The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[syscom3]

It is very interesting that the B-29 became one of the worst machine to fly in just few years later during the Korean Conflict.

It wasnt the worst aircraft to fly in the Korean war. Few were lost.

The Lancaster is my choice if I were asked.

And why is that? The B29 had a longer range, payload, defensive capability, electronics ECM and radar bombing capability and flew faster.

I see the Swordfish was the only aircraft capable of flying from the small MAC ships to provide air covers for the convoys in the Atlantic during 1943-44 period.

The Avenger was far superior to the Swordfish in every catagory, after it became available in late 1942.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ppopsie

I see the B-29 was by far the most advanced bomber aircraft in WW2. To me it is not exciting to compare the B-29 with Japanese airplanes like Ki-61s in terms of aviation technology, but the fighting is.

It is very interesting that the B-29 became one of the worst machine to fly in just few years later during the Korean Conflict.

The B-29 maintained about a 10% combat loss rate from WW2 to Korea. It was far from the worse aircraft of the Korean War.

Originally Posted by ppopsie

The Lancaster is my choice if I were asked. I see the Swordfish was the only aircraft capable of flying from the small MAC ships to provide air covers for the convoys in the Atlantic during 1943-44 period.

The Lancaster was a half a generation behind the B-29 in terms of systems, configuration and capability.

[ppopsie]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The B-29 maintained about a 10% combat loss

Ten percent? One percent combat loss is better make sense to me.

My fault was not mentioning about the source; some veteran's comments in a very beautiful photo book "Korean Air War" by Dorr and Thompson on the pages71,72 and 85 about the bomber was mostly against it.

According to them during the Korean war the B-29s were still with power plant probelms, being obsolecent and heavy, and was difficult to fly. Even an ex-pilot mentioned on the book that he was advised to choose any type of the air force planes but the -29s before he got a wing.

These views were directed toward once the best bomber of the world just a few years back ,and are amazing things to me. Aviation technologies advenced or jumped so rapidly in and around the era.

Many of the remarks in the book are very interesting but are out of the focus on the forum, aren't they?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ppopsie

Ten percent? One percent combat loss is better make sense to me.

For a heavy bomber that populated the 19th and 20th AF during the heaviest bombing of Japan plus its service in Korea against the Mig-15, 10 percent was a great number considering that totaled about 300 B-29s lost in both wars

Originally Posted by ppopsie

My fault was not mentioning about the source; some veteran's comments in a very beautiful photo book "Korean Air War" by Dorr and Thompson on the pages71,72 and 85 about the bomber was mostly against it.

According to them during the Korean war the B-29s were still with power plant probelms, being obsolecent and heavy, and was difficult to fly. Even an ex-pilot mentioned on the book that he was advised to choose any type of the air force planes but the -29s before he got a wing.

These views were directed toward once the best bomber of the world just a few years back ,and are amazing things to me. Aviation technologies advenced or jumped so rapidly in and around the era.

Many of the remarks in the book are very interesting but are out of the focus on the forum, aren't they?

My uncle was a B-29 radio operator. He had no problems with the B-29 but preferred the B-50 (which he also flew in). The only thing that passed up the B-29 was time and technology, but then again the Russians saw through this producing their own bootleg copy...

[ppopsie]

>their own bootleg copy...
Yes. They proved it was useless by themselves.

[plan_D]

The B-29 became obselete in Korea simply because of the advance in turbojet fighters; hardly surprising and pretty obvious.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Neto

you said b 29 ..
b 29 is one of the most recent bomber of ww2 and have incredible tecnoligies advancements,but i don't conform that is the best bomber of ww2 due to his limited number of missions that partecipated.
He don't have sufficient time to prove that is the best bomber of ww2.

Since according to you the B-29 only flew on a limited number of missions I would like you to list every mission that it flew on. Date and target please. I mean if it flew on limited missions you should be able to do that.

Besides that would not decide whether it was the best or not. The fact that it was more advanced and its capabilities make it the best bomber.

Now seriously the B-29 flew its first combat mission on June 5, 1944. There was still over a year left in the war.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ppopsie

>their own bootleg copy...
Yes. They proved it was useless by themselves.

How's that? They used it into the eraly 1960s. The Chinese were still flying it up to a few years ago....


It was useless by the time it entered service with their air force. The only thing it could of been counted on was a one way suicide mission into the US, but the fact remains the Russians still built it and it gave them the technology to build larger multi-engine aircraft, both military and civilian. Without the Tu-4 program, the Soviet Union would of been 10 years behind the west in large multi-engine aircraft production.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Neto

you said b 29 ..
b 29 is one of the most recent bomber of ww2 and have incredible tecnoligies advancements,but i don't conform that is the best bomber of ww2 due to his limited number of missions that partecipated.
He don't have sufficient time to prove that is the best bomber of ww2.

Not sure how you measure best so help me out here.

it was the fastest, highest flying, biggest load carrying, most versatile heavy bomber in production in World War II. Usually that helps define 'best'

It was a day bomber, a night bomber, a high altitude bomber and low altitude bomber, it was a mine layer, weather recon ship.

It burnt out every city in Japan larger than Toledo Spain and suffered very few losses without escort to either flak or fighters. Combined with USN Submarines its mine laying closed off maritime shipping to and from Japan - completely blockading Japan from all external supplies and food.

It was the instrument of final defeat to Japan with the delivery of both atomic boms - perhaps saving the lives of millions of Japanese and 500,000+ American and Soviet lives if an invasion had been necessary.

it was thye primary deterrent to USSR expansion into western Europe post was and the sword hanging over USSR until they attained their own nuclear weapons.

please help me understand why you don't think it was either a.) most important, or b.) the 'best'??

Regards,

Bill

[magnocain]

the b-29 is clearly the best in 95 of 100 catagories. it also has the huge advantage of coming very late in the war with lot of advanced technology.

[Civettone]

I think it's always an easy way to list a heavy bomber as these usually carry a bigger payload over a greater distance with a similar speed. As such a light bomber like the A-20 would never have a chance in a comparison with a B-24. But you can have two, three or four light bombers for one heavy. Same thing goes for certain modern-day aircraft. F-22 versus F-5. F-22 better at everything but at what cost?
The B-29 was the most expensive plane of WW2 and you could probably get half a dozen of B-25s for that. Those combined would not make it the strategic bomber the B-29 was ... but ... the B-29 was not suited as a tactical bomber either. So if you talk about the best bomber, be sure to compare tactical vs strategical bombers.

For those two reasons alone, I feel the best bomber would have to be a medium bomber which was capable of both strategic as tactical bombings. And medium bombers aren't too expensive. So ... B-26, Mosquito, Tu-2, Ju 88, ...


A second issue is that late WW2 aircraft are generally better than early WW2 aircraft. A list of best WW2 aircraft would only list those which were operational at the end. If these were already operational in the beginning, they would be mentioned, but if not, there would be little chance of them getting in the list. As such, talking about the best ... of WW2 does not really mean they were the best of WW2. It means, "which was the best at the end of WW2?"

Kris

[FLYBOYJ]

Based on the tactics of the day, equipment carried and the operational results, to pick a "best" bomber of WW2 it would have to be a heavy and with that falls back to the B-29. Even though you point out you could have several medium bombers for the cost of one heavy, all those heavies take away the need for the tactical requirement (in many cases) if you could shower your enemy with 500 pound bombs. I'm sorry Kris, no matter how you slice it as far as a dedicated bomber, be it light, medium or heavy, the B-29 still takes it.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Based on the tactics of the day, equipment carried and the operational results, to pick a "best" bomber of WW2 it would have to be a heavy and with that falls back to the B-29. Even though you point out you could have several medium bombers for the cost of one heavy, all those heavies take away the need for the tactical requirement (in many cases) if you could shower your enemy with 500 pound bombs. I'm sorry Kris, no matter how you slice it as far as a dedicated bomber, be it light, medium or heavy, the B-29 still takes it.

Not sure if I understand, Joe. You're saying that strategic bombing took away the need for tactical bombing? But if that's true, why wasn't just strategic bombing of Germany sufficient to get the germans on their knees? With all the bombing a massive land-war was still needed to beat them and they needed close airsupport with that to succeed. You cannot do that with a heavy bomber like the B29 but need a medium- or fighterbomber to do the job. Even in the pacific war, B29's alone were not sufficient to beat the Japanese. Tactical bombers (particulary divebombers) took care of the military defeat of Japan. The strategic bombing was neccesairy to confince the Japanese government in the end that all was lost. So were the divebombers less important then the B29 in beating Japan? One couldn't be done without the other.
I agree with you on B29 of technically being one of the most advanced bombers of WWII and being one of the most effective.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Not sure if I understand, Joe. You're saying that strategic bombing took away the need for tactical bombing? But if that's true, why wasn't just strategic bombing of Germany sufficient to get the germans on their knees? With all the bombing a massive land-war was still needed to beat them and they needed close airsupport with that to succeed.

That's because there was support needed for a moving army and that's where a tactical air force is needed and with the technology available of that day is why we seen the need for the medium bomber.

Originally Posted by Marcel

You cannot do that with a heavy bomber like the B29 but need a medium- or fighterbomber to do the job. Even in the pacific war, B29's alone were not sufficient to beat the Japanese. Tactical bombers (particulary divebombers) took care of the military defeat of Japan. The strategic bombing was neccesairy to confince the Japanese government in the end that all was lost. So were the divebombers less important then the B29 in beating Japan? One couldn't be done without the other.

To a point - in later years when we seen the "medium bomber" disappear, carpet bombing was the flavor of the day and that's where you seen heavies used in a tactical capacity. If the "medium bomber" was a viable concept that would of been able to evolve, you would of seen it happen, instead the "medium bomber" in the tactical sense just about disappeared after WW2 as single engine fighter bombers were able to do the same job. The same thing happened to "night fighters" as the normal fighter attained all-weather capability.

Originally Posted by Marcel

I agree with you on B29 of technically being one of the most advanced bombers of WWII and being one of the most effective.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

That's because there was support needed for a moving army and that's where a tactical air force is needed and with the technology available of that day is why we seen the need for the medium bomber.

To a point - in later years when we seen the "medium bomber" disappear, carpet bombing was the flavor of the day and that's where you seen heavies used in a tactical capacity. If the "medium bomber" was a viable concept that would of been able to evolve, you would of seen it happen, instead the "medium bomber" in the tactical sense just about disappeared after WW2 as single engine fighter bombers were able to do the same job. The same thing happened to "night fighters" as the normal fighter attained all-weather capability.

Total agreement

Joe - it occurs that most of the combatants built nice medium and light bombers, single engine and twin - but only the Brits and US built the weapon platforms capable (and operational) of daylight and night time strategic bombing. The Ar 234 would have a great case for being the best of that batch.

Only the US and Japan put escort fighters at the point of the spear to enable successful daylight raids.

If necessary the B-29 could have performed Tactical missions from UK, it was fast enogh to perform the medium and light attack role at low level - but the reverse was not true.. so the list for consideration as Best narrowed quickly to B-29, Lanc, B-32, B-17 and B-24.. the He 177 and He 277 are contenders but hard to talk about potential when it just didn't execute in that role.