The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In agreement with Joe as well. You also have to see what is doing more damage to the enemy. A few medium bombers or streams of Heavy Bombers night and day?

Of all Bombers it was the Heavies that won the war.

[Marcel]

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.

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

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.

I see your point and can agree to some point. One objection, tho. As you said, after WWII stronger engines (particular jet engines) rendered the medium bombers absolete as it enabled smaller aircraft to carry as much load and taking over the role. But we're talking about WWII and in WWII, medium bombers were still a valid concept. They did the job and some of them were maybe as advanced as the B29.
As I said, I agree with you on the B29 being one of the best planes in WWII. But it's difficult to say it was better than one of the medium bombers as the roles they were used were much different. I don't think the B29 could have done the same job as for instance the A26 or the other way around.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Marcel

I see your point and can agree to some point. One objection, tho. As you said, after WWII stronger engines (particular jet engines) rendered the medium bombers absolete as it enabled smaller aircraft to carry as much load and taking over the role. But we're talking about WWII and in WWII, medium bombers were still a valid concept. They did the job and some of them were maybe as advanced as the B29.
As I said, I agree with you on the B29 being one of the best planes in WWII. But it's difficult to say it was better than one of the medium bombers as the roles they were used were much different. I don't think the B29 could have done the same job as for instance the A26 or the other way around.

But can medium bombers arry 10,000 pound payloads 1600 miles from base?

Or can medium bombers carry oversize payloads like what the Lanc carried?

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

In agreement with Joe as well. You also have to see what is doing more damage to the enemy. A few medium bombers or streams of Heavy Bombers night and day?

Of all Bombers it was the Heavies that won the war.

Not wanting to disagree with you, but a lot of people are still not sure about the value of the strategic bombing on Germany (or on London). In Japan it proved it's worth, but only after Japan almost had been militairy defeated. IMHO only a few of those missions really did matter, the bombing of the Romenian oilfields is the first one that comes to my mind at this time.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Marcel

But we're talking about WWII and in WWII, medium bombers were still a valid concept. They did the job and some of them were maybe as advanced as the B29.

The closest one might be the Douglas B-26 or Arado 234. In either case if given a choice of 20 medium bombers vs. 10 heavies, I think the heavies would win out

Originally Posted by Marcel

As I said, I agree with you on the B29 being one of the best planes in WWII. But it's difficult to say it was better than one of the medium bombers as the roles they were used were much different. I don't think the B29 could have done the same job as for instance the A26 or the other way around.

No but look at the impact of the aircraft along with it's systems and capabilities. I think the world would still be the same if the A26 never entered service, i don't think we could say the same about the B-29.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

No but look at the impact of the aircraft along with it's systems and capabilities. I think the world would still be the same if the A26 never entered service, i don't think we could say the same about the B-29.

On this I fully agree.
But (of course wanting to have the last word ) what would the world have been without those divebombers at Midway?

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by syscom3

But can medium bombers arry 10,000 pound payloads 1600 miles from base?

Or can medium bombers carry oversize payloads like what the Lanc carried?

Could heavy bombers have sunken all those carriers at midway? I think they tried..

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Marcel

On this I fully agree.
But (of course wanting to have the last word ) what would the world have been without those divebombers at Midway?

True, but do we consider an SBD a medium bomber in the sense of the tactical application seen in Europe? I don't think so. In terms of a twin engine aircraft, yes....

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

True, but do we consider an SBD a medium bomber in the sense of the tactical application seen in Europe? I don't think so. In terms of a twin engine aircraft, yes....

No, but it is a bomber, right?
Sorry Joe, I was probably not clear on the point I was making. What I was trying to say is not that one of the medium bombers should be chosen as one of the best bombers. I'm not even diagreeing with you on your statement that the B29 should be considered as the best Bomberaircraft of WWII. What I'm saying is comparing a B26 to a B29 is like comparing apples to pears. IMO you cannot say that the B29 or any else was the best overal bomber. If you would say: "the B29 was the best heavy bomber" I would fully agree.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Not wanting to disagree with you, but a lot of people are still not sure about the value of the strategic bombing on Germany (or on London). In Japan it proved it's worth, but only after Japan almost had been militairy defeated. IMHO only a few of those missions really did matter, the bombing of the Romenian oilfields is the first one that comes to my mind at this time.

The Heavy Bombing of Germany did several things. It effected the Industry and it demoralized the German people.

Thats a pretty big impact in my opinion.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The Heavy Bombing of Germany did several things. It effected the Industry and it demoralized the German people.

Thats a pretty big impact in my opinion.

Don't know about the demoralisation effect of the bombing. I heard that usually people got more hatred towarth their enemy an became more resolved to fight on because of this bombing. But I'm no way an expert on that

About the impact on industry:

At Regensburg, the Messerschmitt factory was so devastated that it was first decided not to resurect it, but start up afresh on another site. Then it was discovered that the vital machine tools had suffered less than had been feared. Four months later the works had fully regained their former output. As for Messerschmitt, Augsburg, it resumed production om March 9th-i.e. only two weeks after the "double blow"

From The luftwaffe War diaries about "Big Week"
So aparently the industry did suffer some but not really that desicive. In fact, despide a massive bombing on aircraft factories by the US, the overal output of planes in Germany rised to recordhights. I speculate that other industry were also less hindered by the bombing than should be expected.

[syscom3]

The USSBS analysis of the strategic bombing showed that the destruction of the German oil industry was the single biggest contributor to the defeat of the German military and industrial capabilities.

Only Lancs, B17's and B24's could attack the refineries. Medium bombers cant.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by Marcel

So aparently the industry did suffer some but not really that desicive. In fact, despide a massive bombing on aircraft factories by the US, the overal output of planes in Germany rised to recordhights. I speculate that other industry were also less hindered by the bombing than should be expected.

The direct annihilation of some factories is certainly a factor used to determine success. But I believe the effect of destroying the Luftwaffe's fighters and the bleeding of massive amounts of Germans resources had the greatest effect.

Yes, the amount of destroyed targets could have been better.

Why weren't they? Because the nazi's did a pretty good job at defense and recovery. Take away strategic bombing and all those resources used to repel the bombers would have resulted in money spent else where.

If they weren't building exotic interceptors and building and manning flak installations, they woulda built more submarines, more tanks , more fighters (less interceptors).

The strategic bombing offensive kept them off balance and allowed us to dictate the terms of battle. Also, it took some heat off the Russians until we could land troops

,

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by comiso90

The direct annihilation of some factories is certainly a factor used to determine success. But I believe the effect of destroying the Luftwaffe's fighters and the bleeding of massive amounts of Germans resources had the greatest effect.

Yes, the amount of destroyed targets could have been better.

Why weren't they? Because the nazi's did a pretty good job at defense and recovery. Take away strategic bombing and all those resources used to repel the bombers would have resulted in money spent else where.

If they weren't building exotic interceptors and building and manning flak installations, they woulda built more submarines, more tanks , more fighters (less interceptors).

The strategic bombing offensive kept them off balance and allowed us to dictate the terms of battle. Also, it took some heat off the Russians until we could land troops

,

Agreed and I don't want to claim that strategic bombing didn't have any value. More that other bombers had value of their own and were equally important. Syscom is right claiming the bombing of the oilfields was a major contributor to the defeat of Germany. But you just don't defeat a country by strategic bombing. You'll need to defeat them military. While strategic bombing helps, you'll also need a tactical airforce consisting of fighter bombers, medium bombers, dive bombers etc. And they can be as decisive as well, as the Midway showed. No heavy bomber could do that. In fact B17's joined the battle, making no impact at all. Without that, the B29 woud not have been able to bomb Japan like that.

[syscom3]

Marcel, the attacks on the German petro industry was extremely damaging to their economy. The fact the LW commited so many resources to protect it is an indixation how sensitive they viewed the matter.

Only the heavy bombers could attack them.