syscom3
Pacific Historian
The B29 dropped three atomic bombs. (Two on Japan, one at Bikini atoll)
The Lanc didnt.
The Lanc didnt.
Top Heavy Bomber (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I thought you didn't like "best" threads and was merely talking about the "top bombers" as you said in the medium bomber thread
But the B29 was the top bomber of WWII for wiping out an entire city all by itself, one plane, a feat luckily never needed to be repeated by another type. It was strategic bombing taken to the ultimate level.
Hi Ppopsie,
>OR which was easier to shoot down.
Coincedentally, I just found these paragraphs:
"CDR Sachi-o Endo
Endo is the hero who became famous s the 'King of B-29 Killers' (B-29 Gekitsui-o) during intercept operations against B-29s that raided the homeland. [...]
Adding the last score [achieved on the sortie that ended with his death] to the rest, records show that Endo shot down eight and heavily damaged another eight aircraft, counting B-29s only."
(from Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II by Hata/Izawa)
Endo apparently flew a Gekko night fighter and achieved his kills mostly in night missions. His last flight was a daylight sortie, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>OR which was easier to shoot down.
Coincedentally, I just found these paragraphs:
"CDR Sachi-o Endo
Endo is the hero who became famous s the 'King of B-29 Killers' (B-29 Gekitsui-o) during intercept operations against B-29s that raided the homeland. [...]
Adding the last score [achieved on the sortie that ended with his death] to the rest, records show that Endo shot down eight and heavily damaged another eight aircraft, counting B-29s only."
(from Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II by Hata/Izawa)
Endo apparently flew a Gekko night fighter and achieved his kills mostly in night missions. His last flight was a daylight sortie, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi HoHun,
Thanks for the quote. The Gekko was a twin engine fighter initially developed as a long range escort (something like a Me110). But it failed to satisfy hot fighter jocks of the Navy and was once shelved. It revived when the IJN had to defend the southern island bases from US night bombers. The Gekko had two Sakae engines which was the same type with that on the A6M. The engine was reliable but had lacked high altitude performances.
There was another twin engine fighter in the Army, a Ki-45Kai which had similar performances.
Both types achieved successes for their level of performances, when the B-29s flew at medium to lower altitudes to get more bombing efficiency. Considering there were almost no radar guidance existed in the nights, these night fighter pilots' achievements were great ones.
CDR Sachio Endo was an old pilot who rose from rank of EM ultimately to Lieutenant which was a very rare case in IJN. He posthumously honored a double rank rising to make Commander himself.
As for the Lancs there were dams left intact in the Japanese territory in 1945 all which continuously supplied electricity, the last war resource. If the Allied forces needed to cut it off, the specially modified Lancs and the rotating mines must've used for it. Enough number of the mines were still kept at the end of the war in Britain.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Don't get me wrong - I feel there's nothing wrong with the Lancaster and the later Lincoln - both were excellent aircraft and were a distant number 2 in my book - but look at the way they were built, their systems, crew layouts, and lastly performance and that's why I consider the B-29 the un challenged king of the hill..
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
BINGO!
Heinz
Captain
B 29 no question. But in 2nd the Lancaster, B 17 and B 24 all share the honours for me.
Hi Adler,
>Then again in my opinion the Top is the Best and that is the B-29.
>To clear things up as well I classified heavy bombers as those that had a payload of 5500lb+
Hm, that would include the Ju 88.
This thread has a loading plan showing bombloads up to 3000 kg (6615 lbs):
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/te...oadouts-individual-bomb-sizes-makes-9040.html
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Then again in my opinion the Top is the Best and that is the B-29.
>To clear things up as well I classified heavy bombers as those that had a payload of 5500lb+
Hm, that would include the Ju 88.
This thread has a loading plan showing bombloads up to 3000 kg (6615 lbs):
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/te...oadouts-individual-bomb-sizes-makes-9040.html
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Oh don't worry. I agree with you 100%. I see the Lancaster was an incredibly simple (maybe cheap) aircraft in having;
-the main hydraulics with operating pressure of just 800psi for MLG, flaps and the bomb doors ONLY.
-each turret operated from own independent hydro sources, with just 300psi operation pressures each. But was good for the damage control purposes
-control surfaces totally without mechanical gearing or spring tab complications
-hardly imbisible so-called workmanship on the products, and
-wooden parts still used elsewhere in the airframe.
Most of its systems including advanced radars and jamming equipment were just added-on. Being practically an aircraft of the good old days in all but it performed superbly for the purpose and the period.
On the other hand the B-29 was developed integrating every state-of-art techs and aimed at to make an ideal weapon of the time, and was connected directly to post-WW2 era aviation. I see that is the B-29 had meant in the history.
AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
The Lanc evolved into the Shackleton.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
For the Lanc I think that's the best assessment yet.
- Thread starter
- #32
I thought you didn't like "best" threads and was merely talking about the "top bombers" as you said in the medium bomber thread
But the B29 was the top bomber of WWII for wiping out an entire city all by itself, one plane, a feat luckily never needed to be repeated by another type. It was strategic bombing taken to the ultimate level.
You are correct, I dont. I think there are too many variables. I was just trying to see what else he had to say on the matter.
Now having said that I honestly believe that the "Best" and "Top" of the Heavy Bombers certainly is the B-29 hands down.
- Thread starter
- #33
Is that all you do is go around and attempt to find mistakes made by others as if you do no wrong?
You want to make all the polls from now on???!!!!
As Joe would say: BINGO
Hi Adler,
Top Heavy Bomber - hm, I thought for a moment this was a thread about capsizing aircraft
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
To be honest, that's what came into my mind too!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
8)
Aussie1001
Staff Sergeant
My father was F/Lt HHM Cave, pilot with 419 Squadron, 6-Group. He completed his tour with 1800 hours of flying, on numerous aircraft types, including the liberator. I will report what my father said about the Lancaster.
"The Lancaster was the finest aircraft I have ever flown. It was like flying a Tiger Moth, really, except that it had 4 engines. It just floated like a bird! It didn't want to land! It was if it just loved to fly! It was responsive to the controls-just a little touch of the controls, the rudder or the control column, to bank or climb or dive, just a slight movement and it performed beautifully and smoothly. The pilot had fantastic visibility. You could see everything, it was like being in a greenhouse. I could look around, if I arranged my seat to its highest and shortened the rudder pedals to the fullest extent, I could see right around through 360 degrees and it was wonderful to see like that. I could see right into the astro hatch and if Jonesy (Wireless OP) was there, I could see him and also look right at Nick Horychka in the Mid-Upper Turret. The aeroplane was absolutely beautiful. Now we had never flown this plane before so I went out with an American who was on the Squadron by the name of Lt. Joe Hartshorn. He was an awfully fine man. He did one circuit and landing and he then stepped out of the airplane and I took it from there." Please note here that Joe Hartshorn was an American (who won a DFC) with the squadron.
Dad also flew the B-24 Liberator, during his stint with Coastal Command (Cornwall, England). Now this was obviously a pivotal aircraft during the war because of its very long range and its use in anti-submarine warfare. Dad's comments: "It handled like a cow"
Dad, on a bet, once did a circuit and bump (take-off, orbit and landing) all by himself--no one else on the aircraft. His notation in his logbook (the JPEG of which I can email) was "F/Lt. HHM Cave pilot, scratch crew". Can any of you claim to have done that in any of the other aircraft in question?
There have been comments on this forum on the defensive armament of the Lanc. Christ knows why they opted for .303 Brownings. That was an unnecessary cost savings dictated by the Air Minisitry. It could just as easily have been provided with 50 cal guns, but note that the Lancaster B1 HK541 included modifications that would have ben used for Tiger Force in the Pacific.
The B-29 was clearly a superb aircraft. However it was a "next generation" piston bomber and clearly in a different league than either the B-24, B-17 or the Lancaster. It's bomb loads were almost entirely incendiaries and you can pack a lot of these in to such bombers. It didn't have to contend with either a significant fighter presence, nor flak. Nor was it used in any kind of a precision role. Also, the lancaster was clearly capable of carrying the atomic bomb. The Heinkel HE 177? Don't even go there! If it had any kind of promise, the Germans would have jumped on the design.
But the Lanc? It was clearly the first use of a strategic bomber in a strategic PRECISION role. Neither the B-17 nor the B 24 could make that claim, nor could they carry either the tallboy, grand slam nor "Upkeep" . The Lanc was used with precision (617 squadron) against the dams, against viaducts, U-Boat Pens, railway tunnels (Saumur), and battle ships (Tirpitz), The Daisy Cutter was not larger than the Grand Slam in terms of weight. Also if you consider the normal bomb ordnance carried by main-force aircraft, it could out-compete either the Forts or Box Cars or Halibags, based on lift, hands down. Note that after the war, Albert Speer, the Reich's Minister of Armaments, was interrogated by the Americans. He indicated that when it came to bombing of oil production in Germany, British raids were more effective because of the larger size of bombs they used. No doubt this was due to bomb bay size. Finally, against Berlin, remember the Mosquito could fly to the Big-Smoke twice in one evening, with a 4000 bomb--the same bomb load that the B-17 force carried, with a crew of 2 men, 2 engines, at twice the speed of B-17's and without fighter support or defensive armament and at a signficantly lower rate-of-loss!
Finally my Dad, reminising about landing on American airfields (when diverted after a raid because of weather)..."We used to like opening our bomb doors when we landed at American bases, because we could show off how much we could carry. A 500 lb bomb [rolling around the bomb bay] fell onto the tarmac. I've never seen people run so fast in all my life!"
At the end of the day, the war was fought with the munitions and aircraft the allies had available and chose to use. Both the B-17, B-24, B-29, Lancaster and Halifax were a critical components for the war effort. Both the American and British contributions were denigrated by Galbraith's report on the Strategic Bomber Offensive. Recently, historians such as W. Overy and Middlebrook have concluded the efforts of this offensive were critical towards winning WW II.
If you wish to look at my father's contributions to the war effort...
Hanover
JDCAVE
"The Lancaster was the finest aircraft I have ever flown. It was like flying a Tiger Moth, really, except that it had 4 engines. It just floated like a bird! It didn't want to land! It was if it just loved to fly! It was responsive to the controls-just a little touch of the controls, the rudder or the control column, to bank or climb or dive, just a slight movement and it performed beautifully and smoothly. The pilot had fantastic visibility. You could see everything, it was like being in a greenhouse. I could look around, if I arranged my seat to its highest and shortened the rudder pedals to the fullest extent, I could see right around through 360 degrees and it was wonderful to see like that. I could see right into the astro hatch and if Jonesy (Wireless OP) was there, I could see him and also look right at Nick Horychka in the Mid-Upper Turret. The aeroplane was absolutely beautiful. Now we had never flown this plane before so I went out with an American who was on the Squadron by the name of Lt. Joe Hartshorn. He was an awfully fine man. He did one circuit and landing and he then stepped out of the airplane and I took it from there." Please note here that Joe Hartshorn was an American (who won a DFC) with the squadron.
Dad also flew the B-24 Liberator, during his stint with Coastal Command (Cornwall, England). Now this was obviously a pivotal aircraft during the war because of its very long range and its use in anti-submarine warfare. Dad's comments: "It handled like a cow"
Dad, on a bet, once did a circuit and bump (take-off, orbit and landing) all by himself--no one else on the aircraft. His notation in his logbook (the JPEG of which I can email) was "F/Lt. HHM Cave pilot, scratch crew". Can any of you claim to have done that in any of the other aircraft in question?
There have been comments on this forum on the defensive armament of the Lanc. Christ knows why they opted for .303 Brownings. That was an unnecessary cost savings dictated by the Air Minisitry. It could just as easily have been provided with 50 cal guns, but note that the Lancaster B1 HK541 included modifications that would have ben used for Tiger Force in the Pacific.
The B-29 was clearly a superb aircraft. However it was a "next generation" piston bomber and clearly in a different league than either the B-24, B-17 or the Lancaster. It's bomb loads were almost entirely incendiaries and you can pack a lot of these in to such bombers. It didn't have to contend with either a significant fighter presence, nor flak. Nor was it used in any kind of a precision role. Also, the lancaster was clearly capable of carrying the atomic bomb. The Heinkel HE 177? Don't even go there! If it had any kind of promise, the Germans would have jumped on the design.
But the Lanc? It was clearly the first use of a strategic bomber in a strategic PRECISION role. Neither the B-17 nor the B 24 could make that claim, nor could they carry either the tallboy, grand slam nor "Upkeep" . The Lanc was used with precision (617 squadron) against the dams, against viaducts, U-Boat Pens, railway tunnels (Saumur), and battle ships (Tirpitz), The Daisy Cutter was not larger than the Grand Slam in terms of weight. Also if you consider the normal bomb ordnance carried by main-force aircraft, it could out-compete either the Forts or Box Cars or Halibags, based on lift, hands down. Note that after the war, Albert Speer, the Reich's Minister of Armaments, was interrogated by the Americans. He indicated that when it came to bombing of oil production in Germany, British raids were more effective because of the larger size of bombs they used. No doubt this was due to bomb bay size. Finally, against Berlin, remember the Mosquito could fly to the Big-Smoke twice in one evening, with a 4000 bomb--the same bomb load that the B-17 force carried, with a crew of 2 men, 2 engines, at twice the speed of B-17's and without fighter support or defensive armament and at a signficantly lower rate-of-loss!
Finally my Dad, reminising about landing on American airfields (when diverted after a raid because of weather)..."We used to like opening our bomb doors when we landed at American bases, because we could show off how much we could carry. A 500 lb bomb [rolling around the bomb bay] fell onto the tarmac. I've never seen people run so fast in all my life!"
At the end of the day, the war was fought with the munitions and aircraft the allies had available and chose to use. Both the B-17, B-24, B-29, Lancaster and Halifax were a critical components for the war effort. Both the American and British contributions were denigrated by Galbraith's report on the Strategic Bomber Offensive. Recently, historians such as W. Overy and Middlebrook have concluded the efforts of this offensive were critical towards winning WW II.
If you wish to look at my father's contributions to the war effort...
Hanover
JDCAVE
Thorlifter
Captain
But weight is weight. It doesn't matter if its a ton of feathers or a ton of bombs. It's still a ton.
Good point!
Don't count on it. They sure misused the 262.
