the defensively armed bombers who dropped bombs on the fire.
I dont think an airoplane can take the credit for the bomb it dropped the B29 dropped the nuclear bomb but that wasnt its role when designed. It started life as a design in 1939 but wasnt really sorted until 1944/45 and had its role changed from daylight high altitude bomber to nightime low altitude due to numerous problems. It was the most technically advanced bomber of WW2 but if it was the only bomber then the war would be over in Eurpe and Pacific before it got itself sorted.
My vote goes for the mosquito. Designed and flown in a year despite opposition to the concept. Fast light with a two man crew able to use electronic guidance to make precision raids by day or night dropping a bomb load almost the same as heavy bombers on long raids without escort. Also made of a composite laminate material that pointed the way in the future.
If all the merlins used on Lancs halifaxes were put into mosquitos the war would have been different. Without an escort it could carry a bomb load almost equal to a B17 over Berlin and what was it used for? It was used to mark targets while its fighter variant was used to protect the defensively armed bombers who dropped bombs on the fire.
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I know its an old post but destroying battleships, tunnels, viaducts and concrete reinforced installations like sub pens and v3 rocket installations is tactical to me, credit for that goes to the bomb and the only plane at the time that could carry it.
- Thread starter
- #909
syscom3
Pacific Historian
They did carry them. There's pictures of them doing that somewhere in this forum.
- Thread starter
- #910
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The mossie couldnt carry a nuclear weapon 1600 miles away from base, carrying on board bombing radar and nav aids.
parsifal
Colonel
Sys i agree, that the B-29 was technologically in a league of its own, and was the best bomber of the war. But there is a degree of illogicality in the position you are taking. The B-29 had limits on what it could do as well, like it could not land on a carrier, or undertake U-Boat attacks (during the war at least) or attack shipping all that effectively, or undertake raids unescorted, or hit precision targets as efficiently etc. That does not disqualify it (the B-29) from being considered as the best bomber. Facts are the b-29 could act as a heavy bomber better than anything else that flew. The Mossie was not a heavy bomber, it was a strategic bomber (among a lot of other things that it could do) but that versatility does not make it the best bomber…it makes it a very adaptable aircraft, and perhaps the best allround aircraft of the war, but not the best pure bomber.
A few points for correction as well. Its true that the mossie could not carry the A-Bomb, but it is not true that it did not carry radar and other very advanced nav aids that made it an extremely accurate bomber. The aids fitted to the Mossie, combined with the inherent stability of the airframe and its relative survivability, are the reasons why it was the main equipment of the pathfinder groups. It had the ability to undertake precision strikes, at night, or in poor visibility, using blind bombing techniques, with a very high probability of hitting the target.
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
I dont disagree that the B29 was the most advanced four engined heavy bomber in WWII. but by the time it was introduced and sorted Japan was already beaten. If for example Japan had sufficient aircraft capable of intercepting it would the USA have risked a nuclear attack? The B29 was the pinnacle of the 4 piston engined bomber but by the time it was introduced we were in the jet and rocket age. However despite its philosophy being the vogue and Boing having all the experience of the B17 it took 5 years to get sorted and then it was problematic. The mosquito made it into service in a year and excelled in many roles despite resistance and negativity to its concept. For years in Europe four engined heavies bombed fields and already bombed areas suffering huge losses mainly because of a dogma.
The mosquito with a pilot and navigator/weapons technician flying using speed and technology for offense and defense was the most popular and practical method of bombing in years to come with Nuclear strikes being handled by missiles. I am surprised the RAF didnt ask for a 4 engined mosquito in WW2.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Best bomber means what is says. Systems, operations, longevity, etc. Just flying to Japan to bomb it was a hazard in itself, and when B-29 began bombing Japan she was far from beaten.
Wood airplanes don't last long and are hard to repair as discussed. A twin engine tail dragger is not a prime aircraft for freshly minted pilots and although the mosquito had a good safety record, it was a design not destined to advance beyond its operational era.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
To a point I agree - the best all round "combat" aircraft. Best all round aircraft of WW2 was the C-47.
Shortround6
Major General
A couple of points.
1. The electronic aids the Mosquito used were not entirely carried on board. The Oboe system required ground transmitters and receivers. The later GEE_H system also required ground stations.
2. While the jet and rocket age was dawning it wasn't here yet and it would be a number of years further down the road before jet bombers had the payload and range to equal piston engine bombers. Rocket bombers (ICBMS) took a lot longer.
3. With the advent of atomic bombs the interception got a lot more difficult. Getting 10% or even 25% of the incoming bombers wasn't going to be good enough. The defense was going to have to get 100% (or close to it) of the attackers. An extra 150-200mph in speed for the interceptors wasn't going to assure 100% destruction of the attackers. Rocket interceptors (anti-aircraft missiles) that actually worked a fair amount of the time were so far down the road that the worlds bomber forces had been able to convert to jets by the time they were ready.
1. The electronic aids the Mosquito used were not entirely carried on board. The Oboe system required ground transmitters and receivers. The later GEE_H system also required ground stations.
2. While the jet and rocket age was dawning it wasn't here yet and it would be a number of years further down the road before jet bombers had the payload and range to equal piston engine bombers. Rocket bombers (ICBMS) took a lot longer.
3. With the advent of atomic bombs the interception got a lot more difficult. Getting 10% or even 25% of the incoming bombers wasn't going to be good enough. The defense was going to have to get 100% (or close to it) of the attackers. An extra 150-200mph in speed for the interceptors wasn't going to assure 100% destruction of the attackers. Rocket interceptors (anti-aircraft missiles) that actually worked a fair amount of the time were so far down the road that the worlds bomber forces had been able to convert to jets by the time they were ready.
I have a hard time finding fault with anyone who argues the B-29 was the "best" bomber in WW2. From from the sheer performance perspective it was a generation advanced beyond any other level bomber in the war.
However, one might wonder if it could ever have been the most useful or effective bomber, if forced to be the main heavy bomber in the USAAF inventory. The plane had more early teething troubles that either the B-24 or B-17 E-G, and I've read that it was not as resistant to battle damage as the B-17. Although some B-29s were lost to flak and fighters, Japan lacked the well organized and effective system of air defense the Germany could employ in Europe. Few Japanese fighters had the ceiling (or even speed) to intercept B-29s at altitude, and when the USAAF switched to low level night bombing, organized Japanese night defense was nearly nonexistant. Compare this with the massive in-depth air defense system Germany had in place by mid-1944. There is also money to consider. As noted in other posts, the cost per unit for B-29s was far higher than for other heavy bombers, RAF or USAAF. Given the cost of B-29s, together with the near certainty they would experience far higher rate of attrition in the ETO, one wonders if the USAAF could have sustained its bombing campaign against Germany with just B-29s, especially if the war had extended longer.
However, one might wonder if it could ever have been the most useful or effective bomber, if forced to be the main heavy bomber in the USAAF inventory. The plane had more early teething troubles that either the B-24 or B-17 E-G, and I've read that it was not as resistant to battle damage as the B-17. Although some B-29s were lost to flak and fighters, Japan lacked the well organized and effective system of air defense the Germany could employ in Europe. Few Japanese fighters had the ceiling (or even speed) to intercept B-29s at altitude, and when the USAAF switched to low level night bombing, organized Japanese night defense was nearly nonexistant. Compare this with the massive in-depth air defense system Germany had in place by mid-1944. There is also money to consider. As noted in other posts, the cost per unit for B-29s was far higher than for other heavy bombers, RAF or USAAF. Given the cost of B-29s, together with the near certainty they would experience far higher rate of attrition in the ETO, one wonders if the USAAF could have sustained its bombing campaign against Germany with just B-29s, especially if the war had extended longer.
Not true.
The B-29 could carry 2 Tallboys that weighted in at 12,000 lbs each. The B-29 was also tested with the 22,000 lbs Grand Slam. The B-29 never used any of these bombs in combat, but it was tested and was able to carry them.
The B-29 was also tested carrying two 22,000 lbs Grand Slam Bombs (one under each wing).
Also on March 5, 1948 a B-29 was modified by Boeing and carried and dropped a 44,000 lb T-12 Bomb.
The Extra-Super Blockbuster
There are pictures here on this forum somewhere of the B-29 with Tall Boy and Grand Slam bombs. I am sure someone remembers where on the forum.
tail end charlie
Senior Airman
- 615
- Aug 24, 2010
Flyboy I was just having a discussion. When the B29 was conceived America was looking at the possibility of bombing Europe. True the Mosquito was made of wood but laminated wood, now everyone is looking at advanced laminates. That is not to say that De havilland actually forsaw this development just that it is a point of comparison. While the mosquito didnt advance beyond its era apart from the hornet, which was a long range fighter bomber, the concept did. One avenue is a bigger heavier nuclear option the other is smaller faster and precise. After Nagasaki no nuclear weapons have been dropped but many smaller and increasingly smart bombs have. Some bombs are too big to drop not because of weight but consequences.
parsifal
Colonel
Hi FB
Wood airplanes don't last long and are hard to repair as discussed. A twin engine tail dragger is not a prime aircraft for freshly minted pilots and although the mosquito had a good safety record, it was a design not destined to advance beyond its operational era.
Wooden construction has not progressed in military aviation, but in civil aviation, it is going very well, I understand. Plus don't forget, the Mosquito was laminar construction which made it one of the stronger applications of wood as a structural material.
I agree that wood is not as durable as metal, but neither is it a true representation that it is essentially a short term material. Many Mosquitoes produced during the war were still being used operationally nearly twenty years later. I understand the RAAFs Mossies were not retired until 1962. That's not a bad serviceability record in anybodies book. With regard to repair of battle damage, as you know, I am not an aircraft mechanic however I have repaired so many wooden boat hulls its not funny. I would say that provided you have the skills to work the materials its no more difficult to repair a wooden structure than it is to repair a metal one. If the material has changing malleability issues, or is not well worked by heat, I would think wood is actually easier to work. But the big if is having the skills to work the material, and there may not be too many carpenters working in the aero industry today….
With regard to general concept in military aircraft, I would argue that the Mosquito represented the future of military aviation, not some antiquated blind alley with no future. The Mosquito was a multi role aircraft, perhaps one of the first of this kind. The B-29 represented a highly specialized, single purpose aircraft. In the post war era, both kinds of aircraft continued to have relevance, but with the rising costs of aircraft, I would say that MRCA have received a far greater level of attention and interest than single purpose aircraft. Even in the narrow confines of strike aircraft, I would say that there have been far fewer, and generally less successful specialized heavy bombers than there have been smaller, faster, lighter multi-role strike aircraft since 1945
Wood airplanes don't last long and are hard to repair as discussed. A twin engine tail dragger is not a prime aircraft for freshly minted pilots and although the mosquito had a good safety record, it was a design not destined to advance beyond its operational era.
Wooden construction has not progressed in military aviation, but in civil aviation, it is going very well, I understand. Plus don't forget, the Mosquito was laminar construction which made it one of the stronger applications of wood as a structural material.
I agree that wood is not as durable as metal, but neither is it a true representation that it is essentially a short term material. Many Mosquitoes produced during the war were still being used operationally nearly twenty years later. I understand the RAAFs Mossies were not retired until 1962. That's not a bad serviceability record in anybodies book. With regard to repair of battle damage, as you know, I am not an aircraft mechanic however I have repaired so many wooden boat hulls its not funny. I would say that provided you have the skills to work the materials its no more difficult to repair a wooden structure than it is to repair a metal one. If the material has changing malleability issues, or is not well worked by heat, I would think wood is actually easier to work. But the big if is having the skills to work the material, and there may not be too many carpenters working in the aero industry today….
With regard to general concept in military aircraft, I would argue that the Mosquito represented the future of military aviation, not some antiquated blind alley with no future. The Mosquito was a multi role aircraft, perhaps one of the first of this kind. The B-29 represented a highly specialized, single purpose aircraft. In the post war era, both kinds of aircraft continued to have relevance, but with the rising costs of aircraft, I would say that MRCA have received a far greater level of attention and interest than single purpose aircraft. Even in the narrow confines of strike aircraft, I would say that there have been far fewer, and generally less successful specialized heavy bombers than there have been smaller, faster, lighter multi-role strike aircraft since 1945
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The few Mossies that survived into the 1960s were the exceptions as they probably found themselves in a consistent weather environment that helped their longevity. Bottom line wood, (even in today's world) is harder to maintain and repair, requires special skills and environments to properly maintain and repair. Every time you make a repair to a wood structure, be it laminate or any other configuration, you can actually weaken the over all structure. Wood requires more attention to detail and more maintenance. As far as malleability issues on metal aircraft, that's a non issue as unless you have no clue what the aircraft is constructed from, repairs are usually easier and straight forward.
