The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

ivanotter · Jan 5, 2011

This is a very interesting thread to read.

Having read the entire thread (as a new member, so please don't hurl sticks at me immediately), it comes down to either technical ability or effectivenes.

No doubt that the b-29 was a technological wonder and ahead of its time.

However, as Zoomar points out, and I fully agree, usefulnes and effectivenes must be the criteria to qualify for "best".

So maybe the lancaster was not as sophisticated, but it was possible to maintain, to fly and to use by a broad set of people.

...and thereby put bombs on target with "known" technology.

Now, it is not saying that best will then negate technology, but a level of maturity must be expected before 'best" can be applied.

An example (please, allow me), although from different time periods:

Draken/Viggen were designed for landing and take-off on a piece of tar road anywhere and to be serviced (bombed up) by conscripts.

THAT would be useful as you could do turn-around pretty well -> effective and useful.

Now, try and do that with an F-22 Raptor, which is probably the most sophisitcated thing ever invented yet.

Not so useful suddenly if your logistics crack up on you.

Same with B-29, maybe not "best" after all.

Just a thought,

Ivan

FLYBOYJ · Jan 5, 2011

ivanotter said:
This is a very interesting thread to read.

Having read the entire thread (as a new member, so please don't hurl sticks at me immediately), it comes down to either technical ability or effectivenes.

No doubt that the b-29 was a technological wonder and ahead of its time.

However, as Zoomar points out, and I fully agree, usefulnes and effectivenes must be the criteria to qualify for "best".So maybe the lancaster was not as sophisticated, but it was possible to maintain, to fly and to use by a broad set of people.

...and thereby put bombs on target with "known" technology.

Now, it is not saying that best will then negate technology, but a level of maturity must be expected before 'best" can be applied.

An example (please, allow me), although from different time periods:

Draken/Viggen were designed for landing and take-off on a piece of tar road anywhere and to be serviced (bombed up) by conscripts.

THAT would be useful as you could do turn-around pretty well -> effective and useful.

Now, try and do that with an F-22 Raptor, which is probably the most sophisitcated thing ever invented yet.

Not so useful suddenly if your logistics crack up on you.

Same with B-29, maybe not "best" after all.

Just a thought,

Ivan

Ivan - I think you're putting too may semantics into this and your own statement solidifies the argument for the B-29. While coming on scene later in the war with both operational and tactical problems, the B-29 overcame them to be both "useful and effective." Let's add the fact that not only was the aircraft successful in placing a mine gauntlet around Japan (a mission that is overlooked by many) but its post war career solidifies your "usefulness and effectiveness" statement.

ivanotter · Jan 5, 2011

Now that could be,

but, ... exactly that it became "best" late if not post-war is the thing.

The mining operation is an overlooked contribution in many aspects, totally agree.

I don't think any other a/c could have carried that out-agree 100%

A lot of the books I have read mention the teething problems as severely limiting its usefulnes, but that could be overstated.

Is it fair to claim that it really came into being "useful and effective" after the March '45 raid? And that it was a combination of technology and organisation?

"Best" should also encompass some sort of understanding of the capabilities offered.

Me262 as an example springs to mind ("best" fighter, but not so good as a bomber).

Ivan

FLYBOYJ · Jan 5, 2011

ivanotter said:
A lot of the books I have read mention the teething problems as severely limiting its usefulnes, but that could be overstated.

In reading some operational data and some forum material by people who actually fixed and flew B-29s, I'm beginning to belive that was the case. No doubt there are major issues, but considering the task at hand the mission the aircraft had to complete, it did well.

ivanotter said:
Is it fair to claim that it really came into being "useful and effective" after the March '45 raid? And that it was a combination of technology and organisation?

I think it was "useful and effective" before that, it was a matter of getting the results that LeMay and company were looking for. Tactics did play into this as well

ivanotter said:
"Best" should also encompass some sort of understanding of the capabilities offered.

Me262 as an example springs to mind ("best" fighter, but not so good as a bomber).

Ivan

Agree - again you compare the B-29's capabilities to heavy bombers of the period and there were no comparisons. The Lancaster was a distant second, planned Lancaster mods and the Lincoln were closing the gap, but then you had the B-50 on the horizon kicking everything up a notch, but all too late for the WW2.

drgondog · Jan 5, 2011

ivanotter said:
Is it fair to claim that it really came into being "useful and effective" after the March '45 raid? And that it was a combination of technology and organisation?

"Best" should also encompass some sort of understanding of the capabilities offered.

Me262 as an example springs to mind ("best" fighter, but not so good as a bomber).

Ivan

Ivan - a change in tactics from its design high altitude, high payload system to a low level night attacker made its utilization more meaningful - but did not alter the intrinsic capability.

To those that believe it would not be effective in the ETO? it certainly was more capable than the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster. Could it have achieved more, particularly after March-April 1944 when escort fighters were reducing losses to fighters down to less than 1% - yes. Could it have flown at 28,000 to 30,000 feet and reduced vulnerability to flak - yes.

Would it have been vulnerable to the Me 262 - yes but the 262 wasn't very effective, per se, against the slower and lower B-17/B-24..

Would it be more effective than a Lancaster in night bombing role at 28-30K vrsus 15K? Yes. Would its speed at altitude compounded greatly the night interceptor role? yes.

Was it needed in ETO? No

ivanotter · Jan 5, 2011

Flyboy, we do agree then.

When technology, understanding of the capabilities and the right organisation came into play, the B-29 became "best". Whether it was designed for hi-altitude stuff or not, it came into being as a decisive factor in its low(er)-altitude role. I think that is the conclusion of it.

I could imagine there must have been some other examples of "best" at a particular point in time. B-24 and the Atlantic comes to mind, although not bombing cities, it was decisive in the Atlantic and was maybe "best" at that time in '42/43? Just another thought.

Along those lines it is really possible to claim tht the spitfire and the hurricane were the best bomber killers insofar as technology (a/c and RADAR), organisation (Dowding's tribe) and understanding of the technology available (the a/c themselves) came together. But that is another discussion altogether.

I like the other argument: Could it do a lot in ETO? yes, needed? no.

Ivan

cimmee · Jan 5, 2011

the lancaster kicks ass said:
in which case i shall show CC my source and ask him to confirm it to you all..........

The two bombers are not comparable. Different missions, different aircraft and dissimilar mission profiles.

Both were good.

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.

At night they were extremely effective. Daylight escort helped to cut the loss rate.

syscom3 said:
I will mention again, the USSBS that provided some unarguable truths; And a ton of lies. Remember that Galbraith helped to write it.

The Lanc had more bombs upon target, and the size of the bombs often had a direct correlation with target destruction and target damaged.

In the end analysis; The Lanc takes #2 in the best bomber of WW2. The B29 of course was #1.

Forget about the He-177 and Mossie. They were non factors. And The B17 and B24 got a lot of press but didnt do as much as what the Lanc accomplished.

Again that is a matter of subjectivity. All of the mentioned a/c were important.

BombTaxi said:
I see. But I would suggest that you system is, as Glider suggested earlier, too simplistic. A simple point scoring system would surely make the Avro Manchester, for example a good bomber, as it would have all the plus point of the Lancaster with just one minus for the rubbish engines. This masks the fact that the problem was so severe that the Manchester was a bad aircraft full stop.

Likewise, the B-17 would be a good bomber on points, but this fails to explain why it was so abysmal in RAF day bomber service - this comes down to poor crew training and faulty operational tactics, which your system doesn't seem to take into account.

The RAF used D's and C's. The E's onward were completely different a/c. They cannot be compared.

looney said:
I'd have to go with the B-29, there is not much i like about it, but it is the newest bomber and thus the most advanced a ckear advantage.

I don't rate the Lanc very high cause most of it's missions where carpet bombing of cities which are very large easy targets.
Any strategic bomber had lousy accuracy (hit was within 250 m I believe), plus the bombs came out in a row sow only 1 or 2 bombs actually hit it's mark. The CEP was about 5 miles. Our bombs were lucky to hit the same country as the target.. Obviously accuracy improved later in the war.

P.s. can't we make a table where we put in all contenders and compare several points? To what end? You cannot compare a mossi with a Lanc, Wellington, or Mitchell. All of them were good at their particular missions...
like: Range, Payload, crew (mossi needed 2, Blenheim 3 bout same payload), able to selfdefence, speed, accuracy, adaptability etc etc

This is a case of who's tallywhacker is bigger...

drgondog · Jan 5, 2011

In that case I could be the Best WWII Bomber.. hmmm, it just never occurred to me..

cimmee · Jan 5, 2011

Jeeze...

Tangopilot89 · May 15, 2011

Ah, a question I've tossed around for ages. For me it was always a toss up between the Lanc and B-17.

Liked the Lanc because of its ability to carry a bomb load greater than its own weight, which meant it could carry virtually anything. Plus my grandfather was a Lancaster pilot. But it had no belly armament.

Like the B-17 because of it's near invulnerability, plenty of defensive armament and I've seen some pictures of B-17s with horrific damage and still got back.

Readie · May 15, 2011

Both the Lanc and Flying Fort were up to the job required.
I think that the Lanc just pips the Fort as it was more adaptable. The bouncing bomb, Tallboy etc.
Cheers
John

Glider · May 15, 2011

And the B29?

parsifal · May 16, 2011

+1...everything the lanc and the B-17 could do, the b-29 could do better, further, and faster.

But there things that the b-29 could not do, but ther was nothing the b-29 could not do that the lanc or the b-17 could do...

syscom3 · May 16, 2011

parsifal said:
+1...everything the lanc and the B-17 could do, the b-29 could do better, further, and faster.

But there things that the b-29 could not do, but there was nothing the b-29 could not do that the lanc or the b-17 could do...

Only the B29 could carry an atomic bomb and have the performance to get the crew far enough away from the blast so as to survive.

The B17, B24 and B32 could not carry an atomic weapon at all.

Readie · May 16, 2011

Glider said:
And the B29?

The B29 arrived too late to make any significant impact in WW2.
Like other aircraft, the Sea Fury for example, it was the 'next generation'
Obviously it is immortalised as the only bomber to deliver A bombs and (for the time) enjoyed a techincal advantage over older designs.
The main bomber assault on Germany was done by the B17, Lancaster etc.This was the real grinding war of attrition with high losses on all sides.
Had the war gone on another few years then undoubtably the B29 would have superceeded the B17 whether it would have replaced the adaptable Lancaster is not known.I am not aware of any plans to do so.
Cheers
John

Shortround6 · May 16, 2011

Readie said:
The B29 arrived too late to make any significant impact in WW2.
Like other aircraft, the Sea Fury for example, it was the 'next generation'

The Japanese might take exception to that even without the Atomic bombs.
Some of the Island hopping strategy/decisions were made for the sole purposes of getting B-29 bases and emergency and/or fighter escort landing fields.
Some of the support for China and flying the hump or efforts to open the Burma road or build the Ledo rd were also, in part, to support anticipated B-29 missions.
The B-29 played a very large part in the last year of more of the Pacific, either in direct combat missions or in operations/campaigns intended to support the B-29.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 16, 2011

Readie said:
The B29 arrived too late to make any significant impact in WW2.

So the dropping of the Atomic bombs had no significant impact in WW2 let alone the Post War World from 1945 until present?

Also...

Any advantages the Lancaster had over the B-29 were outweighed by the advantages the B-29 had over the Lancaster. Besides as you put it, it was "next generation".

parsifal · May 16, 2011

syscom3 said:
Only the B29 could carry an atomic bomb and have the performance to get the crew far enough away from the blast so as to survive.

The B17, B24 and B32 could not carry an atomic weapon at all.

Yes, of course. But I was thinking more tactical operations like close support, or battlefield recon

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 16, 2011

I personally always love the argument about the Lanc and B-29. If you go back and read the 95 pages throughout the history of this thread, it always is the same arguments, and I feel that most are fueled by national bias.

pbfoot · May 16, 2011

parsifal said:
Yes, of course. But I was thinking more tactical operations like close support, or battlefield recon

If I was a ground pounder the least thing I'd like to see is close air support by heavies , the battle of Normandy is well known for the poor bombing or dropping short by heavies.

The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Airman 1st Class

Banned

Major

Banned

Airman 1st Class

Chief Master Sergeant

Captain

Colonel

Pacific Historian

Chief Master Sergeant

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads