The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Altea]

just like guernica?

Thanks Kryten.

It's off-top, but it's astonishing how Wiki could be a piece of...**** sometimes.

Looking at english page of "bombing of Guerinca" there are virtually no mention to "terror raid" for "experimental purposes" despite it's the official spanish position from every sides and historians (left, right, middle, francoists, basque autonomists...).

The last synthesis published by Bartolome Benassar (2004-2006 is not even evocated. And no Antony Beevor or Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts fundamental works.

Regards

 

[Readie]

I have noticed that the American's do not seem to understand the concept of being bombed.
British cities were flattened by the LW with the attendant loss of civilian life and historical buildings.
The LW started it. We finished it.
John

 

[Readie]

That out performed all marks of the Lancaster

3 turning 1 burning?
I should coca

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Looking at english page of "bombing of Guerinca" there are virtually no mention to "terror raid" for "experimental purposes" despite it's the official spanish position from every sides and historians (left, right, middle, francoists, basque autonomists...).

The last synthesis published by Bartolome Benassar (2004-2006 is not even evocated. And no Antony Beevor or Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts fundamental works.

Regards

I guess it's me, but, I'm sorry, I don't have a clue what that is all about; a long list of (presumably) authors, that I've a) never read, and b) never heard of, doesn't impress, so, for the less erudite among us, perhaps we could have a precis of what they've said?
Edgar

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think we are all in agreement that making such bold statements requires that Ratsel has to back them up with factual evidence, however, lets keep it civil.

 

[wuzak]

I think it is difficult to say taht one bomber is the best because of what it did in WW2. I think that there are situations where the bombers could have performed better had tactics held them back, and others where the bomber only succeeded because of the tactics.

It is also not fair to judge a bomber because it "bombed civilians", or praise one for bombing only "military targets". Both reflect on the leadership, and not necessarily the bomber.

I am too tired to try to read the whole topic - too many pages.
But the argument of Lancaster vs B-17 vs B-24 vs B-29 is clearly only about heavy/strategic bombers. Is the general feeling that strategic bombers were more important, and therefore the best bomber must be one of them?

Are there any bombers that could do both strategic and tactical bombing? If there are, would that make them better bombers overall?

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Are there any bombers that could do both strategic and tactical bombing? If there are, would that make them better bombers overall?

This is precisely what the proponents of the Lancaster are saying; it could, and did, bomb civilian areas into oblivion, but it could also lift a 6-ton bomb to 15,000' and put it into the Tirpitz. It could also lift a 10-ton bomb to 12,000' and put it within 30 yards of a viaduct ("like trying to stick a dart in a line," as someone put it.) Any others with similar capabilities?
Edgar

 

[Mustang nut]

This is precisely what the proponents of the Lancaster are saying; it could, and did, bomb civilian areas into oblivion, but it could also lift a 6-ton bomb to 15,000' and put it into the Tirpitz. It could also lift a 10-ton bomb to 12,000' and put it within 30 yards of a viaduct ("like trying to stick a dart in a line," as someone put it.) Any others with similar capabilities?
Edgar

Harris argued that the RAF did a better job of containing the German navy than the royal navy did and the lanc was his preferred heavy bomber. however some credit must go to the bomb maker and the gun sight I see no reason why a B29 couldnt do what a lanc did

 

[wuzak]

I'd say that even though it didn't do such feats that the B-29 was more than capable of replicating that. It could lift a grand slam to the altitudes Barnes Wallis envisioned - over 30,000ft - though I'm not sure how accurate the sighting would be from up there. Or it could drop two Tallboys in the same 12,000ft scenario and have them land 30 yards from a via duct.

The only thing I am unsure of with the B-29 is what was the maximum bomb size for an unmodified version (ie to carry the nukes and the Grand Slam the B-29 had to modified to make it possible - Tallboys could be carried on underwing pylons).

http://forum.valka.cz/files/b29_a_grandslam.jpg

http://forum.valka.cz/files/b29_se_dv_ma_pumami_tallboy.jpg

btw, I believe a Mosquito could have fitted the Little Boy nuclear bomb in its bulged bomb bay. Taking off with it there would be another matter....

Little Boy was 2in smaller in diameter than a cookie but 10in longer. The square US style tail probably would be too wide, but a round UK style tail would make it fit!

 

[Shortround6]

But the argument of Lancaster vs B-17 vs B-24 vs B-29 is clearly only about heavy/strategic bombers. Is the general feeling that strategic bombers were more important, and therefore the best bomber must be one of them?

Are there any bombers that could do both strategic and tactical bombing? If there are, would that make them better bombers overall?

The "basic" criteria for a bomber is what weight of bombs it could carry over what distance and not take unacceptable losses while doing so. It turned out that only relativity small bombers carrying small loads could fly into defended airspace without escort with any real chance of suffering light losses and then in small formations/streams during daylight. Lacking escorts the bombers shifted to night attacks for self protection.

Once you accept that escorts are needed then you are back to the "bomb truck". Bomb load+range= good bomber.

I think we are not using quite enough classes either. Many "medium" bombers were actually strategic bombers, they were just smaller than the the "heavy" bombers. Wellingtons and Hampdens flying night missions were flying strategic missions. The Lockheed Ventura when bombing the Phillips works or the Power station near Amsterdam were flying strategic missions.

Tactical use means direct participation in the army land battle (or close to it), attacking enemy positions like strong points/fortifications, river crossings, troop concentrations,etc. Then there is sort of a "grand tactical" or interdiction mission. Supply dumps, and lines of communication and supply for the front line troops. Bombing a railroad bridge 500 miles behind the front lines can mess up transportation and production of war material but does nothing to the land battle in the front line for weeks. Bombing a railroad bridge 15-30 miles behind the front lines makes it harder for the enemy to bring up supplies (ammunition/fuel) and places limits on his ability to retreat.

It could take 2-3 medium bombers to equal one heavy bomber in the bombload+ range equation. While heavy bombers can perform some tactical missions ( and usually not well) they could, if needed, perform the interdiction missions. Medium bombers had a much harder time performing strategic missions while true "tactical" bombers (Ju-87s, IL-2, Hs 129s, any number of fighter bombers) had no hope of flying strategic missions. They didn't have the range to reach the targets.

I will grant you that these are gross generalizations and exceptions can be found. In the early part of the war many air forces used what they had available and combined with poor tactics or poor coordination resulted in some pretty disastrous missions.

The Blenheim, for example, may have been intended as a 'light' strategic bomber (range 1400 miles?) rather than the 'tactical' bomber it was used as in France and North Africa.

 

[Siegfried]

This is precisely what the proponents of the Lancaster are saying; it could, and did, bomb civilian areas into oblivion, but it could also lift a 6-ton bomb to 15,000' and put it into the Tirpitz. It could also lift a 10-ton bomb to 12,000' and put it within 30 yards of a viaduct ("like trying to stick a dart in a line," as someone put it.) Any others with similar capabilities?
Edgar

The performance of the Lancaster is unremarkable in these instances: Some 32 Lancasters dropped 29 bombs from an ideal height of about 11,000ft; almost an ideal height for a computing bomb sight.

Given the size of the stationary Tirpitz 240m length and 36m beam hits were inevitable since the lenght of the Tirpitz matched the CEP of the bomb sight at that height. The RAF's SABS II bomb-sight, the USAAF Norden and Sperry and the German Lotfe 7 could all have done the job equally.


Due to the late stage of the war and due to a mix up and a message not getting through and so German fighters did not intercept: had they been launched in time (the Germans had ample warning) they might have made a mess of the unescorted Lancasters since the Squadron Leader of the 109s was Ehrler who had 199 victories.

What would the Germans have done to conduct a similar mission? It's likely a He 177A-5 conduction a similar mission over a longer range and at higher speed could have been conducted.
The biggest bombs the Germans had were 5500lbs, more than sufficient even if not as powerful as Tallboy. It is likely that however they would have used Fritz-X 1400gk (3000lb bombs) to attack a battleship with much greater accuracy. The He 177 was a disappointment but it is said that the A5 version was reliable if properly serviced. (I've been reading CIOS reports and a book by Fritz Trenkle on German WW2 guidence and its clear they had several anti jamming methods). I do not know what the biggest US AP bomb was, they had AZON and of course a Liberator could certainly have disabled a viaduct.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I'd say that even though it didn't do such feats that the B-29 was more than capable of replicating that. It could lift a grand slam to the altitudes Barnes Wallis envisioned - over 30,000ft - though I'm not sure how accurate the sighting would be from up there. Or it could drop two Tallboys in the same 12,000ft scenario and have them land 30 yards from a via duct.

The only thing I am unsure of with the B-29 is what was the maximum bomb size for an unmodified version (ie to carry the nukes and the Grand Slam the B-29 had to modified to make it possible - Tallboys could be carried on underwing pylons).

Oh there's no denying she could carry them, but she didn't, different countries aside part of that is because she wasn't around at the time! I'm not arguing the Lanc was better than the B-29, but she was there when she was needed, whereas the first tallboys were used just days after the B-29's first mission!

 

[Siegfried]

So what? They were only following the lead of the air force which bombed Guernica, Rotterdam, Hull, Coventry, Exeter (not renowned for their factories and military installations,) and I don't recall any Lancaster gunners mowing down civilian refugees, as was done in France. During a recent interview, one ex-Lancaster pilot faced some hostile questions, including,"Didn't you feel guilty, dropping bombs on civilians?" "Not really, I just felt, each time, that it was one back for Coventry."
Edgar

Rotterdam was a defended city under siege that had been beseeched for nearly 1 week to surrender as required under Hague convention . As it turns out a timezone mix up and a Dutch commander who milked the negotiations too much were ultimately responsible for Rotterdam being bombed. (the bombers were recalled but did not get thr message as their long range aierials had been reeled in) The city was messed up by fire, not bombs directly. The German army had to keep moving and cross the river, for strategic reasons. I can tell you that the German army, nor any army, was going to send its young troops into a city into the machine guns of the cities troops. There would be a bombardment; makes little difference if it was artillery or aircraft.

The Royal Air-force began its raids on Germany the day after Rotterdam. These had been planed for a long time, Rotterdam was used as an excuse. British propaganda Casualties were exaggerated by a factor of 30. The Butt report would show how inaccurate they were.

When the RAF began bombing Berlin and Munich they did so for an alleged Luftwaffe raid on London: this was a lone He 111 that had gotten lost and dropped its bombs accidentally on London killing no one and causing little damage. The raids on Berlin and Munich caused considerable civilian collateral damage.

Only then was the Luftwaffe released to attack British cities. When they did they targeted the center of the critical British machine tool and engine manufacturing center Coventry and they did so using x-geraet, a blind bombing system of exceptional accuracy. (ie still a miserable 100-150 but much better than anything the RAF had for years)

The Baedeker raids on British tourist towns were in reprisal for attacks on the medieval hanseatic cities of Lubeck and Rostok. These were of enormous cultural significance to Germans, had little in the way of industry (light industry) to such an extent that Goebells thought it was a knew form of warfare via vandalism of culturally significant areas.

Bomber Harris in his memoirs makes note they were simply selected to see how their wooden structure would burn and that no specific target was chosen: they simply did an area bombardment of the center of the city.

Hull was a port city, Luftwaffe pilots were told to use it as an alternate target and to aim for the port. Maps are available and one can see that the bombs do concentrate towards the water.

The reality is that it was the British that expanded the air war and developed the policy of terror bombing (euphemised as 'dehousing' and 'demoralization') and carpet bombing (termed as 'area bombardment')

The alleged strafing of civilians in France was British propaganda or Luftwaffe strafing attacks on columns of vehicles that were military or thought to be military or mixed up with military vehicles. Pilots on all sides occasionally did something wrong.

Had the Germans gotten the V1 and v2 operational in late 1943 instead of late 1944 when Germany still had bases in France and might still make thousands of the weapons per month then Britain would have paid a very high price for its area bombardment campaign.

They were called "Vergeltungs Waffen" or "Reprisal Weapons" for nothing.

 

[Altea]

I guess it's me, but, I'm sorry, I don't have a clue what that is all about; a long list of (presumably) authors, that I've a) never read, and b) never heard of, doesn't impress, so, for the less erudite among us, perhaps we could have a precis of what they've said?
Edgar

Since we are again in off-top, i'will do it very short.
Bartholomé Benassar is a spanish and Antony Beever a british historian. Both studied the spanish war in general, and Guernica crime in particular.

Others are welsh and english investigation journalists, and wrighters.

They are famous enough to learn more on the web.

Well, all this people went to a conclusion that Guernica was a planned 'terror act" or a "war crime" as if you want, not just a Luftwaffe error or mismatch, something like that...

Unfortunatly, you can find a lot of more or less doubtful "historians" to discuss or denigrate the fact, as for the holocaust victims for instance...

End of the off-top

Regards

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is precisely what the proponents of the Lancaster are saying; it could, and did, bomb civilian areas into oblivion, but it could also lift a 6-ton bomb to 15,000' and put it into the Tirpitz. It could also lift a 10-ton bomb to 12,000' and put it within 30 yards of a viaduct ("like trying to stick a dart in a line," as someone put it.) Any others with similar capabilities?
Edgar

Yes, a B-29,

 

[Readie]

Yes, a B-29,

But, the B29 didn't though did it...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The issue of crew training aside I believe the point he's trying to make includes the element of time, which you're overlooking. No one's claiming the B-29 couldn't carry the bombs or bomb with them, but why didn't she bomb the Tirpitz? Why didn't she bomb Saumur? Why didn't she bomb the V weapon sites? Because she'd literally only just entered service, by this point the Lancaster was a proven airframe and realistically was, at the time, the only one capable of doing it operationally. The two are not contemporary designs after all, the Lancaster is essentially a 1936 design, it's like saying the B-52 would be able to do the bombing raids, of course she could, but she wasn't around and proven at the time. I'm not really sure why we're arguing this point, it's not disputed that the B-29 could take the weight, but nor should it be taken away from the Lanc that she's the one with dropped Tallboys and Grandslams on her combat record, the 'Yes the Lanc's the only one to have done it operationally but the B-29 could also take the weight' argument shouldn't take anything away from the Lanc.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But, the B29 didn't though did it...

Just because it didn't do it, doesn't mean that it couldn't.

The issue of crew training aside I believe the point he's trying to make includes the element of time, which you're overlooking. No one's claiming the B-29 couldn't carry the bombs or bomb with them, but why didn't she bomb the Tirpitz? Why didn't she bomb Saumur? Why didn't she bomb the V weapon sites? Because she'd literally only just entered service, by this point the Lancaster was a proven airframe and realistically was, at the time, the only one capable of doing it operationally. The two are not contemporary designs after all, the Lancaster is essentially a 1936 design, it's like saying the B-52 would be able to do the bombing raids, of course she could, but she wasn't around and proven at the time. I'm not really sure why we're arguing this point, it's not disputed that the B-29 could take the weight, but nor should it be taken away from the Lanc that she's the one with dropped Tallboys and Grandslams on her combat record, the 'Yes the Lanc's the only one to have done it operationally but the B-29 could also take the weight' argument shouldn't take anything away from the Lanc.

Agree...

 

[Readie]

Just because it didn't do it, doesn't mean that it couldn't.
.

Ummm....but, if it could have, would it have? or would we just wonder 'if it had'? Then again, the bomb bays were too small so it couldn't have even if we had wanted it too...

 

[wuzak]

The point is that just because the B-29 didn't do it is no reason to give it lesser marks in the which bomber is best test.

The decision could easily have been made by the RAF to obtain a few - say a squadron's worth - B-29s which would have arrived in time to drop most of the tallboys and grand slams.