I agree with Gnomey that it was hands down the B-29. The problem is that the B-29 was simply too expensive for use in Germany because of the deadly AA and the Luftwaffe. It would have faired much better in similar numbers but would have been a monumental waste of dollars to have used. The reason it was designed and used in the Pacific was strictly because of its superior range. A B-17 could not have been used in the Pacific early on because of its limited range. I would have liked to see it up against the fighters though. I would be curious to see how much better the radar guided defense weaponry would have handled the German defense fighters. Japan shot down very few B-29s but then again, its a bit lacking to compare the Japanese air defense to the Luftwaffe.
I agree with Gnomey that it was hands down the B-29. The problem is that the B-29 was simply too expensive for use in Germany because of the deadly AA and the Luftwaffe. its record in Korea was not all that good
Originally posted by morse1001@Aug 25 2005, 10:16 PM The Norden bombsight was never as effective as popular myth would have us believe, but I think those early raids weren't representative of its true accuracy potential either. The first American to drop bombs on Europe was the Sperry tech who was attached to the RAF. When faced with the complaints of the RAF Bomb Aimers, he said that he could do better. 90 Sqn put him to the test and allowed him to use the sight during an actual raid; the post op photos showed that he had missed the target by three miles! [post=38138]Quoted post[/post] Just to add, I remember seeing a documentary on Discovery Wings about the B17. When interviewed, an veteran 8th AF Bombardier stated the old "Drop Bombs in a Pickle Barrel" line. But then admitted that this obviously wasn't true, and that in fact the "Mighty 8th" would regard that a bomb that hit within a 300 yard radius was classed as a "DIRECT HIT" Just for the record my top three favourite(s), in order are... Lancaster BIII, (Bomb load, Looks, Noise) B17G, (Ruggedness, Looks, Mass formations) Mosquito BIV, (Looks, Speed, Low Level raids) It's nice to see a couple of people have mentioned the B24 Liberator, built in FAR greater numbers than the B17, and IMO a VASTLY UNDERATED aircraft. Just my 2 penneth.
I'd be interested in a clear assessment of why the Lanc was preferred to the Halifax. There were only small differences in the Lanc's favour in bombload, speed or ceiling, and IIRC the Halifax had a greater resistance to battle damage and a significantly higher crew survival rate if shot down. As a subjective judgement, I have the impression they were a more dangerous proposition for night fighters too. Regards, MikB
MikB I'd be interested in a clear assessment of why the Lanc was preferred to the Halifax. I'm not sure about the issues of survivability that you mention, but the Halifax got off to a poor start. The early versions had a nasty tendency to go into a fatal spin while turning, especially with a tired crew returning from a mission. Also the performance was disappointing. The Mark 11A had enlarged fins which cured the spin problem, and had the streamlined nose which improved performance due to better aerodynamics and due to the reduced weight from omitting the nose turret (though this compromised the frontal defense). The later versions were good but by then the Lancaster was already a legend. Although the bomb load was good, the difference compared with the Lanc meant it was not a candidate for the special weapons - Upkeep, Tallboy etc. Finally, Harris preferred the Lancaster which rather settled the matter. Adrian
Finally, Harris preferred the Lancaster which rather settled the matter. Harris felt that the Lanc was a more efficent bomber, that is why he decided to focus on that type.
Okay, I've been considering all of this, and I've come up with three bombers that fit the bill for everything. And the best of all is that they're all British! While the Yank bombers always looked good, I don't think they had that certain something needed for the air war. So first ang foremost is the Lanc. Fast, agile and capable of anything asked of her. Can you see a Flying Fortress attempting the Dams Raid? No, didn't think so. Second the Wimpie. She flew through eveyrthing, and nine times out of ten brought her crews home, even if half a wing was missing. Again down to the genius of one Barnes Wallis and his geodetic airframe. And finally for sheer cockiness and adaptibility there's the Mossy. Everything from bomber, fighter, PRU, the lot. Personally I'd say just put their names in a hat and draw one out. Because you ain't going to pick a winner. Sorry boys. But there we have it.
Originally posted by spidge@Aug 28 2005, 01:43 PM Second the Wimpie. Love where they got the name whimpy from. [post=38270]Quoted post[/post] The character from the Popeye cartoons
Originally posted by mosquito617@Aug 28 2005, 05:58 AM And finally for sheer cockiness and adaptibility there's the Mossy. [post=38266]Quoted post[/post] I've heard that the spruce plywood on the Mosquito( from the B.C. coast here AFAIK) was so resilient that bullets often just bounced off. Has anyone else heard this?
Originally posted by Dac@Aug 28 2005, 08:27 PM I've heard that the spruce plywood on the Mosquito( from the B.C. coast here AFAIK) was so resilient that bullets often just bounced off. Has anyone else heard this? [post=38280]Quoted post[/post] Not heard that story. It takes nearly 1/2" of steel to stop a rifle-calibre military bullet square-on at short range, though. Bullet'll bounce off almost anything if it hits at a shallow enough angle and far along its trajectory. 20mm cannon shells with about 0.7 oz. of RDX and a tracer pellet at a couple of thousand ft./sec. would've been the more usual problem for the Mossie. Regards, MikB
Originally posted by MikB+Aug 28 2005, 03:26 PM-->(MikB @ Aug 28 2005, 03:26 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dac@Aug 28 2005, 08:27 PM I've heard that the spruce plywood on the Mosquito( from the B.C. coast here AFAIK) was so resilient that bullets often just bounced off. Has anyone else heard this? [post=38280]Quoted post[/post] Not heard that story. It takes nearly 1/2" of steel to stop a rifle-calibre military bullet square-on at short range, though. Bullet'll bounce off almost anything if it hits at a shallow enough angle and far along its trajectory. 20mm cannon shells with about 0.7 oz. of RDX and a tracer pellet at a couple of thousand ft./sec. would've been the more usual problem for the Mossie. Regards, MikB [post=38291]Quoted post[/post] [/b]My father and his friends worked in the forest industry in B.C. and may have just been boasting about the quality of their product. I do know that wood used in the Mosquito(Sitka Spruce) was unique in its' dense, uniform grain giving it great strength.
Originally posted by jimbotosome@Aug 27 2005, 04:16 AM I agree with Gnomey that it was hands down the B-29. The problem is that the B-29 was simply too expensive for use in Germany because of the deadly AA and the Luftwaffe. It would have faired much better in similar numbers but would have been a monumental waste of dollars to have used. The reason it was designed and used in the Pacific was strictly because of its superior range. A B-17 could not have been used in the Pacific early on because of its limited range. I would have liked to see it up against the fighters though. I would be curious to see how much better the radar guided defense weaponry would have handled the German defense fighters. Japan shot down very few B-29s but then again, its a bit lacking to compare the Japanese air defense to the Luftwaffe. [post=38205]Quoted post[/post] The B29 did not come into effective squadron service until November 1944 when the Japanese mainland became increasingly the target of firestorm raids using the B29.The B29 was simply too late for the European theatre of war and its priority was,given its specification was directed to the elimination of the Japanese war manufacturing capability,a role it excelled in from bases in China and the Pacific islands.The B29 went on the drawing board with one intention and that was the destruction of the Japanese homeland war industry.Quite clearly the winner in the Pacific War would be the B29 but "beggars cannot be chosers" and the Americans had to carry the war to the Japanese from the outbreak of the war with the best aircraft they had available at the time.Once the Americans recognised the long range aircraft specification they required to destroy the Japanese war economy and set up the production techniques geared to a war economy,it was obvious that the American aircraft industry would overwhelm that of the Japanese in terms of quality and quantity. Regarding Europe, from 1943 the RAF and USAF had increasingly sufficient four engined bombers of sufficient performance and with a capability for loss replacements to conduct round the clock bombing of German war industry.From the start of the war the RAF had inferior bombers such as the Whitley,Hampden and Wellington which returned inadequate performances against German targets. But again the strike against the enemy had to be undertaken with whatever aircraft the RAF possessed.Had Hitler's war outbreak been 2 years earlier then the HP Heyford might have seen operational service,an aircraft which appeared to owe much to the design of Great War aircraft rather than an advance in aircraft technolgy. As has already been stated the B29 was really a generation apart from the other World War 2 bombers.Its development extended to the B50 which was sufficient to keep the Russians at bay in the early cold war until the likes of the jet engined B 47 was developed and entered service with the SAC. The B29 as the Washington was also used as a stop gap bomber by RAF Bomber Command between 1950 and 1953 to cover the period when the RAF was awaiting the entry of the jet engined Canberra into squadron service in sufficient numbers.Had it not been for the B29,the RAF would have had to depend on the Lincoln (in reality an enhanced Lancaster) for atomic bomb delivery to the Soviet Union.Quite clearly it would have been a one way trip.
Of course by bomber you have to qualify it. If you are using the Mosquito, then you are not talking long range strategic bombing and that’s what the American "heavies" where used for. They were not meant for tactical bombing like the Mosquito. The Mosquito was just that, a tactical bomber. Its weakness was its payload and its lack of defense. This limited how it could be used. It only carried 500 more pounds than the P-47s which were often the plane of choice for tactical strike missions because they didn't have to run home after bombing, but could stay and shoot down the fighters sent to intercept them and only took one crew member. Of the RAF tactical bombers and fighter/bombers, the Tempest V was the most impressive to me. It was one sweet machine. Faster than a Spit, it was as fast as the even the vaunted P-47N, but unfortunately was liquid cooled which has an inherent liability to small arms fire. The P-38 could carry twice the bomb load of the Mosquito and could also engage fighters with a great deal of success. It was a little slower than the Mosquito and the P47s. Asking questions like, “the best of” are like asking whose wife or girlfriend is the prettiest or whose soccer team is the most exciting, you will hardly get objectivity. The best bomber is subjective and had to do more with how you needed to use it at the time, what are the specific parameters of the mission. Do you speed, do you need payload, do you need accuracy, do you need range, do you need it take a beating, is it daylight or night, what are the weather conditions, etc as well as what combinations and weights of these properties do you need at any give time. But, if you asked the German soldier on the ground his opinion of the best bomber, he wouldn’t care about the model number on the id plate near as much as the fact he is seeing those bulls-eyes or star-and-bars insignias under the wing. To him, that was the most important characteristic, because it meant that something very important to his cause was about to go “boom”. The British and American planes were advantaged in that they were the best of each other’s aviation design technology shared by both nations. This is why changes in models of planes were usually more than incremental. Two heads are better than one.
Most of these "best of" questions come down to personal preference by instances of early chidhood recognition or if actually in the theatre of battle, the success or failure of that machinery to do the job effectively. In the case of bombers there were quality aircraft and middle of the road work horses which were sent into different environments every time they flew. Some worked effectively throughout the war and some innovations later on proved others to be superior for that requirement due to hindsight. The innovations that came out of necessity from WW2 were nothing less than amazing and came down to progress. I am not attempting to simplify the question however in many things you work with what you have and try to get the job done. You may be assisted further by the better commanders, crews, intelligence, mechanics, targets etc. It may or may not have been "Horses for Courses" however brave crews were needed to fly and die in all of them. "Lest we Forget"
To me it come's down to the B-24 and the Lancaster. I ended up going with the B-24 as it had greater range, speed, and defensive armament (to the best of my recollection, feel free to correct me) than the Lanc. Though it had a slightly lighter bombload. It was also the most successful maritime bomber of the war, being responsible for the sinking of more U-boats than any other plane. I think the poor B-17 needs a bit more credit. It had a relatively light payload but i couldn't find a bomber that i would rather raid Schweinfurt in the daylight with.
(redcoat @ Aug 27 2005, 02:01 AM) [post=38200]Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 24 2005, 09:26 PM So, why on earth weren't waves of Mosquitos used instead of B.17s that - at least in the early days - were shot down in droves? Because if the Mosquito had been used in mass on daylight raids, its casualty rate would have most likely been far higher than the B-17s. Why? One of the myths of the Mosquito is that it is often claimed that it was faster than the luftwaffe fighters... This is not true, it was almost as fast, but if the luftwaffe fighters got in a favourable position to intercept, it couldn't outrun them. The secret of the Mossies success in daylight raids was that it was used in small numbers, with lots re-routing on its way to the target, so it was highly difficult for the luftwaffe ground controllers to position their fighters in a favourable position to intercept. However if they were used en-mass the ground controllers would not have this problem as it would be very difficult to confuse them with a formation of this size, and once the German fighters did intercept the unarmed mosquitos, losses would be high. [/b]
