The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[plan_D]

In the grand scheme of things? Nothing. The larger part of the Ar 234 on the war was from the bomber variant, Ar 234B. It hampered the US army movements in many areas of the front, and also destroyed a few Allied planes on the ground.
Some would argue that the Ar 234 may well have delayed the inevitable German defeat by delaying the U.S at Remagen and Aachen. There's many scattered reports about the various Ar 234 raids.

I never said the Ar 234 was the best bomber of the war, nor have I claimed it had a massive effect on the war. I'm merely trying to explain to you that a 1,000 lbs bomb is not useless. As you claimed nine planes each carrying a single 1,000 lbs was useless.

 

[syscom3]

By late 1944, there was nothing the Luftwaffe could do to slow up any allied advance. There simply were way too few aircraft and crews. Any hold ups the allies had were due to other factors, and air bombardment wasnt one of them.

I'd rate the -88 sooner than the -234 as deserving a ranking as among the best bombers of WW2.

 

[plan_D]

Since the destruction of the Remegan bridge prevented an armoured thrust deep into the Ruhr-Rhine valley earlier than it really happened, certainly gives some credit to the slowing of the Allied advance.

Technically, the Ar 234 was one of the best bombers of the war. It had a record to prove that it wasn't a paper tiger, but it doesn't earn it's place amongst the best because of that record. It's technical ability, and advanced technology bring it forward into the race.

But once again, you're trying to skip the question of the payloads being useful or not. Once again, I never said the Ar 234 was the best bomber of the war. I'm merely trying to get through to you that an attack by nine planes carrying a grand total of 9,900 lbs of bombs is a useful load on a tactical strike. Are you going to admit your mistake of calling it useless? Or are you going to try and dodge out of it again?

And you never told me what these larger targets were, that would apparently to take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack effectively.

 

[syscom3]

Since the destruction of the Remegan bridge prevented an armoured thrust deep into the Ruhr-Rhine valley earlier than it really happened, certainly gives some credit to the slowing of the Allied advance.

it gets zero credit because the collapse of the bridge cannot be ascribed to it.

And it stopped nothing as the combat engineers were busy building bailey bridges to span the Rhine as well as hauling up thousands of landing craft.

Technically, the Ar 234 was one of the best bombers of the war. It had a record to prove that it wasn't a paper tiger, but it doesn't earn it's place amongst the best because of that record. It's technical ability, and advanced technology bring it forward into the race.

As a bomber it gets no recognition because it didnt do anything. As a recon, I would place it high on the list.

But once again, you're trying to skip the question of the payloads being useful or not. Once again, I never said the Ar 234 was the best bomber of the war. I'm merely trying to get through to you that an attack by nine planes carrying a grand total of 9,900 lbs of bombs is a useful load on a tactical strike. Are you going to admit your mistake of calling it useless? Or are you going to try and dodge out of it again?

2000 pounds of bombs per plane is nothing impressive at all. It was fast, but a bomber needs to carry lots of bombs.

And you never told me what these larger targets were, that would apparently to take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack effectively.

Airfields, troop concentrations, bridges, supply depots, harbors, blah blah blah.

 

[delcyros]

From some point, I can understand Syscom´s position. The -234 saw little but quite effective combat at the closing months of ww2. Problem of this thread is that nobody specified what means "best". Technically the -234 wins, hands down, at least from all those to see combat use. But if we factor war effect than a bomber to see combat through the whole wartime with various modifications has some benefits. Take the B-25, the Ju-88, the B-17, the Lancaster, SBD-Dauntless or even the Ju-87, all of them contributed more heavily for their nation than did either the -234 or the B-29 (despite the latter gains some additional credit for shortening the war by delivering nukes to Japan. However, this credit should be given to the whole Manhatten project rather than to the carrier plane).

 

[syscom3]

.... However, this credit should be given to the whole Manhatten project rather than to the carrier plane)....

No B29 means no way to deliver the a-bomb.

 

[plan_D]

The destruction of Remagen Bridge was part due to the Ar 234s bombing of it. This is one thing everyone agrees on. The collapse of the Remagen Bridge itself was due to many factors, but mostly the bombing done by the Me 262 and Ar 234 bombers.

"And it stopped nothing as the combat engineers were busy building bailey bridges to span the Rhine as well as hauling up thousands of landing craft."

You gave me a good laugh with this, syscom. It delayed the U.S advance by a week, and cost the Allies many more troops when they had to employ paratroopers in Operation Varsity. A week is a long time when you're attempting to sweep up enemy formations.

"As a bomber it gets no recognition because it didnt do anything. As a recon, I would place it high on the list."

Your lack of reading ability amazes me. I don't believe I stated the Ar 234 deserves recognition for it's achievements in World War II. On the contrary, syscom, I stated the Ar 234 did very little in the war as a bomber. I, in fact, stated it had no effect on the war whatsoever.
I said that it should be recognised for it's technical ability, to which it proved it could achieve in the few combats it did take part in. Surely you understand that? Don't come back and say that the bomber didn't do anything, when we've already come to something nearing on an argeement that the Ar 234 did very little as a bomber.

"2000 pounds of bombs per plane is nothing impressive at all. It was fast, but a bomber needs to carry lots of bombs."

The raiders on Liége railyards carried a single SC 500 (1,100 lbs) bomb. The payload used was not the Ar 234s maximum load. This has been established previously. The raid was set to impress, it was set to get the bombers in, destroy the target, and get out unscathed. Which all the bombers did, and they destroyed the target. Making your statement that the raid's payload was useless, a pathetic statement. The Ar 234 could carry quite a few bombs, and would be faster than any other tactical bomber carrying the same payload.

"Airfields, troop concentrations, bridges, supply depots, harbors, blah blah blah."

To attack an airfield would not need hundreds of Ar 234s. A single 1,000 lbs could easily crater runways, or destroy planes on the ground. Six Ar 234s attacked the airfield at Gilze-Rijen on 1st January, 1945, causing considerable damage. And these planes carried a single SC 500 bomb each. Disproving yo point that it would take hundreds to attack an airfield.

Troop concentrations? Ar 234s were used to attack the 101st Airborne Division in and around Bastogne. Hundreds were not used.

Bridges? The Remegan Bridge was attacked by no more than fifteen Ar 234s. And it fell. During the Battle of France, the RAF often sent five or six Fairey Battles against bridges carrying less than 1,000 lbs. And they were credited with quite a few bridges.

Supply depots? The USAAF would send up P-47s with single 500 lbs bombs to attack these targets. And they would not be in their hundreds.

A harbour? They were attacked by strategic bombers, mostly. But when any raid took place on a harbour it took hundreds of planes, even when they were B-17s or Lancasters. Except the raid on Taranto, but they were aiming for the ships, not the harbour itself.

And blah blah blah isn't a tactical target.

 

[syscom3]

The destruction of Remagen Bridge was part due to the Ar 234s bombing of it. This is one thing everyone agrees on. The collapse of the Remagen Bridge itself was due to many factors, but mostly the bombing done by the Me 262 and Ar 234 bombers.

The main damage to the span was done prior to the bombing.

You gave me a good laugh with this, syscom. It delayed the U.S advance by a week, and cost the Allies many more troops when they had to employ paratroopers in Operation Varsity. A week is a long time when you're attempting to sweep up enemy formations.

In March 1945, the German army had nowhere to run to. It didnt matter if it was a day, a week, a month. They had no transport and nowhere to go. The delay meant nothing at all.

Your lack of reading ability amazes me. I don't believe I stated the Ar 234 deserves recognition for it's achievements in World War II. On the contrary, syscom, I stated the Ar 234 did very little in the war as a bomber. I, in fact, stated it had no effect on the war whatsoever.
I said that it should be recognised for it's technical ability, to which it proved it could achieve in the few combats it did take part in. Surely you understand that? Don't come back and say that the bomber didn't do anything, when we've already come to something nearing on an argeement that the Ar 234 did very little as a bomber.

What technical ability was it outstanding in? It was fast, nothing else. And it wasnt blindingly fast as allied jets were soon to be deployed that were fast enought to shoot it down. And a "few" bombing sorties doesnt count.

The raiders on Liége railyards carried a single SC 500 (1,100 lbs) bomb. The payload used was not the Ar 234s maximum load. This has been established previously. The raid was set to impress, it was set to get the bombers in, destroy the target, and get out unscathed.

Which was done by EVERY nation in the war that flew bombing missions.

Which all the bombers did, and they destroyed the target. Making your statement that the raid's payload was useless, a pathetic statement. The Ar 234 could carry quite a few bombs, and would be faster than any other tactical bomber carrying the same payload.

A single 1000 pound bomb carried by a single aircraft. Bound to impress.

[/quote] To attack an airfield would not need hundreds of Ar 234s. A single 1,000 lbs could easily crater runways, or destroy planes on the ground. Six Ar 234s attacked the airfield at Gilze-Rijen on 1st January, 1945, causing considerable damage. And these planes carried a single SC 500 bomb each. Disproving yo point that it would take hundreds to attack an airfield. [/quote]

Stop the presses!!!!! OMG..... the Luftwaffe was so good that it only took a few -234's carrying a few bombs to put out of commision tactical targets that required hundreds of allied bombers to do. Oh yeah, and that includes the -88's and other German bombers that needed hundreds of planes to do the same on the Allies.

Troop concentrations? Ar 234s were used to attack the 101st Airborne Division in and around Bastogne. Hundreds were not used.

And your point is what? there were lots of german bombers used.

{quote] Supply depots? The USAAF would send up P-47s with single 500 lbs bombs to attack these targets. And they would not be in their hundreds. [/quote]

Ummm, there were often hundred of -47's and -38's flying around attacking tactical targets.

A harbour? They were attacked by strategic bombers, mostly. But when any raid took place on a harbour it took hundreds of planes, even when they were B-17s or Lancasters. Except the raid on Taranto, but they were aiming for the ships, not the harbour itself.

And blah blah blah isn't a tactical target.

Most targets require hundreds of planes to take out. And there were only a handfull of -234's. Hardly enough to influence a battle at any point.

 

[plan_D]

"In March 1945, the German army had nowhere to run to. It didnt matter if it was a day, a week, a month. They had no transport and nowhere to go. The delay meant nothing at all."

I stated that the destruction of the Remagen bridge halted the U.S 3rd Army in it's attack. Which it did. Earlier on, I said some would say the Ar 234 delayed the inevitable by doing this. I never said the Allies weren't going to win.
The week respite given to the Wehrmacht allowed them to dig-in positions. And forced many more losses on the Allied armies than what would have been encountered if the bridge had remained intact. The delay cost lives.

"What technical ability was it outstanding in? It was fast, nothing else. And it wasnt blindingly fast as allied jets were soon to be deployed that were fast enought to shoot it down. And a "few" bombing sorties doesnt count."

The Ar 234 could fly high and fast. The technical ability that marks it above other tactical bombers is the fact that the plane was faster than all of them. No other tactical bomber of the war could carry a 1,000 lbs, 2,000 lbs or 3,000 lbs payload as fast as the Ar 234 could.

The bombing sorties the Ar 234 took part in count for proving that the Ar 234 could do what the design papers said it could. You cannot simply wipe parts off history off as not counting for anything. Unless you want to cloud history for your own cause.

"Which was done by EVERY nation in the war that flew bombing missions."

Why are you telling me this, syscom? I was the one that told YOU that in the first place.

"A single 1000 pound bomb carried by a single aircraft. Bound to impress."

When that single plane plants the 1,000 lbs bomb in the middle of your bridge, or your runway than you're not going to be calling it useless.

"Stop the presses!!!!! OMG..... the Luftwaffe was so good that it only took a few -234's carrying a few bombs to put out of commision tactical targets that required hundreds of allied bombers to do. Oh yeah, and that includes the -88's and other German bombers that needed hundreds of planes to do the same on the Allies."

What are you talking about now? The Allies, nor the Luftwaffe attacked single airfields with hundreds of bombers. Are you denying that six Ar 234s attacked Gilze-Rijen airfield on 1st January, 1945 now?

"Ummm, there were often hundred of -47's and -38's flying around attacking tactical targets."

Key word there targets. They didn't send hundreds of P-47s or P-38s against one supply depot. It's an overkill. Ten to twenty P-47s carrying 500 lbs bombs could do the job.

"Most targets require hundreds of planes to take out. And there were only a handfull of -234's. Hardly enough to influence a battle at any point."

Once again, where have I said the Ar 234 influenced the battle? Or the war? Where!? Just read properly for once, please! I am telling you that on a tactical strike nine planes carrying a total of 9,900 lbs is not useless. There is no mention anywhere from me saying the Ar 234 was the best bomber of the war. No where do I say that the Ar 234 had an impact on the war.

Where do you get the idea hundreds of planes were needed to strike tactical targets? The bomber streams of B-17s and B-24s are not tactical, they're strategic. A tactical attack would have less than fifty bombers, in most cases.
Like on 12 May, 1940, 12 Sqdn. Battles based at Amifontaine attacked a bridge on the Albert Canal at Maarstricht. Five Battles carried a single 250 lbs bomb each, they attacked and destroyed the bridge. Of course, this isn't possible, it would take hundreds of Ar 234s carrying a higher payload to destroy a bridge. Right, syscom? How in gods name did five Battles manage it!?

 

[syscom3]

I looked at the 9th army website and they stated that the bridge was heavily damaged by the demolition charges the day of the capture.

They also state the bridge was still standing for ten days afterwards, in which time several Baily bridges were built by the time the Remagan bridge finally collapsed.

Therefore, the -234 attacks accomplished little, and it didnt stop the allied advance one second. In fact, the web site suggests several -234's were shot down. I dont know if thats true, so someone confirm it.

By the way, hordes of B26's and -47's and -38's would attack a single target (and I suppose the RAF did the same). And they were just as accurate as the -234. In fact probably more accurate because high speed often means introduces new errors.

And the -234 attacks on the airfields? They were just several bombers among many dozens who contributed equally to the damage. To say they went on a sortie is one thing. To say they contributed mightly to the damage because they each had a single bomb is a stretch of the imagination.

 

[plan_D]

If the U.S Army had already gone across the Rhine in force at Remagen. Why did it take paradrops during Operation Varsity to secure the eastern bank? The collapse delayed the U.S assault for a week, and cost more lives. The website is right, five Ar 234s were lost to AA fire over the bridge.

"Hordes" does not indicate a number, syscom. Single targets would be attack by dozens, rarely more than fifty. That would look like a horde, I suppose.

Stop steering away from the original comments, syscom. You claimed that 9,900 lbs worth of bombs is useless. Yet that payload destroyed the railyards, so they have use.

You also claim that it would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack a target, like a bridge. Yet it only took five Battles with a single 250 lbs bomb each to destroy a bridge on May 12, 1940.

Just admit you're wrong. It wouldn't take hundreds of Ar 234s to perform tactical jobs. It didn't take hundreds of bombers to attack tactical targets. And 9,900 lbs worth of bombs is a very useful load for tactical targets. Stop trying to steer away from it, you're just increasingly looking like an idiot. A single 1,100 lbs bomb can easily destroy gut a building, or crater a runway.

How do you know about the Ar 234 raids on New Years Day? You don't, that's right. So stop pretending that you know anything about them. You didn't even know they existed until I told you. Oh, and where did I say they contributed "mightly" to Bodenplatte? Stop claiming I say things that I never have.

 

[syscom3]

If the U.S Army had already gone across the Rhine in force at Remagen. Why did it take paradrops during Operation Varsity to secure the eastern bank? The collapse delayed the U.S assault for a week, and cost more lives. The website is right, five Ar 234s were lost to AA fire over the bridge.

The reasons are beyond the scope of this discussion. WE do know that the -234's contributed to the additional damage to the span, but were not the sole reason the bridge collapsed. And the fact it took 10 days for the bridge to go down indicates that the US had plenty of time to get ready for its offensive. The fact that five were shot down is indictaive that their engines MIGHT be quite vulnerable to damage at the low altitudes it flew at, regardless of its speed.

"Hordes" does not indicate a number, syscom. Single targets would be attack by dozens, rarely more than fifty. That would look like a horde, I suppose.

The B26's attacked in wing strength, involving 3 groups or more per target. Thats about 100 - 300 B26's per mission. The fighter bombers would go out a few at a time or send out a whole group. But they are fighters, not bombers.

Stop steering away from the original comments, syscom. You claimed that 9,900 lbs worth of bombs is useless. Yet that payload destroyed the railyards, so they have use.

9000 pounds per aircraft is great. 1000 pounds is next to worthless.

You also claim that it would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack a target, like a bridge. Yet it only took five Battles with a single 250 lbs bomb each to destroy a bridge on May 12, 1940.

. And what bridge was this? was it as big as the one at Remagan? [/quote]

Just admit you're wrong. It wouldn't take hundreds of Ar 234s to perform tactical jobs. It didn't take hundreds of bombers to attack tactical targets. And 9,900 lbs worth of bombs is a very useful load for tactical targets. Stop trying to steer away from it, you're just increasingly looking like an idiot. A single 1,100 lbs bomb can easily destroy gut a building, or crater a runway.

It took hundreds of bombs to put an airfield out of commision. It took thousands of bombs to hit troop concentrations and supply dumps that were dispersed. A thousand pound bomb is big, but when your only dropping a few of them from only a few aircraft, then whats the point.

How do you know about the Ar 234 raids on New Years Day? You don't, that's right. So stop pretending that you know anything about them. You didn't even know they existed until I told you. Oh, and where did I say they contributed "mightly" to Bodenplatte? Stop claiming I say things that I never have.

You said a few -234's was all it took to cause extensive damage to an airfield. I said they helped but were not the sole reason for the damage because their payload and numbers were way to few to be meaningfull.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So here is my question syscom. If you take a A-26 and put 1000lb of bombs on it and send 9 of them each to attack a rail depot. Are those 9000lb of bombs of no use like the Ar-234's. Just wondering your take on it.

 

[syscom3]

So here is my question syscom. If you take a A-26 and put 1000lb of bombs on it and send 9 of them each to attack a rail depot. Are those 9000lb of bombs of no use like the Ar-234's. Just wondering your take on it.

Yes. Nine airframes and nine aircrews risked to drop nine bombs is just plane usless.

Better to use the fighter bombers for jobs like that.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay lets put it this way then.

One plane vs another plane. Not 9 bombers vs. 9 bombers.

When it comes to tactical bombers.

What tactical bomber would be more advanced and better than the Ar-234.

 

[syscom3]

Okay lets put it this way then.

One plane vs another plane. Not 9 bombers vs. 9 bombers.

When it comes to tactical bombers.

What tactical bomber would be more advanced and better than the Ar-234.

the -234 was advanced but it definatly not the best.

Its only advantage was its speed.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not saying it was the best bomber, but I am saying in the role that it was used there is not a single tactical bomber out there that was more capable and advanced.

The main reason is this. It could get to the target fast, drop its bombs and get out faster and easier than any other so that it could live to bomb another day easier than other tactical bombers.

 

[Henk]

Not saying it was the best bomber, but I am saying in the role that it was used there is not a single tactical bomber out there that was more capable and advanced.

The main reason is this. It could get to the target fast, drop its bombs and get out faster and easier than any other so that it could live to bomb another day easier than other tactical bombers.

I agree.

9 Arado 234 with 1000lb bombs each is not so stupid. If you send in more to do the job you risk of losing more aircraft and just to attack a railroad depot you do not need more.

The Germans could not risk more and they only send in the right amount to do the job and not more or less.

 

[syscom3]

The key is bombs on target to destroy it so you dont need to come back.

Better to send in slower aircraft with a larger payload than to hope your aircrews achieve 100% success with every bomb they drop.

So far my list is:

Heavy bomber: B29
Medium Bomber: over all, the -88. Although in some roles, the A26 and B26 were superior.
Light bomber: Mosquito for most of the war, with the P38 being better in the last several months.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will agree with your list overall there. I just think that we need to look at somethings from a different point of view.