The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Ratsel]

"master/doctoral thesis"

ha! me? hardly... thousands of bombers hammering German factories, fuel/oil plants-depots, railways, areodromes, etc., takes a toll on limited German resources. But I did say "practically" though. Also, as said earlier, two B-29's ENDED the war in the PTO. Keep in mind however I am not taking anything away from the sacrifices of the brave soldiers who were on the ground, or the fighter pilots to keep those bombers safe.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not really. But if I must pick one, the Boeing B-17 practically won the war in the ETO. So I would pick that one. Even though it was limited in what it could do besides drop bombs.

Yeah okay, but I will still make two observations...

1. Ju 88 does not come close to being the best bomber of the war. Like I said, great aircraft and one of the best to see service, but not the best bomber.

2. Just because an aircraft was built in Germany, does not make it the best. Sometimes it is best to put national pride aside...

 

[Ratsel]

Yeah okay, but I will still make two observations...
2. Just because an aircraft was built in Germany, does not make it the best. Sometimes it is best to put national pride aside...

Oh I know that . Győr, Hungary built some excellent aircraft also

 

[parsifal]

two bombers won the war in the pacific...you think.

A unique view on WWII I guess

 

[Kryten]

surely if its the best bomber of the war, it has to be the B29?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

surely if its the best bomber of the war, it has to be the B29?

Coming full circle, without a doubt.

 

[parsifal]

It was the best bomber, but i would draw the line that just two of them decided the issue in the pacific.

Dropping the A-bomb was a major event of WWII, but it was not the major event that decided the war in the pacific. The single most potent weapon (system) in the pacific war were the US submarines, followed by the fast carriers, followed by liberty ships. The biggest influences on the outcome, and the reasons for Japanese surrender, after the abovementioned big three were the US Marines, the Red Army, the US army air corps, and distantly behind that, the US and Australian Army, the Chinese forces, the forces in SEAC and even further behind, the BPF.

The above list is in rough order of importance. The B-29s formed part of the USAAC, so in part rank about sixth in importance in causing Japanese surrender.

 

[syscom3]

It was the best bomber, but i would draw the line that just two of them decided the issue in the pacific.

Dropping the A-bomb was a major event of WWII, but it was not the major event that decided the war in the pacific. The single most potent weapon (system) in the pacific war were the US submarines, followed by the fast carriers, followed by liberty ships. The biggest influences on the outcome, and the reasons for Japanese surrender, after the abovementioned big three were the US Marines, the Red Army, the US army air corps, and distantly behind that, the US and Australian Army, the Chinese forces, the forces in SEAC and even further behind, the BPF.

The above list is in rough order of importance. The B-29s formed part of the USAAC, so in part rank about sixth in importance in causing Japanese surrender.

Most historians say that the subs isolated Japan (took them till late 1944 to do it) and the B29's forced them to surrender. I also take the view that once the US was in the PI in late 1944, subs or no subs, no Japanese shipping was going to escape the allied air forces that could range at will throughout the south China sea. And of course, we cannot forget to mention the role the B29's had in mining the Japanese coastline that the subs couldn't get to.

The Red Army? Just what exactly did they do?

US Marines? A lot more army units were in the mix fighting just as many, if not vicious battles.

The war in the Pacific was a complex campaign that could not have been successfully fought without complex inter-dependencies between naval, ground and air assets, amongst the several nations.

And what event ended the war? The sub blockade or a pair of B29's carrying atomic weapons?

 

[parsifal]

hi Sys

Most historians say that the subs isolated Japan (took them till late 1944 to do it) and the B29's forced them to surrender. I also take the view that once the US was in the PI in late 1944, subs or no subs, no Japanese shipping was going to escape the allied air forces that could range at will throughout the south China sea. And of course, we cannot forget to mention the role the B29's had in mining the Japanese coastline that the subs couldn't get to.


The b-29s played a part, but japan showed only grudging inclination to accept the allied surrender terms. In the first instance the conventional bombing campaign had only a very limited effect on the japanese inclination to surrender.

The US got to the PI for two reasons, the effects of the sub campaign, which prevented the Japanese from properly garrisoning the islands needed to get to that location, and the operations of the fast carriers that destroyed the successive Japanese air and naval assets thrown up to defeat them. The marines (and i grant you, the army formations that helped them) took the ground at a respectable cost in allied lives.

B-29s in mining operations was another element of land based airpower that contributed to the military defeat, but not the surrender. and as an element of the military defeat, its effect was significant but limited especially the role played by the b-29s. Most mines were in fact dropped by B-24s and PBYs as i understand.


The Red Army? Just what exactly did they do?

The Japanese leadership was not moved to surrender, until after the Russian attack. Read the deliberations by the japanese government of the time. They were more concerned about the Russians invading Manchuria than they were about the A-bombs being dropped. I dont understand the logic, but it was the russian invasion that was their main concern that led to surrender, not anything that the allies did.

If the Russians had not invaded, there is every chance the Japanese would have hung on grimly till the end


US Marines? A lot more army units were in the mix fighting just as many, if not vicious battles.

I grant you that those army formations that were attached to the MAF were just as important as the marines themselves. I would consider them to be part of the marine force incidentally.

However, if you are referring to army units not involved in the amphibious campaigns, then no, i dont agree. Their involvement in the new Guinea campaign, for example, outside the operations of the 7th fleet, were very limited....mostly defensive garrisons and the like.


The war in the Pacific was a complex campaign that could not have been successfully fought without complex inter-dependencies between naval, ground and air assets, amongst the several nations.

Agree completely


And what event ended the war? The sub blockade or a pair of B29's carrying atomic weapons?

To be glib, neither, and yet both. The b-29s could not do what they did, without a whole lot of other elements at work, taking years to achieve and involving a whole range of factors. The subs did not end the war, but they ended japans ability to coninue effective resistance, and would have forced the japanese to surrender in the finish, or die.

But none of these efforts, taking years to achieve amount to the single most important event to influence the japanese to surrender. That unfortunately can be claimed by the reds. They were the single greatest influence that induced the japanese leadership to surrender....that and the few words spoken by the emperor

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oh I know that . Győr, Hungary built some excellent aircraft also

And the allies just made junk?

Doesn't speak well for your beloved Luftwaffe, that they were beaten by junk.

 

[Mustang nut]

I would love to have a beer with readie and ratsel together

 

[Ratsel]

Nope. I never said they made junk. the P-51 Mustang was a very capable fighter, sleek, elegant, FAST, with the firepower to back her up. The P-47 was an ugly bird, but built tuff as nails the 8 50's could carve up an Me 109 to ribbons. B-17 was a flying tank, can deliver a punishing payload and her 50's did the job of defending very well. P-40's, although outdated failry fast, had excellent dive charactoristics, great turn radiuses roll rate. Her six 50's where as the P-51, very adequate to shoot down a 109. The P-38 also was a very capable fighter, but was outmatched against the Me 109G-10. B-24 could fly higher and faster then a B-17, but It was structurally weaker the the B-17. Spitfire well, overrated a/c in my opinion, the Hurricane was the true hero of Britian. All these a/c were great IMO. Even the P-40. I'm not saying the Me 109 was the be all end all of fighters, but technically it was one of the best. Nevermind the vastly superior pilots (in most cases) that flew her.

So yes the Allies made some very good aircraft.

 

[Kryten]

a lot of people with an axe to grind like to claim the spitfire was overrated, yet its the one aircraft just about every pilot who flew them (despite flying many different types) raved about, and thier opinions have a lot of credibility, as they know what they are talking about!
if you look at world war two in its entirety, there were only two aircraft the germans fielded that gave the allies a nasty suprise, and that was the FW190 in 42 and the Me262, and the FW190 was matched within a year!
other than those two instances, the allies had comparable or more capable aircraft in every catagory!

 

[syscom3]

B-17 was a flying tank, can deliver a punishing payload and her 50's did the job of defending very well.

The B17 had smallest payload of the three heavy bombers in the ETO. As for defending itself? Not really.

B-24 could fly higher and faster then a B-17,

Really? Who told you that.

Nevermind the vastly superior pilots (in most cases) that flew her.

Quite a few allied aces would like that statement.

 

[Ratsel]

1. boxed flying formations.. very good defensively.

2. wikipedia

3. I sure they would. .25 of a kill at a time.

 

[Kryten]

3. I sure they would. .25 of a kill at a time.

well even .25 is better than a bunch of bogus propaganda claims and photo opportunities!

 

[Ratsel]

3. I sure they would. .25 of a kill at a time.

well even .25 is better than a bunch of bogus propaganda claims and photo opportunities!

true that!

but even if half or a 1/3 of the Luftwaffe claims were legit... hmmmmm... and we all know the Allies were dreaming to when it came to the same thing (overclaims)..

 

[Altea]

Nope. I never said they made junk.

So yes the Allies made some very good aircraft.

Neither allies, nor even the soviets made junk. In 42/43 the Ju-88 was beaten in all points by the Tupolev 2 dive bomber*, except maybe in engine reliability. This if you're looking for the planes of the same category.

Now i don't see really why the best WWII bomber should be a tactical one. But in that case, the Ju-88 was condiderably outperformed also, by the A-26 invader.


In NII-VVS trials the first serial Tu-2 (42), failed to reach the requested performance (>530 km/h), flying only at 514 km/h max-continuous at 6 160m. The ill-working M-82 engines provide 521 km/h at 3 200 m that was aberrant (plane should have been fly 25-30 kmh faster at height).
Even with that default, it was much better than the best Ju-88 A6 tested in NII, that year with 2 perfectly working Jumo-211G: 452 km/h at 4900.
And 490 km/h à 5000m for the soviet B-25C.

Unlike the Ju-88, that was a tactical bomber with "some" diving capabilities, (restricted in fact to 30-40° continuous, and up to 60° for short periods) the Tu-2 was moreover a "full dive bomber" from the blueprints as the Ju-87 or a Dauntless, and could withstand continuous 80° dives from the ceiling to low alts.

The late serial Tu-2 with M-82FN, reached 559 km/5 775m and 516 at SL, in 1943, that was even better than state requests (550, in fact 547 for the definition (experimental) plane).

Regards

 

[Edgar Brooks]

. Spitfire well, overrated a/c in my opinion, the Hurricane was the true hero of Britian.

Ah, the famous "Hurricane won the Battle of Britain" myth. 19 Spitfire Squadrons (228 a/c) destroyed about 530, losing 276 aircraft in the process; 30 Hurricane Squadrons (360 a/c) destroyed about 655, losing 406.
And we can discount the Lancaster, as well? Which aircraft so severely damaged Peenemunde, killing one of Germany's top scientists, that it delayed the V1/V2/V3 campaign by months? Which aircraft destroyed the Tirpitz, freeing the Navy to go after other targets? Which aircraft wrecked the V weapons facilities at Watten, Wizernes, Siracourt, Marquise/Mimoyecques, rescuing London from terror? Which aircraft stopped Panzers getting through the Saumur tunnel, to reinforce German forces in Normandy? Which aircraft knocked holes in U-boat pens, with Tallboys, which other a/c only scratched with 500lb bombs? Which aircraft drained the Rhine basin by destroying the Kembs Barrage? It has become traditional to say that the B-17s B-24s attacked strategic targets, while the Lancasters Halifaxes only killed innocent civilians, which is a gross slur on Bomber Command.
Edgar

 

[parsifal]

Easy. JU 88. Bar none.

Youve been asked several times already, and instead have deflected the question by making contentious posts aimed to inflame this thread....in other words throw the hounds off your scent. But with forlorn hope, I will ask the question properly, and again.

What operational and or technical reasons do you have to support this claim that the Ju88 was the best bomber bar none, from any of the combatants, in WWII.

I await your answer with interest.