|
| |||||||
| Aviation Discussion on the aircraft of WWII. |
| View Poll Results: Which is the best Allied Heavy Bomber? | |||
| Avro lancaster |     | 7 | 21.21% |
| B-24 Liberator |    | 2 | 6.06% |
| B-17 Flying Fortress |    | 3 | 9.09% |
| B-29 Superfortress |    | 21 | 63.64% |
| Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-02-2009, 01:15 PM
| #61 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,427
| Regardless of how the B-29 was classified it should not be penalised simply because that was where the technology had gotten to when it arrived. It served in WWII and with distinction. It could walk away with the title to the thread simply by its bringing of Japan to her knees with two specific raids, both raids added together comprising a mere handful of aircraft; compare this to the thousand bomber raids that swept over Germany and still did not (single-handedly) bring about German surrender. |
|         |
|
11-02-2009, 01:18 PM
| #62 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dordrecht
Posts: 4,044
| Quote:
 For the rest I agree of course that the B29 was the most advanced and capable bomber of the war
__________________  "To attack 36 aircraft on your own was rather much" - Jan Linzel, D.XXI pilot. | |
| |
|
11-02-2009, 01:58 PM
| #63 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,427
| Quote:
how else would the bomb have reached the target? | |
|
| |
|
11-02-2009, 05:27 PM
| #64 | |
| Der Crewchief   Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 34,057
| Quote:
__________________  fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" | |
|
| |
|
11-02-2009, 07:08 PM
| #65 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 779
| Quote:
 B-32. Modified Lockeed Constellation. How long would they have had to plan something else if they knew the B-29 wasn't working? | |
|
| |
|
11-02-2009, 07:36 PM
| #66 |
| IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO  Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,836
| The Connie actually started out as a bomber design.
__________________ > I Support Doug Gillis < |
|
| |
|
11-03-2009, 08:34 AM
| #67 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,476
| Quote:
Now that I didnt know. Funny, I was daydreaming just the other day about how effective the Constellation might be as a lat war bomber.......silly I know....., but
__________________ Do not judge on abilities, but on choices | |
|
| |
|
11-03-2009, 10:24 AM
| #68 | |
| IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,836
| Quote:
__________________ > I Support Doug Gillis < | |
|
| |
|
11-03-2009, 10:47 AM
| #69 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 1,299
 | Quote:
Kris
__________________   | |
|
| |
|
11-03-2009, 10:53 AM
| #70 | |
| Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 34,057
| Quote:
__________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" | |
|
| |
|
11-03-2009, 11:01 AM
| #71 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 779
| Quote:
A problem the US had with ALL the alturnatives to the B-29 was that they all used the same engine, the Wright R-3350. Since the R-3350 caused a good amount of the problems with the B-29, until it was straightened out none of the alturnatives would have done any better. The only other powerplant in contention was the Allison V-3420. | |
|
| |
|
11-03-2009, 01:43 PM
| #72 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dordrecht
Posts: 4,044
| Quote:
__________________ "To attack 36 aircraft on your own was rather much" - Jan Linzel, D.XXI pilot. | |
|
| |
|
11-03-2009, 02:48 PM
| #73 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 192
| The atomic bomb didn't single-handedly bring Japan to its knees. The failed negotiations with the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria had at least as much if not more to do with that. I know people like to think "the bomb won the war period" because that way no one has to feel bad about it anymore but it's not so easy. |
|
| |
|
11-03-2009, 03:13 PM
| #74 | |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 10,805
| Quote:
No matter what the Russians like to say, there was no amphibious capability or doctrine (and training) for them to invade Japan with some measure of success.
__________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
|
| |
|
11-03-2009, 03:23 PM
| #75 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,427
| Quote:
but how do you reconcile failed negotiations for a conditional peace with the ability of your enemies to reduce your cities to ash, in the blink of an eye, from one aircraft as comparable contributors to Japan's surrender? Japan wasn't about to surrender, they were about to inflict colossal casualties on incoming US forces as they tried to take mainland Japan - does that sound like a nation on the brink of collapse owing to flaky conditional peace talks? The most that senior Japanese commanders hoped to get from talks with the Soviets was to buy some time until that ground offensive started, they saw the considerable casualties they could inflict on US forces as the real leverage for conditional peace talks. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, next on the list was Kokura Arsenal and then Niigata - Groves was even preparing more targets for the eventuality that they didn't work; Japan surrendered before there was no Japan left to surrender. | |
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
