The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Henk]

It is Ju-88 guys. If you say Bf-109 and not Me-109 it must thus be Ju-88 and not 88. Only 88 I know is the cannon, 88mm.

I would say the;

B-29, Ju-88 and the B-17.

[syscom3]

What I have been pondering the past several days is what makes up a great medium bomber.

For instance, the -88 was supurb in many roles, yet the A26 and B26 were both fast bombers, tough airframes and could carry a high payload. But that was for medium altitude operations. I wouldnt say either of them would make a good commerce raider or even hope to be a night fighter, so the -88 is superior there.

I also wonder how the -88 could handle the tough low altitude enviornment the B25 strafers had to operate in in the PTO.

Lots of things to pomder.

[delcyros]

Originally Posted by syscom3

the -234...

Its only advantage was its speed.

No, it had several advances over it´s competitors, with the most striking beeing faster:

-superior cockpit layout and -visiblity (according to post war RAF-tests), which eased cockpit operations. A very important point for a tactical bomber
-superior crit. Mach speed (.82)-allowed the plane to disengage in a dive
-very high degree of platform stability
-multirole compatible (with versions flying as recon, bomber, attacker and night fighter)
-all -234C and the post march1945 -234B beeing delivered with Askania computing bombsight (allows bomb dropping solutions for up to 1250 km/h TAS)
-plenty of space & weight reserved for future developments as shown in the four engined -234C and swept back sichel wing -234 V27.

None of them is as striking as pure speed, but Your statement imply that it has noting comparable to other bombers except for speed, and to this I disagree.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Henk

It is Ju-88 guys. If you say Bf-109 and not Me-109 it must thus be Ju-88 and not 88. Only 88 I know is the cannon, 88mm.

Way off topic but the actual name of the 109 was the Bf-109 not the Me-109. After the change from the Bf to the Me, the 109 was the only one that kept the Bf.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

What I have been pondering the past several days is what makes up a great medium bomber.

For instance, the -88 was supurb in many roles, yet the A26 and B26 were both fast bombers, tough airframes and could carry a high payload. But that was for medium altitude operations. I wouldnt say either of them would make a good commerce raider or even hope to be a night fighter, so the -88 is superior there.

I also wonder how the -88 could handle the tough low altitude enviornment the B25 strafers had to operate in in the PTO.

Lots of things to pomder.

I believe the Ju-88 was the best overall medium bomber but I will agree that the A-26 and the B-25 were better suited for the low level strafing and ground attack.

[Henk]

The Ju-88 are regarded as the best medium bomber and all round aircraft of WW2 and I have read it in many books and it proved it also such during the war.

Sorry for being off topic here, but Adler did the Bf-110 not also keep the Bf and not become the Me-110?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I believe you are correct as well. The Bf-110 stayed the Bf-110. The general rule of thumb is this, everything passed the Bf-162 became the Me, hence the Me-163, Me-262.

[Henk]

Yes, correct Adler.

[k9kiwi]

It has to be the Lancaster.

Who else but a genius pom would take a 33 foot long hole and build an airplane around it.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by k9kiwi

It has to be the Lancaster.

Originally Posted by k9kiwi

Who else but a genius pom would take a 33 foot long hole and build an airplane around it.

Robert Oppenheimer Oh wait, he just built the bomb that went in the 33 foot long hole, that being the B-29, the best bomber of WW2!!!