The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[wuzak]

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...

The bomb bays were too small to fit the tallboy and Grand Slam internally, but the B-29 could carry them externally higher, faster and for a longer distance than teh Lancaster could.

 

[parsifal]

I have a bit of a problem with the coulda woulda shoulda, but did not argument. You could extend that argument to whole range of aircraft that in reality would never have such capability. for example, the Lancaster could be modified to carry the fritz X or the b-29 modified to carry the wallis bomb. Facts are a lot of aircraft could have been modified to do a lot of things but werent. We should assess the aircraft as they actually were used, not how they could have been used, if we are making judgements about best. Potential uses might have some consideration, i suppose, but if so, it should be a low priority.

 

[Shortround6]

In the case of the B-29 and the 12,000lb bomb, while it did not carry them in WW II it did carry and drop them in Korea (although with guidance packages added). This puts it in a grey area, didn't do it in WW II but obviously could do it and did do it at a later date. Some other combinations might not work so well, just because a plane can lift a certain amount of weight doesn't mean it can either carry a certain weapon or can fly the mission profile needed to deliver the weapon. For instance, while I have a soft spot for the Whitley and it could carry 7,000lbs of bombs the chances of modifying one to carry an 8,000lb bomb are pretty slim no matter what else you leave out. With a fair amount of those 7,000lbs located in bomb cells in the wings the main bombbay might not be big enough. B-29s could certainly carry the Wallis bomb (if you are referring to the Dam buster bomb, the Tall Boy and Grand Slam were Wallis bombs too and the B-29 could carry them) or be modified to, but while a B-29 flying 60ft above the surface of a lake might be something to see, it may not be a practical attack by a B-29. It may not have the maneuverability to get into a valley, level out and line up on the target, drop the weapon and pull up to avoid the surrounding hills.

Not all bombers have the same airflow patterns around the bomb bays and so not all weapons drop cleanly from the bomb bays.

 

[parsifal]

It does make a difference that the B-29 did eventually carry tallboy derivatives. I wasnt aware of that. I guess ive made that same distinction, arguing that the Lanc derivatives did eventually carry atomic weapons.

I like the lanc, but I would never argue it was technically superior to the B-29. It was a generation behind in terms of technology IMO. To me, for the heavy bomber category, its the b-29 hands down. What puzzles me, though is that B-29s were specialized and couldnt undertake all roles , and were expensive. massive concessions have to be made because of these constraints. For example would it have been cost effective to send, say 500 B-29s over Germany, when for the same outlay, you could have say 2000 b-17s. if you look at the issue in those terms, Im not as convinced of the b-29s value

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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...

Had there been a need for the B-29 to drop a bomb that large, bomb bay doors "would have" been made avaiable to swap out with normal doors, something quite easy to do in the field.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

That was actually done in the early 1950s for other reasons.

 

[Marcel]

The best bomber is the one standing on an abandoned airfield at May 5th 1945 in Europe, or at September 2nd in the Pacific. After a job well done...

 

[wuzak]

Had there been a need for the B-29 to drop a bomb that large, bomb bay doors "would have" been made avaiable to swap out with normal doors, something quite easy to do in the field.

It is more than just the doors.

The B-29 "silverplate" models were specially modified to carry the atomic bombs - but tallboys were approximately twice as long as either Little Boy or Fat Man and the Grand Slam was even longer.

The pictures above show the Grand Slam covers the two forward bomb bays.

Does anybody know what the maximum bomb size that could be carried inside the standard B-29 bomb bay?

 

[Shortround6]

For example would it have been cost effective to send, say 500 B-29s over Germany, when for the same outlay, you could have say 2000 b-17s. if you look at the issue in those terms, Im not as convinced of the b-29s value

If the B-29 could carry 4 times the bomb load to distant targets you are using 1/4 the aircrew the B-17s would use, perhaps 1/2 the fuel, would a higher cruising speed make it harder to intercept? While economical cruise was 220mph, max cruise was 342 mph at 30,000ft. We could decide, for the sake of this discussion that the B-29 had to bomb from the same height and close to the same speed as the B-17 for accuracy but the approach and departure could certainly be done at higher speeds and altitudes than the B-17 used. Lower losses per 1000 tons of bombs dropped?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It is more than just the doors.

The B-29 "silverplate" models were specially modified to carry the atomic bombs - but tallboys were approximately twice as long as either Little Boy or Fat Man and the Grand Slam was even longer.

The pictures above show the Grand Slam covers the two forward bomb bays.

Does anybody know what the maximum bomb size that could be carried inside the standard B-29 bomb bay?

Bottom line, the B-29 "could have" carried the Grand Slam if there "would have" been a need for it to do so.

 

[Readie]

Had there been a need for the B-29 to drop a bomb that large, bomb bay doors "would have" been made avaiable to swap out with normal doors, something quite easy to do in the field.

Of course FBJ,
Michael, we were joshing each other about 'could have' etc. Not being serious !
The B29 is the next generation of bomber on from the Lancaster B17. It was technically superior as one would hope it would be.
Cheers
John

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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.

Surely then you must use your own logic to ask why they didn't do that? If we're saying 'It's ok, because the B-29 could do it, it doesn't matter that she wasn't in time to do it'. The B-29 first dropped bombs in anger a couple of days before the first tallboys were used against Saumur. You don't just turn up and both with these things as you would any other bomb, it took Bomber Command's most celebrated squadron months of training, which would have meant that even if the RAF could have got their hands on what were not at the time numerous bombers then they wouldn't have been able to use the new bomb for a while, as not only do they have to train on a new aircraft, but also a new bomb. Also if you want to leave the dropping of an expensive bomb to an as yet untested aircraft on your head be it! Why would you bother doing that when you already have an aircraft capable of doing it?

By contrast the Lancaster was by this point a proven airframe and was very clearly up to the job, as she dropped over 800 tallboys. Don't get me wrong here, again I'll say I'm not saying the Lanc was better than a B-29, of course I'm not, what I'm saying is that a bomber that's available and actually doing the job should score points over one that was later shown could have done it, but at a later date. Surely the bomber actually causing the damage should get the credit rather than having it taken away by the fact that another aircraft could have done it at a later date? Otherwise like I say I could argue the B-52 is the best because it could have done the bombing without any problems, because I've ignored the fact she wasn't around at the time!

 

[Shortround6]

If the thread is about the best bomber of WW II the the B-52 is out

WW II covers 6 years. A bomber that reaches Squadron service in 1944 should be better than a bomber that reaches squadron service in 1942. If you want to put restrictions on it we could say what was the best bomber up until the summer of 1944 as any bomber after that time didn't have time to be adapted to many different missions?

The Lancaster was miles ahead of any bomber in service in Sept of 1939. Should we give extra points to Whitleys and Hampdens (or the Amiot 143 because they were available and doing the job for 2 1/2 -3 years before the Lancaster showed up?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

No, we should give the Whitley points for actually doing the damage at the time. The point I'm making is that the B-29 wasn't the one doing the damage with tallboys and grandslams. Yes, she could carry them, but she wasn't the one doing the damage with them, it's the Lancaster with them on her combat record and the B-29 shouldn't take anything away from that. I'm not saying we should limit the discussion to 1944 because other bombers didn't have time to be modified at all, I'm saying we should include right up to the end of the war because even then other bombers weren't modified.

 

[Shortround6]

Are we comparing the capabilities of a bomber to decide which was best or are we comparing the war records? Or mix of the two?

Could a B-29 carry a Tall Boy? Yes did it in combat in WW II? no

Could a B-17 lift 17,000lbs of bombs of the ground? Yes. Could it actually reach a target with a such a load (even the coast of France) ? No. Could a B-17 carry a 12,000lb Tall Boy? No. It could not fit it inside and there wasn'
t room outside. Same for a B-24. They could carry the weight but not the actual weapon and no amount of fiddling with bomb doors or anything short of a total rebuild/new design was going to change it.

See the difference? The B-17/B-24 couldn't do it no matter what. The B-29 could but didn't. If Tall boys and Grand Slams had been needed against Japan in 1945 the B-29 could have done it. Now you want to down grade the B-29 because it didn't do it in combat in the time frame we are talking about.

 

[Readie]

No, we should give the Whitley points for actually doing the damage at the time. The point I'm making is that the B-29 wasn't the one doing the damage with tallboys and grandslams. Yes, she could carry them, but she wasn't the one doing the damage with them, it's the Lancaster with them on her combat record and the B-29 shouldn't take anything away from that. I'm not saying we should limit the discussion to 1944 because other bombers didn't have time to be modified at all, I'm saying we should include right up to the end of the war because even then other bombers weren't modified.

Not forgetting the Wellington as well. Heroic raids to 'hit back' as best we could and at a hideous cost.
John

 

[Readie]

Are we comparing the capabilities of a bomber to decide which was best or are we comparing the war records? Or mix of the two?

Could a B-29 carry a Tall Boy? Yes did it in combat in WW II? no

Could a B-17 lift 17,000lbs of bombs of the ground? Yes. Could it actually reach a target with a such a load (even the coast of France) ? No. Could a B-17 carry a 12,000lb Tall Boy? No. It could not fit it inside and there wasn'
t room outside. Same for a B-24. They could carry the weight but not the actual weapon and no amount of fiddling with bomb doors or anything short of a total rebuild/new design was going to change it.

See the difference? The B-17/B-24 couldn't do it no matter what. The B-29 could but didn't. If Tall boys and Grand Slams had been needed against Japan in 1945 the B-29 could have done it. Now you want to down grade the B-29 because it didn't do it in combat in the time frame we are talking about.

Which is the point I have been trying to make all along. Thank you SR6 for putting it in a nutshell.
John

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Are we comparing the capabilities of a bomber to decide which was best or are we comparing the war records? Or mix of the two?

Could a B-29 carry a Tall Boy? Yes did it in combat in WW II? no

Could a B-17 lift 17,000lbs of bombs of the ground? Yes. Could it actually reach a target with a such a load (even the coast of France) ? No. Could a B-17 carry a 12,000lb Tall Boy? No. It could not fit it inside and there wasn'
t room outside. Same for a B-24. They could carry the weight but not the actual weapon and no amount of fiddling with bomb doors or anything short of a total rebuild/new design was going to change it.

See the difference? The B-17/B-24 couldn't do it no matter what. The B-29 could but didn't. If Tall boys and Grand Slams had been needed against Japan in 1945 the B-29 could have done it. Now you want to down grade the B-29 because it didn't do it in combat in the time frame we are talking about.

Yes, I think combat record definitely should come in to it. To that end, yes, I think the Lanc should score points over the B-29, she is the one that actually dropped them in combat. I can't really put it any more succinctly than that

 

[syscom3]

And the B29 is the only plane to have dropped atomic weapons. Of which the Lancaster did not.

And Lanc ..... The B29 could carry two large naval mines on a 1600 mile mission. Could the Lancaster do that?

 

[Readie]

And the B29 is the only plane to have dropped atomic weapons. Of which the Lancaster did not.

And Lanc ..... The B29 could carry two large naval mines on a 1600 mile mission. Could the Lancaster do that?

Why would we want to carry naval mines 1600 miles in Europe?
A bomb Berlin? We are far to nice to do that.... Not cricket old boy.
Cheers
John