The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

FLYBOYJ · Jul 3, 2006

red admiral said:
With the 234 you don't lose half of your production run, you don't use as many resources to build them, you only lose 1 crewman and you have about 75% - 50% of the bombload of a B-17/24

With an engine that lasted 20 hours if you were lucky!

red admiral · Jul 3, 2006

With an engine that lasted 20 hours if you were lucky!

Better than flying for an hour then being shot down.

It was only the 004B that had the lifetime problems, they were alleviated with the 004C and 004D.models.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 3, 2006

red admiral said:
Better than flying for an hour then being shot down.

It was only the 004B that had the lifetime problems, they were alleviated with the 004C and 004D.models.

Doesn't mean squat - the 234, while very advance was still a flash in the pan by the time it was deployed. It's outcome on the war was minimal and with a bomb load could still be easily intercepted. As far as great bombers of WW2 it belongs in the bottom 50....

mosquitoman · Jul 3, 2006

Along with the Batttle and the Vildebeest then

syscom3 · Jul 3, 2006

The Arado was fast. Thats what its only adavtage.

It did not have an advanced avionics suite like the Lanc and B29 had. It didnt have the payload to make a difference. And it didnt have the range.

No capability at night, no capability in cloudy weather.

Bottom line, it was an interesting jet, but would have had no impact on strategic bombing.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 3, 2006

mosquitoman said:
Along with the Batttle and the Vildebeest then

hehehehe

syscom3 said:
The Arado was fast. Thats what its only adavtage.

It did not have an advanced avionics suite like the Lanc and B29 had. It didnt have the payload to make a difference. And it didnt have the range.

No capability at night, no capability in cloudy weather.

Bottom line, it was an interesting jet, but would have had no impact on strategic bombing.

Agree...

plan_D · Jul 3, 2006

The Ar-234 would have been an exceptional tactical bomber however. Speed was the focal point of the Mosqutio excellence, and the Ar-234 had it in abundance. I know this is not a bomber variant, but the Ar-234 was never reported by Allies on recon missions yet the plane brought plenty photographs.

I disagree that the Ar-234 would be an effective strategic bomber, of any sort. But tactically it had the potential and proved it's ability by destroying the Remagen Bridge. Given more time and development, it would have been one of the premier tactical bombers of the war. But history happened and the war ended.

red admiral · Jul 4, 2006

Everyone seems to have different images of "best" ranging from most effective to most impact on the war.

Bombs dropped per plane lost seems a good indicator, and since losses with the Ar 234 are negligible it is "best".

The Ar 234s flying recon over Britain were never intercepted to my knowledge.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 4, 2006

And that is why I said it was better to be a recon aircraft than a bomber since its bomb load was negligable.

The best bomber is hands down B-29, how you can even argue with that red admiral goes right over my head!

trackend · Jul 4, 2006

Im with you Adler the B29 in my opinion was by far the best and most advanced heavy bomber to come out of WW2 most other machines where 3or more years behind thats not to say that it was the most effective as its role during WW2 lasted for a relitively short time compared to the Lanc and B17
But then the thread is after the best not the most effective.

red admiral · Jul 4, 2006

See I'm having the same problem with people not understanding that the Ar 234 is "best".

The B-29 is undisputedly the best piston-engined bomber in WWII. But it was the last save the B-36. The Ar 234 was the new generation of aircraft and a taste of things to come. The B-29 just cannot compete with that.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 4, 2006

Besides red admiral, do you have info on the ammount of bomb tonnage was dropped by the Ar-234. I am sure you will see it was not much.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 4, 2006

red admiral said:
See I'm having the same problem with people not understanding that the Ar 234 is "best".

The B-29 is undisputedly the best piston-engined bomber in WWII. But it was the last save the B-36. The Ar 234 was the new generation of aircraft and a taste of things to come. The B-29 just cannot compete with that.

Yes the B-29 can compete with that. The B-29 can drop an Atomic Bomb, the B-29 can carry one aircraft the amount of tonnage as many Ar-234s.

No one is argueing with that the Ar-234 was not a good aircraft. It was a marvelous aircraft but as it comes to bombers it does not rank as the best and no where near it.

It was a decent tactical field bomber and a a really good recon aircraft but not as a strategic bomber.

davparlr · Jul 4, 2006

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
First of all in June 1944 there was still a year left in the war. 2nd even if it had not seen combat until March of 1945, the war was still going on and therefor it is a WW2 bomber. Therefore since it was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 it is number 1.

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24
5. Halifax

I agree except I might would select the B-24 over the B-17 due to a better range/payload value, quantity produced and success in other roles (it seems to have made an impact in the Battle of the Atlantic). I know nothing about the Halifax. The B-29 was easily the best bomber going on to become the first strategic bomber for the US and the USSR. The Arado maybe fortold the future of combat aircraft but in itself was nothing.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 4, 2006

Exactly there about there Arado.

It was a great aircraft but its range was limited and its payload was limited. Its only advantage over the others is its speed.

The B-17 and the B-24 to me are a toss up. Personally the B-24 was probably a better bomber but you can not beat the survivability of the B-17 which the B-24 did not have.

syscom3 · Jul 4, 2006

Could a whole wing of Arado's be stationed on Guam and then fly 1600 miles to Japan and carry a usefull bombload? And have the avioncs required to navigate and find its targets?

I think not.

mosquitoman · Jul 4, 2006

I would go B29; Lanc; Liberator; Hally; Fort simply because I think the Halifax was better than people make out, I don't have any stats to prove this, it's my personal opinion

davparlr · Jul 4, 2006

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Exactly there about there Arado.

It was a great aircraft but its range was limited and its payload was limited. Its only advantage over the others is its speed.

The B-17 and the B-24 to me are a toss up. Personally the B-24 was probably a better bomber but you can not beat the survivability of the B-17 which the B-24 did not have.

Yeah, that is a tough call. Certainly the B-17 was a better flying aircraft and had a grace about it the B-24 could only dream of.

plan_D · Jul 4, 2006

Could the B-29 operate without being detected? The Ar-234 did.

syscom3 · Jul 4, 2006

plan_D said:
Could the B-29 operate without being detected? The Ar-234 did.

And why was it undetectable?

The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Pacific Historian

Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Pacific Historian

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads