The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

plan_D · 11-15-2007, 05:53 AM

I can't help but see this discussion turning into an argument over heavy bombers taking on the role of tactical bombers.

Marcel has a valid point; to be able to truly discover what was the best you should see which was the best at doing their job - not every other job in the war. Meaning, a tactical bomber could have been better at doing its job than the B-29 was at doing its job - otherwise you're comparing two different aircraft doing two different jobs (just dropping bombs was a strategic bombers job description, not the same for a tactical bomber).

And syscom;

"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."

9th May, 1942 - Operation C-170

6 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

8th June, 1942 - Operation C-191

12 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

27th November, 1942 - Operation (?)

2 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack oil refinery at Maasluis.

Just three operations with 88 squadron operating the Boston Mk.III. It wasn't a case of only heavy bombers attacking them. I'm sure you'll rant and rave about how ineffective these attacks were...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-15-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel

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.

And thats 4 months that it was not putting out maximum production. That helps.

Dont take me wrong I do not want to take away from the medium bombers. I think that they made a major effort to the war in the use of tactical bombing.

eddie_brunette · 11-15-2007, 07:20 AM

Im to scared to post.......there is war in the forum

i would say the best bomber must be the most accurate bomber(no use in using a blind sniper), but I only starting to research my comment and I might be complely wrong.

Civettone · 11-15-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

I can't help but see this discussion turning into an argument over heavy bombers taking on the role of tactical bombers.

Marcel has a valid point; to be able to truly discover what was the best you should see which was the best at doing their job - not every other job in the war. Meaning, a tactical bomber could have been better at doing its job than the B-29 was at doing its job - otherwise you're comparing two different aircraft doing two different jobs (just dropping bombs was a strategic bombers job description, not the same for a tactical bomber).

And syscom;

"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."

9th May, 1942 - Operation C-170

6 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

8th June, 1942 - Operation C-191

12 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

27th November, 1942 - Operation (?)

2 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack oil refinery at Maasluis.

Just three operations with 88 squadron operating the Boston Mk.III. It wasn't a case of only heavy bombers attacking them. I'm sure you'll rant and rave about how ineffective these attacks were...

I think Plan_D sees the big picture here.

The reasoning behind chosing the B-29 seems to be that strategic bombers are considered to be more important that tactical ones as they have a larger impact. And the B-29 was the best strategical bomber.
Sure, we can say that strategic

But I wonder if that's the way you should look at it. Why chose? I believe both tactical and strategical bombers were important. Plan_D already gave the excellent example of the A-20. Same thing goes for the Mosquito or Ju 88 which could do both jobs which cannot be said about the B-29.

And again, the Mosquito, Boston and Ju 88 had been around for years when the B-29 became operational. I think that should also be a factor as else only 1944/1945 aircraft can be regarded as best ... of WW2.

Kris

syscom3 · 11-15-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

And syscom;

"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."

9th May, 1942 - Operation C-170

6 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

8th June, 1942 - Operation C-191

12 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack Bruges oil tanks.

27th November, 1942 - Operation (?)

2 Sqdn. and 88 Sqdn. attack oil refinery at Maasluis.

Just three operations with 88 squadron operating the Boston Mk.III. It wasn't a case of only heavy bombers attacking them. I'm sure you'll rant and rave about how ineffective these attacks were...

Whoop-de-doo.

Limited and small attacks in 1942 of small oil plants.

Now lets talk about the RAF/USAAF raids in 1944 on Leuna, Lutzkendorf, Brux, Magdeburg, Politz, Polesti, Hamburg, blah, blah, blah.

FLYBOYJ · 11-15-2007, 12:38 PM

The thread said best bomber - I think if you want to get specific then break it up into light, medium and heavy. In either case I think if you did that and went for the best over-all bomber the B-29 still takes it.

Marcel · 11-15-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

And thats 4 months that it was not putting out maximum production. That helps.

Dont take me wrong I do not want to take away from the medium bombers. I think that they made a major effort to the war in the use of tactical bombing.

Yes it helps, just like the tactical bombers helps as you say in the next line, exactly my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddie_brunette

Im to scared to post.......there is war in the forum

No worries eddie, no war here, just a quite polite discussion, exactly what a forum is there for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

Marcel has a valid point; to be able to truly discover what was the best you should see which was the best at doing their job - not every other job in the war. Meaning, a tactical bomber could have been better at doing its job than the B-29 was at doing its job - otherwise you're comparing two different aircraft doing two different jobs (just dropping bombs was a strategic bombers job description, not the same for a tactical bomber).

Again, exactly my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The thread said best bomber - I think if you want to get specific then break it up into light, medium and heavy. In either case I think if you did that and went for the best over-all bomber the B-29 still takes it.

Yes, that's exacly what I'm saying. You can't go for the best overal bomber as there is none. It's like saying that a car is the best transportation in the world. It is as long as you don't want to travel 8000 km or just going upstairs for that matter

And again the B29 was probably the most advanced and best plane in that could deliver bombs but was it better in it's job than the B25, mossy, Ju88 their own job job?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes and I already agreed. I think the biggest impact that the heavy bombers made in ETO was destroying the romenian oilfields. It hampered the german war machinery. I never claimed the heavy bombing did not help but to say that heavy bombers alone did alter the course of war is a bit too far. A groundwar was still needed and there tactical bombers did their share. War couldn't be won without the one nor the other. The machines, especially the B29 were very good in their role, but so were some of the medium bombers in theirs. And all nescessary. Midway clearly showed that light divebombers could make as much impact on a war as heavy bombers, that's my point.

plan_D · 11-16-2007, 08:10 AM

Typical sys response there. You're not doing yourself any favours getting all upset because you made a mistake. To avoid it stop blabbing about how only heavy bombers can attack oil plants, because mediums and lights did too.

I only needed to mention three operations of one squadron in one year to show everyone it wasn't a sole heavy bomber affair.

AL Schlageter · 11-16-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel

I think the biggest impact that the heavy bombers made in ETO was destroying the romenian oilfields. It hampered the german war machinery.

The Romanian oilfields were not put out of action til the Soviets captured them in Aug 1944.

The attacks on the synthetic plants payed higher dividends and not just for the fuel part.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (European War)

lancaster mad · 11-16-2007, 02:52 PM

A B-24 is hardly a match for a Lanc as the B-24 needed more crew than the Lanc and that the Lanc could carry a bigger bomb load to Berlin from Britain than the B-24.

syscom3 · 11-16-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancaster mad

A B-24 is hardly a match for a Lanc as the B-24 needed more crew than the Lanc and that the Lanc could carry a bigger bomb load to Berlin from Britain than the B-24.

It was proven in the thread that the Lanc was better than the B24 in placing more bombs on target, as well as having a better bomb load and could carry oversize bombs.

pbfoot · 11-16-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancaster mad

A B-24 is hardly a match for a Lanc as the B-24 needed more crew than the Lanc and that the Lanc could carry a bigger bomb load to Berlin from Britain than the B-24.

And the Lib took bigger bombloads to Rabual Rangoon and numerous other places in the CBI and PTO and the Lib sank more subs then the Lanc and the Lib had the advantage of 2 pilots

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-16-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancaster mad

A B-24 is hardly a match for a Lanc as the B-24 needed more crew than the Lanc and that the Lanc could carry a bigger bomb load to Berlin from Britain than the B-24.

While I agree the Lancaster was an overall better bomber than the B-24, I still find this post amusing. I dont know why. Sorry...

lancaster mad · 11-17-2007, 03:07 AM

Oopps, didn't read the rest of it syscom3!

Aussie1001 · 11-17-2007, 04:36 AM

personally the lancaster hands down (in the role of a heavy anyway) The B17 in my opinion gets nailed because it was a flying fortress and not a bomber.
The B 24 is nice but it has already pointed out why the Lanc was superior.
The B 29 did not see enough service sure it nuked Japan but that is quite differn't to going through germany for over 3 years dropping bombs while getting shot down by aircraft and flak.