The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[renrich]

The lowlevel B29 missions were also a function of poor bombing accuracy from high altitude because of the jet stream.

[bomber]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

No - the 262 had little or no impact on the war, can't say the same about the B-29....

If we take away the 2 nukes... what was the comparable impact between the B29 and B24 on the war ?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by bomber

If we take away the 2 nukes... what was the comparable impact between the B29 and B24 on the war ?

The B-29 buried mainland Japan, especially the firebombings in April 1945 which killed more people than the atominc bombings. It was also used to mine the entire Japanese coastline as well.

The B-24 in the Pacific was a good reliable heavy bomber that was used to hit targets that were soon to be invaded. No way did it have the range and bomb load to do what the B-29 did.

[syscom3]

A lesser known mission that the B29's had were the mining of the inland seas.

Two mines were carried by each B29.

This shut down the last of the merchant ship operations between the Japanese cities. If anything, the Japanese were not only having their cities burned to the ground, but now were on the verge of famine since food stocks could not be distributed with any efficiency

[FLYBOYJ]

This is from the USAF Historical Research Agency. Look at the jump in dropped bomb tonnage in 1944, about the time the B-29 came on scene. Compare it to Mid 1945 and I think the B-29s impact is more than apparent.

[drgondog]

Joe - well put. Another thought regarding the B-29 is that the case could be made that the Japanese were very close to capitulating before the Atomic bomb was dropped.. in retorspect I think the shock of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the political leverage necessary to push them over but we will never know.

As pointed out, it also made a huge contribution to choking Japanese freighters on the coast via the mine dropping campaign.

It was the best Weather Recon beast in the war.

The B-29 basically burned out Japan, destroying all of the cottage industries the Japanese located within their cities - burning to the ground every city the size of Nashville and up. LeMay ran out of targets and the B-29 became the closest approximation for airpower actually winning a war. We know that far too many keys to the war including Naval Airpower, Subs and Marine/Army blood was shed to make that statement 'true' but still close.

The Lancaster, the B-17 and the B-24 were each crucial to advancing airpower in Europe (ditto B-24 in Pacific) and individually Important - but individually neither the Most Important or the Best. The Me262 is not even close in this discussion.

[eodmatt]

Good morning all!

I happened upon this forum accidentally whilst doing some research on bombing accuracy and found it fascinating, so joined up. A reason I found this site was that a Google search revealed that a member of this site, called Krazy Kanuk, posted a link to a table or chart some time ago, which apparently gave bombing accuracy figures for either the Vietnam war or WW2. Regrettably that link doesn't lead anywhere now and I wondered if any of the members could give me any references to, or data regarding, bombing accuracy during those periods. If anyone could, I would be most grateful and it would assist my research considerably. Thanks in advance, Matt.

[planeman45]

Hello, I really like this forum, my friend Bobby has told me about a few websites and I want to say , I did not know a place with hobbyists alike existed out there.

I think of the Mustang as the best fighter of WWII, just as the car is...but this account of a pilot who flew both the Jug and the Mustang was quite interesting.

P-47 THUNDERBOLT

Below i've put a summary of his 12 points

Air-cooled radial engine was more reliable and could take hits and keep on running, even with inoperable cylinders.

The Jug's air-cooled engine did not have the Achilles' heel that the Mustang did.

The P-47's big turbocharger enabled it to fly to 40 000 feet

The Jug could outdive the Mustang.

The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six.

Later Jug's could carry 2,500 lbs of bombs.

The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction.

The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom, so it handled ditchings and gear up landings much better.

The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit.

The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection.

The Jug had a very wide landing gear

The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is remarkable. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and 160,000 vehicles.

Although Mustang seems to be defeated in all these categories, I think the fascination with the classic aircraft to this day has something to do with its aesthetic appeal.

[renrich]

Some good points on the P47 but the Jug never had the range of the Mustang and could not get into the fight far into Germany. The F4U had many of the attributes of the Jug and could operate off of carriers so how about it for the best WW2 fighter?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by planeman45

Hello, I really like this forum, my friend Bobby has told me about a few websites and I want to say , I did not know a place with hobbyists alike existed out there.

I think of the Mustang as the best fighter of WWII, just as the car is...but this account of a pilot who flew both the Jug and the Mustang was quite interesting.

P-47 THUNDERBOLT

Below i've put a summary of his 12 points

Air-cooled radial engine was more reliable and could take hits and keep on running, even with inoperable cylinders.

The Jug's air-cooled engine did not have the Achilles' heel that the Mustang did.

The P-47's big turbocharger enabled it to fly to 40 000 feet

The Jug could outdive the Mustang.

The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six.

Later Jug's could carry 2,500 lbs of bombs.

The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction.

The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom, so it handled ditchings and gear up landings much better.

The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit.

The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection.

The Jug had a very wide landing gear

The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is remarkable. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and 160,000 vehicles.

Although Mustang seems to be defeated in all these categories, I think the fascination with the classic aircraft to this day has something to do with its aesthetic appeal.

And what does this have to do with the Best Bomber of WW2?!?!?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

[johnbr]

I wonder how the B29 would have done with Wright R-3350 turbo compound engines.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by johnbr

I wonder how the B29 would have done with Wright R-3350 turbo compound engines.

The B29 was eventually reequipped with R4360's and was known as the B50.

Better engine and better plane.

[16KJV11]

Wot, no kudos for the Short Stirling? By jove, how cheeky.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Another thought regarding the B-29 is that the case could be made that the Japanese were very close to capitulating before the Atomic bomb was dropped.. i

I'm not so sure about that. Why do you think that? Their Army, Navy and Royal court were all in disarray. Capitulation... NO!

A conditional surrender... yes. There is a BIG difference.

Operation Coronet? Operation Olympia? I believe the A Bombs prevented the fore mentioned operations from becoming reality. Capitulation was not a realistic option...

.