Top ten Allies bomber

[nuuumannn]

but I think we should recognize it was a ghastly mistake.

Yes and no and as has been pointed out, it needs to be placed in the context of the Allied strategic bombing campaign, too. Putting it coldly, logically and bluntly, the entire strategic bombing campaign was purposeful in its intent and succeeded in reducing Germany's capacity to continue waging war, which was the aim of the Allied command.

we did less to them than they did to the Jews, the Poles, the Ukrainians...

Yeah, but that's no justification for further atrocities. Stating that one side is bad, then committing the same or worse doesn't offer a moral nor physical high ground. It lowers one to the level of and makes one the same as the very people one is criticising.

Nonsense, the Germans knew that deprived of fish and chips the British would have surrendered in a week

We all know that the bombing of Wimbledon Common during the Blitz was a deliberate attempt to deny children the world over of the pleasure of the Wombles...

 

[Big Jake]

Boy, you guys really jumped on my back... what I meant by my question was to determine what is the objective of the thread and what are "bombers". I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings.

 

[nuuumannn]

Boy, you guys really jumped on my back... what I meant by my question was to determine what is the objective of the thread and what are "bombers". I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings.

Nah, we are not jumping on your back at all, and there's no need to apologise, we hurt other people's feelings all the time without apology... Comes with the territory...

It's hard to convey satire in written text...

 

[TheMadPenguin]

Boy, you guys really jumped on my back... what I meant by my question was to determine what is the objective of the thread and what are "bombers". I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings.

Well, we might all have misunderstood your question, but I didn't see hurt feelings.

Objective: Develop a feeling for which (allied) bombers were "best"
And, to define "bomber", we probably needed 3 threads: 4-engine, 2 engine, and JaBo.

 

[Shortround6]

Forgot single engine bombers that were not Jabos

 

[Admiral Beez]

I wouldn't put any four engined bombers in my top 10

That was my thinking too. Four engined bombers couldn't hit Japan, but the B-25 Mitchell could.

Four engined bombers would have been two expensive, slow to build and unwieldy for the low altitude tactical strikes of the USSR's war. But the twin engine Petlyakov Pe-2 was outstanding in this role. As for maritime strike, there is no four engined bomber that matched the success of the twin engine Mitsubishi G4M and trimotor Savoia-Marchetti SM.79.

If you want mass raids, flying in a straight line at high altitude to drop the maximum tonnage of bombs on a large target, then absolutely you want four engined strategic bombers. But if you need a multirole bomber, a twin is usually best. In my book, the short list of best bombers of WW2 must include the DeHavilland Mosquito.

 

[Vincenzo]

what are "bombers"

if i understand this part, from my first post "Bomber: land, with bomb bay, multi-engine, actual bombing in WW 2" by land i want means, in this case, not seaplane and not floatplane

 

[GrauGeist]

That was my thinking too. Four engined bombers couldn't hit Japan, but the B-25 Mitchell could.

From an aircraft carrier that put them in range...

Once Attu was liberated, then B-25s could hit the Kurils (along with B-24s), otherwise it was B-29s flying from China or the Marshals that were hitting the home islands.

 

[Admiral Beez]

From an aircraft carrier that put them in range...

Yes, of course. It's the compact size whilst credible hitting power that makes me choose the twins over four engine bombers as the top picks. B-17 or other four engined bombers aren't taking off from Hornet, and they couldn't get within range of Japan until thousands of US Marines were dead taking the forward islands. But of course the B-17 has to be in the top ten.

 

[GrauGeist]

Except, as I mentioned earlier, B-29s were striking the home islands from China early 1944 during Operation Matterhorn.

 

[swampyankee]

That was my thinking too. Four engined bombers couldn't hit Japan, but the B-25 Mitchell could.

Other than from the USS Hornet in what was essentially a one-way mission, in which all the aircraft were lost (while none were shot down, 15 crashed and one was interned in the USSR)?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Other than from the USS Hornet in what was essentially a one-way mission, in which all the aircraft were lost

Mission accomplished. The intention was for all aircraft to be lost. Had the aircrew all made it to free China the mission would have gone down perfectly.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

you mean ... we didn't have carriers able to launch & recover B-17's? Rats!

 

[swampyankee]

Mission accomplished. The intention was for all aircraft to be lost. Had the aircrew all made it to free China the mission would have gone down perfectly.

This sort of raid couldn't be the basis of a bombing campaign.

 

[Admiral Beez]

This sort of raid couldn't be the basis of a bombing campaign.

Certainly not. I imagine they'd run out of volunteers, for one. And Mitchells.

But if a carrier-based bombing campaign against the Japanese mainland was deemed necessary later in the war, it could be done with the PBJ-1D Mitchell.

B-25 History Project
"CV-38 U.S.S. Shangri La: On November 15, 1944, Lieutenant Commander Bottomley made the first carrier landing in a B-25 bomber. The aircraft was inspected, taxied to the catapult position and launched. The B-25 again landed, was inspected, and launched again for the flight back to Norfolk. Although successful, American gains in the Pacific negated the necessity for a carrier based variant of the B-25."

 

[Schweik]

One of the myths that persist to this day, was that Dresden was a cultural center and had no military value.
That was of course, started by Goebbels in his press release (and is still quoted by numerous sites today).
The reality was, Dresden was a transit hub with rail yards and roads leading to all points.
There were numerous Luftwaffe bases in the vicinity: fighters, bombers, transport/logistics and a flying school (luftkreigschule).
In town, there were headquarters for the Luftwaffe (Luftgaukommando IV) and Wehrmacht as well as supply depots for army and air force.
As an aside, the Gestapo had headquarters and a prison there, too.

And, at the time that Dresden was bombed, the roads and town were packed with Wehrmacht and SS elements retreating from the east, either continuing by road or by rail.
It's unfortunate that Dresden was bombed, but it did possess military assets.

I think it could have been possible to target all of those military and military-industrial or logistical assets without incinerating the city and general population to the extent that was done.

 

[Schweik]

Except, as I mentioned earlier, B-29s were striking the home islands from China early 1944 during Operation Matterhorn.

Isn't this well past the tipping point in the war though?

 

[TheMadPenguin]

I think it could have been possible to target all of those military and military-industrial or logistical assets without incinerating the city and general population to the extent that was done.

Given the general inaccuracy of bombing and target identification, how would "sparing the city" be done? Perhaps if the B-17 and Lanc's were all carrying JDAMs we could hope for your hope, but without the GPS satellites in orbit, JDAMs are not much better than dumb bombs.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

Isn't this well past the tipping point in the war though?

At least 1/2 of the "decision makers" in the Japanese government councils didn't think so at any time in 1944. The 8-man council was split 4-4 on the question of surrender, and the 6 man council was split 3-3, EVEN AFTER the nukes and the firebombings and the destruction of the fleet at Kure and the destruction of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria by the Russians. The Emperor raised his voice in favor of surrender, and barely escaped the coup attempt to annul his surrender.

 

[Schweik]

Given the general inaccuracy of bombing and target identification, how would "sparing the city" be done? Perhaps if the B-17 and Lanc's were all carrying JDAMs we could hope for your hope, but without the GPS satellites in orbit, JDAMs are not much better than dumb bombs.

While it's certainly true that bombing in WW2 was by no means as accurate as what can be done today, there was a range of accuracy and this was quite well known. German air defenses were heavily degraded by Feb 45, and there was certainly a tradeoff between incinerating a city with fire bombs and creating a literal fire storm in the air, vs. targeting rail yards, airfields, factories and troop concentrations. As I see it, there were 4 options:

1. Burn the city down with heavy bombers day and night and incinerate the civilians, friendly POW's, everybody
2. Targeted bombing with escorted heavy and medium bombers during daytime only, to take out the larger more obvious targets (we had quite a few in operation by 1945)
3. Use precision bombing with fast bombers like Mosquitoes, A-26s, maybe Bostons and Beaufighters
4. Use fighter bombers as was done in Falaise etc.* Tempests, P-47s, P-51s

Any of the above would have caused fairly heavy civilian casualties, some amount of casualties among Allied aircraft, and I think any of the above would also have been able to do the (military) job. The actual fire raid killed 20-30,000 people and destroyed the heart of a 700 year old city. B-17 daylight raids might have been 1/3 to 1/4 of that (of course, just a wild guess). Mosquito and fighter-bomber raids might have seen civilian deaths more like in the hundreds rather than the thousands, though Allied aircrew losses would have certainly been higher.

Personally I really like the Mosquito option though they weren't really being used that way at the time. They should have had a lot of them by 1945, I don't know the exact number in squadrons but they had made probably 6 or 7,000 by then. If you had say, 1,000 Mosquitos and 200 A-26s in a raid that could be pretty devastating. The actual firebombing included 750 Mustangs so you didn't need to make any changes to scare up a better escort. Throw in any P-47s and Tempests that had sufficient range (not sure about that part either) and I see it as a bad day for the Germans. Assuming you can find a clear day in February.

I concede that there were actual military targets there, but how much of the brutality of that raid was done to impress / scare the Soviets, how much due to doctrine by people like Harris or the USAAF bomber mafia guys, and how much was due to actual Operational reasons?

* yes I know they didn't get that many tanks with rockets and so on but they did effectively destroy the fighting capacity of that army