Very useful, syscom, as they destroyed the rail yards. The Ar 234 was a tactical bomber, and unless you're calling tactical bombers useless, the load of nine planes carrying one 1,100 lbs bomb each to hit a target with precision is very useful. Or are you losing the braincells that grasp there's more than one type of bomber that isn't a strategic bomber?
The Best Bomber of WWII: #4
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #102
syscom3
Pacific Historian
plan_D said:
Just keep thinking that way, bucko......
I'd take a mosquito or a Lanc over a -234 any day.
The Lancaster is not a tactical bomber, syscom. It is not in the same catergory as the Ar 234. The Ar 234 performed tactical missions where nine planes each carrying 1,100 lbs of bombs is very useful.
I notice you have quickly steered away from your claim. And have not admitted your mistake.
I notice you have quickly steered away from your claim. And have not admitted your mistake.
- Thread starter
- #104
syscom3
Pacific Historian
SBD Dauntless's sank a "ton" of ships.
That made it superior to the -234.
B25's and B26's, Beaufighters and Mosquito's carried a far heavier payload and accomplished far more.
That made it superior to the -234.
A20's were the single best light attack bomber of the war and it accomplished far more than the -234 did.
That made it superior to the -234.
And youre claiming that nine -234's each carrying a single 1000 lbs bomb, attacking an undefended railyard is proof positive its the greatest tactical bomber of all?
That made it superior to the -234.
B25's and B26's, Beaufighters and Mosquito's carried a far heavier payload and accomplished far more.
That made it superior to the -234.
A20's were the single best light attack bomber of the war and it accomplished far more than the -234 did.
That made it superior to the -234.
And youre claiming that nine -234's each carrying a single 1000 lbs bomb, attacking an undefended railyard is proof positive its the greatest tactical bomber of all?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:SBD Dauntless's sank a "ton" of ships.
That made it superior to the -234.
B25's and B26's, Beaufighters and Mosquito's carried a far heavier payload and accomplished far more.
That made it superior to the -234.
A20's were the single best light attack bomber of the war and it accomplished far more than the -234 did.
That made it superior to the -234.
And youre claiming that nine -234's each carrying a single 1000 lbs bomb, attacking an undefended railyard is proof positive its the greatest tactical bomber of all?
If you want to speak in terms of operational records and accomplishments, you are correct, all the aircraft mentioned are miles a head....
If you want to speak in terms of advancement, innovations and production achievements, the -234 is superior to all of them.
And one of those "what ifs." If Germany possessed 4000 of these in late 1943 things might of been a little different!!!
What if?!?
- Thread starter
- #106
syscom3
Pacific Historian
FLYBOYJ said:...
If you want to speak in terms of advancement, innovations and production achievements, the -234 is superior to all of them.
And one of those "what ifs." If Germany possessed 4000 of these in late 1943 things might of been a little different!!!
What if?!?
We are dealing "with what actually happened".
Its operational life was way to short and indecisve to be mentioned in the best bombers of any type.
plan_D has actually made a good point.
The Ar-234 was not a strategic bomber. We all know that, but as a tactical bomber it may very well have been the best bomber. I was not looking at that way. I for somereason have been thinking only of Strategic bombers.
The Ar-234 was by far the most capable tactical bomber the war has seen.
syscom it did not achieve those numbers that you have shown that others have, but with eneogh of them and early eneogh in the war it could have achieved greater numbers.
You say well it did not, so that does not count. The B-29 did not accomplish as many missions as the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster. Does that make it inferior to them? It did not drop the ammount of tonnage that the they dropped. Does that make it inferior? Nope. The Gigant could carry more cargo than the C-47, does that make it more superior to the C-47? Nope.
You see that arguement you just made does not hold up.
Lets look at the overall capability of the Ar-234 as a tactical bomber and you will see that it was superior to all the rest.
Why?
Because it could get in, get out and not be caught by enemy fighters.
The Ar-234 was not a strategic bomber. We all know that, but as a tactical bomber it may very well have been the best bomber. I was not looking at that way. I for somereason have been thinking only of Strategic bombers.
The Ar-234 was by far the most capable tactical bomber the war has seen.
syscom it did not achieve those numbers that you have shown that others have, but with eneogh of them and early eneogh in the war it could have achieved greater numbers.
You say well it did not, so that does not count. The B-29 did not accomplish as many missions as the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster. Does that make it inferior to them? It did not drop the ammount of tonnage that the they dropped. Does that make it inferior? Nope. The Gigant could carry more cargo than the C-47, does that make it more superior to the C-47? Nope.
You see that arguement you just made does not hold up.
Lets look at the overall capability of the Ar-234 as a tactical bomber and you will see that it was superior to all the rest.
Why?
Because it could get in, get out and not be caught by enemy fighters.
I'm glad to see that someone has caught on to what I was saying in the first place.
syscom, I never claimed that nine planes each carrying 1,100 lbs bomb made it the best bomber. You, however, claimed that an attack like that would be useless with this:
"Nine jet bombers carrying nine bombs total.
Not much of a payload to be considered usefull, is it."
I replied kindly with the simple idea that the load mentioned would be very useful:
"Very useful, syscom, as they destroyed the rail yards."
And then you claim that I had said the Ar 234 was the greatest tactical bomber of all time with that statement:
"And youre claiming that nine -234's each carrying a single 1000 lbs bomb, attacking an undefended railyard is proof positive its the greatest tactical bomber of all?"
Where did I claim that, syscom? Can you find it for us all? I merely countered your claim that 9,900 lbs worth of bombs on a tactical strike was useless.
You are backing out again, syscom. Let's get back to the point, the Ar 234 was a tactical bomber and that kind of payload would be extremely useful. Are you going to admit your mistake, or are you going to keep digging your hole?
syscom, I never claimed that nine planes each carrying 1,100 lbs bomb made it the best bomber. You, however, claimed that an attack like that would be useless with this:
"Nine jet bombers carrying nine bombs total.
Not much of a payload to be considered usefull, is it."
I replied kindly with the simple idea that the load mentioned would be very useful:
"Very useful, syscom, as they destroyed the rail yards."
And then you claim that I had said the Ar 234 was the greatest tactical bomber of all time with that statement:
"And youre claiming that nine -234's each carrying a single 1000 lbs bomb, attacking an undefended railyard is proof positive its the greatest tactical bomber of all?"
Where did I claim that, syscom? Can you find it for us all? I merely countered your claim that 9,900 lbs worth of bombs on a tactical strike was useless.
You are backing out again, syscom. Let's get back to the point, the Ar 234 was a tactical bomber and that kind of payload would be extremely useful. Are you going to admit your mistake, or are you going to keep digging your hole?
I agree with you pD. It certainly was not the best bomber, it certainly was not the best jet aircraft, but it was not useless or utterly worthless as syscom makes it out to be.
I bet if it had been built by Boing or Bell or Consolidated he would be saying otherwise...
I bet if it had been built by Boing or Bell or Consolidated he would be saying otherwise...
- Thread starter
- #110
syscom3
Pacific Historian
A payload of 1000 punds in WW2 is worthless. Most tactical bombers were carrying triple that number with just as much effect. And considering many tactical operations were not against precise targets such as railyards but whole areas where troops and material were spread out, the low payload of the -234 made it irrelevent.
The -234 was a harbringer of things to come, but had no impact on the the war or operations.
The -234 was a harbringer of things to come, but had no impact on the the war or operations.
syscom3 said:
Which does not make the aircraft irrelivant. It was still more capable than any other tactical bomber based of what it could do. That is what you dont understand.
syscom3 said:
The Ar-234 could carry 3300lb of bombs. For an early jet bomber that is not bad.
Bomb Load:
various combinations of bombs slung under fuselage and/or engines to maximum of 1500kg (3,300lb)
Oh well does not matter, I am not going to argue the fact with you, because it will not matter.
Railyards and transport networks are of extreme importance, syscom. Tactical operations exist to support the ensuing battle. The attack on Liége disrupted Allied reinforcement for the Ardennes, this was the precise aim of the attack.
1,000 lbs dropped on a precise target is certainly not useless, as you believe. Attacking a bridge, road, rail, supply depot or HQ are all tactical strikes and 1,100 lbs from each plane could easily destroy these things when hit with precision.
The Ar 234 was designed to fly in and out without any threat of interception. It's attacks were to be precise, dropping the 500 KG bomb on it's target and leaving the area quickly. It achieved this, and the attacks the Ar 234 were often very successful. Proving the point, that 1,100 lbs of bombs was not "worthless".
The Stuka often carried a single SC 500 bomb into battle, and caused much havoc on the tactical scale.
1,000 lbs dropped on a precise target is certainly not useless, as you believe. Attacking a bridge, road, rail, supply depot or HQ are all tactical strikes and 1,100 lbs from each plane could easily destroy these things when hit with precision.
The Ar 234 was designed to fly in and out without any threat of interception. It's attacks were to be precise, dropping the 500 KG bomb on it's target and leaving the area quickly. It achieved this, and the attacks the Ar 234 were often very successful. Proving the point, that 1,100 lbs of bombs was not "worthless".
The Stuka often carried a single SC 500 bomb into battle, and caused much havoc on the tactical scale.
- Thread starter
- #113
syscom3
Pacific Historian
plan_D said:
Attack with precision. A misnomer of sorts for any combatant on WW2.
And if they could carry 3000 lbs bombs, why were they only fitted with one?
Still it only makes it a what if bomber.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The Ar-234 certainly is no "what if" bomber. It stayed in combat as a plane from D-Day till wars end and in the bomber role from late 1944 till wars end, actually it had a longer service time than the Me-262, and this plane also cannot be counted as a "what if" design.
Usual bomb load for Ar-234B was 1000 Kg (2202 lbs) with two 500 Kg bombs on each ETC under the engines. Maximum bomb load was 1500 Kg with a single PC 1500 halfly embedded under the fuselage or 1000 Kg with a single 500 kg bomb and two 250 Kg bombs under the engines. A reduced payload (a single 500 Kg bomb) was used in case high speed attack runs were preferred (with this payload it could exceed 410 mp/h at sea level or 450 mp/h at 10000 ft for quite a duration. The top speed of ~ 480 mp/h was only achievable without bombs.
Technically interesting "what if´s" are those 23 Ar-234 C delivered to the Luftwaffe...
Usual bomb load for Ar-234B was 1000 Kg (2202 lbs) with two 500 Kg bombs on each ETC under the engines. Maximum bomb load was 1500 Kg with a single PC 1500 halfly embedded under the fuselage or 1000 Kg with a single 500 kg bomb and two 250 Kg bombs under the engines. A reduced payload (a single 500 Kg bomb) was used in case high speed attack runs were preferred (with this payload it could exceed 410 mp/h at sea level or 450 mp/h at 10000 ft for quite a duration. The top speed of ~ 480 mp/h was only achievable without bombs.
Technically interesting "what if´s" are those 23 Ar-234 C delivered to the Luftwaffe...
- Thread starter
- #115
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I menat "what if bomber" as in if it had been deployed in quantity to show what it could do.
It was one of the too little, too late planes the Germans had.
It was one of the too little, too late planes the Germans had.
That still does not take away from its capability, and the fact that it was the most advanced tactical bomber to see service.
The fact remains, syscom, the Ar 234s that attacked the Liége railyards went in and out without interception. And the 9,900 lbs of bombs they delivered put the railyards out of action.
I am sorry that I didn't point out they only carried the one SC 500 to keep their speed high. I thought it would have been stating the obvious. After all, we all know that Mosquitoes would often carry payload of 1,000 lbs to keep their speed high. And even many strategic bombers wouldn't carry a full payload, even if the fuel did permit them to.
Shall I assume that you still believe that a group of nine planes, each carrying a single SC 500 (1,100 lbs) is useless? Or are you going to admit that you were wrong. As many planes in World War II, went into combat with payloads around that weight, if not lower.
What the USAAF and RAF called precision for the high-level strategic bombers is completely different for the low-level tactical bombers. Attacking from low-altitudes many bombers throughout the war achieved precision against HQs, bridges, supply depots, rail yards, tunnels etc. The most famous, of course, being the Mosquito attack on Amiens prison, or Gestapo HQ in The Hague.
I am sorry that I didn't point out they only carried the one SC 500 to keep their speed high. I thought it would have been stating the obvious. After all, we all know that Mosquitoes would often carry payload of 1,000 lbs to keep their speed high. And even many strategic bombers wouldn't carry a full payload, even if the fuel did permit them to.
Shall I assume that you still believe that a group of nine planes, each carrying a single SC 500 (1,100 lbs) is useless? Or are you going to admit that you were wrong. As many planes in World War II, went into combat with payloads around that weight, if not lower.
What the USAAF and RAF called precision for the high-level strategic bombers is completely different for the low-level tactical bombers. Attacking from low-altitudes many bombers throughout the war achieved precision against HQs, bridges, supply depots, rail yards, tunnels etc. The most famous, of course, being the Mosquito attack on Amiens prison, or Gestapo HQ in The Hague.
- Thread starter
- #118
syscom3
Pacific Historian
So its fast. Thats a fact. But its trading payload for speed, and that means the larger targets it would eventually need to attack would require hundreds of them to accomplish anything.
And this was a single mission that attacked an undefended target. Now I wonder how it would do with people shooting back at it.
I bet a P38L with a single 1000 pounder could maintain a pretty fast speed too. Does that mean its a great tactical bomber?
Didnt it also attack the Remegan bridge without accomplishing a single thing?
And this was a single mission that attacked an undefended target. Now I wonder how it would do with people shooting back at it.
I bet a P38L with a single 1000 pounder could maintain a pretty fast speed too. Does that mean its a great tactical bomber?
Didnt it also attack the Remegan bridge without accomplishing a single thing?
The Liége railyards were defended, the Allies weren't idiots. And all railyards had, at least, light AA. The trade off between speed and payload was made by all airforces during high-speed pinpoint raids. This wasn't just for the Ar 234.
Larger targets, like what? The Ar 234 could carry higher payloads, and would carry them at a higher speed than other tactical bombers. Once the payload had been dropped, the Ar 234 could easily pace away from the target area.
Could the P-38L maintain a speed near that of the Ar 234 with a 1,000 lbs bomb? No. Could the P-38L catch up to the Ar 234 when both had dropped their bombs? No. This leaves the Ar 234 in a higher standing than the P-38L in a tactical bomber role.
The Mosquito was a great tactical bomber because it could fly in and out fast. With little chance of interception. The Ar 234 did the exact same, but faster.
Ar 234 and Me-262A-2a attacked the Remagen Bridge. There's varying reports of the incidents. Some say the Me-262s got it, some say the Ar 234s got it, others say it was merely the weight of US Army rolling over it ... in the end, however, the bridge fell. Result !
Larger targets, like what? The Ar 234 could carry higher payloads, and would carry them at a higher speed than other tactical bombers. Once the payload had been dropped, the Ar 234 could easily pace away from the target area.
Could the P-38L maintain a speed near that of the Ar 234 with a 1,000 lbs bomb? No. Could the P-38L catch up to the Ar 234 when both had dropped their bombs? No. This leaves the Ar 234 in a higher standing than the P-38L in a tactical bomber role.
The Mosquito was a great tactical bomber because it could fly in and out fast. With little chance of interception. The Ar 234 did the exact same, but faster.
Ar 234 and Me-262A-2a attacked the Remagen Bridge. There's varying reports of the incidents. Some say the Me-262s got it, some say the Ar 234s got it, others say it was merely the weight of US Army rolling over it ... in the end, however, the bridge fell. Result !
- Thread starter
- #120
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Fair enough.
So in the grand scheme of things, what impact on the war did the -234 have, considering it was in use for several months?
So in the grand scheme of things, what impact on the war did the -234 have, considering it was in use for several months?
