 | The Best Bomber of WWII: #4| Aviation Discuss The Best Bomber of WWII: #4 in the World War II - Aviation forums; Originally Posted by Old Wizard
Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the ... |
|
04-03-2008, 08:14 AM
|
#391 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,538
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Wizard  Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the Mosquito is hard to beat. | How about a B-29 with one a bomb?
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | 
|  | |
04-03-2008, 10:25 AM
|
#392 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,876
| How about lugging 6000 pounds of bombs 1000 miles from target?
Are you sure your mossie can do that?
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | 
| | |
04-03-2008, 12:02 PM
|
#393 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 28,615
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Hawk FOr the best Bomber/fighter bomber you can't go past the DH98 Mosquito!!! | Well condidering the thread is about the best bomber, no I dont agree with you. Mossie is a great plane but there are plenty of bombers that are better.
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
04-03-2008, 03:39 PM
|
#394 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dordrecht
Posts: 1,813
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by syscom3 I think the B17, B24, B29 and Lancaster is better than the Mossie. For the long range bombing role. | Depends on what you want to bomb on a long range. The mossie had the range in the same category, but not the same bomb load as those 4. But for city bombing, I guess the B29 beats them all.
__________________ 
"I'm no hero. Soldiers on the ground, they are heroes. In an aircraft you can always evade the bullets."
-Jan Linzel, Dutch fighter pilot | |
| | |
04-03-2008, 04:13 PM
|
#395 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,876
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel Depends on what you want to bomb on a long range. The mossie had the range in the same category, but not the same bomb load as those 4. But for city bombing, I guess the B29 beats them all. | The B17, B24, B29 and Lanc beats the Mossie for range and payload.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
04-04-2008, 02:22 PM
|
#396 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dordrecht
Posts: 1,813
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by syscom3 The B17, B24, B29 and Lanc beats the Mossie for range and payload. | Right, but does that make them the best bomber? The Mossie had a different role, another kind of bombing and it did it brilliantly, a role that could not be performed by the Lanc, B17, B24 or B29. So why are the latter better? They were better in their own role, but as I pointed out in this thread some months earlier, you cannot speak of a "best bomber" as it's like comparing apples to pears when you try to compare a B29 to a mossie.
__________________
"I'm no hero. Soldiers on the ground, they are heroes. In an aircraft you can always evade the bullets."
-Jan Linzel, Dutch fighter pilot | |
| | |
04-04-2008, 03:13 PM
|
#397 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,876
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel Right, but does that make them the best bomber? The Mossie had a different role, another kind of bombing and it did it brilliantly, a role that could not be performed by the Lanc, B17, B24 or B29. So why are the latter better? They were better in their own role, but as I pointed out in this thread some months earlier, you cannot speak of a "best bomber" as it's like comparing apples to pears when you try to compare a B29 to a mossie. | Start a thread on 2 engined bombers, then we can rank it.
The Mossie was good in its role, but wasnt a world beater like the other four planes.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
04-04-2008, 03:36 PM
|
#398 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,538
Country: | The Mossie was a great aircraft - a battle winner. The heavies, especially the B-29 were campaign and war winners.
And again, looking at the technical aspects of the B-29 when compared to other WW2 heavies, it was in a class by itself.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
04-04-2008, 05:51 PM
|
#399 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dordrecht
Posts: 1,813
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by syscom3 Start a thread on 2 engined bombers, then we can rank it. |  Already done, last time we debated this in this thread, Adler started the "Top medium bomber" thread. Quote:
Originally Posted by syscom3 The Mossie was good in its role, but wasnt a world beater like the other four planes. | Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ The Mossie was a great aircraft - a battle winner. The heavies, especially the B-29 were campaign and war winners. | Don't agree. The only time strategic bombing with a 4 engine was really decisive on its own during WW2 was Hiroshima, which was not as much a feat of the bomber as of the bomb itself. For the rest, they just played their part, just like all the other a/c during the war. I agree, the mossie couldn't have flown the same missions as these 4 heavies, but neither could they have flown the mossie missions. I firmly believe that the role of strategic bombing is fairly overestimated. It was a factor in winning the war, but only amongst others. Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ And again, looking at the technical aspects of the B-29 when compared to other WW2 heavies, it was in a class by itself. | That I agree with, although at the end of the war, also some advanced medium bombers were emerging.
__________________
"I'm no hero. Soldiers on the ground, they are heroes. In an aircraft you can always evade the bullets."
-Jan Linzel, Dutch fighter pilot | |
| | |
04-04-2008, 06:36 PM
|
#400 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 4
Country: | OK, I am late to the discussion. Why is the B-29 omitted? The Russians sure liked it. | |
| | |
04-04-2008, 07:29 PM
|
#401 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: NIAGARA
Posts: 4,072
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmith996 OK, I am late to the discussion. Why is the B-29 omitted? The Russians sure liked it. | It 's mentioned in the thread a great deal
__________________  | |
| | |
04-04-2008, 09:11 PM
|
#402 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,199
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel
Don't agree. The only time strategic bombing with a 4 engine was really decisive on its own during WW2 was Hiroshima. I firmly believe that the role of strategic bombing is fairly overestimated.
| Marcel,
I am asking respectfully, please explain these two lines better and explain your point more. I am interested in hearing your explanation.
__________________ 
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
04-04-2008, 09:56 PM
|
#403 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 1,673
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel The only time strategic bombing with a 4 engine was really decisive on its own during WW2 was Hiroshima | Don't forget Nagasaki. And that four engine bomber saved millions of lives. And if the fortunes of war were different the B-29 would have eventually been flying over Germany. Remember, the Atomic bomb was designed with Hitler in mind. Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcel which was not as much a feat of the bomber as of the bomb itself. | But it was the only bomber that could deliver the bomb, so I would say that was a feat of the bomber.
TO
__________________  “Let's get Enterprise and Hornet turned into the wind." | |
| | |
04-04-2008, 10:16 PM
|
#404 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,876
| The heavy bombers of the allies crippled the Germans with the oil offensive.
That was done by B17's, B24's and Lancasters.
Now what were you saying?
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
04-05-2008, 12:47 AM
|
#405 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dordrecht
Posts: 1,813
Country: | Hi,
I should indeed have used the term IMHO as it is of course my opinion.
TO, you're right, it was the combined attack of Hirosima and Nagasaki.
Why do I think strategic bombing is overrated? One reason is that the damage done to industry was usually not as big as one might expect. The buildings are usually destroyed, but the all important machines not as much. One example, during Big Week, the USAAF targeted the german a/c industry. While it did decrease the output of a/c for a little while, the germans simply moved the production underground. The output went down a little, but at the end of 1944, the output of planes had hugely increased, so at best we you could say the bombing slowed the increase a little. This of course contributed to winning the war, but didn't have a decisive influence.
I don't want to start a discussion about carpet bombing, but only would say that their impact is still questionable, considering what happened for instance in London during the Blitz.
Sys mentions the bombing of the Romanian oilfields. This is a good point. This had a major impact, but also happened when allied forces were already on the mainland and germany was virtually beaten. It didn't force the germans to surrender like the A'bomb, it only hastened the end. But so did tactical support of thousands of medium bombers.
I could give more examples of smaller bombers having impact on the outcome of the war, Midway and the Doolittle raid and many others coming in mind.
I'm not saying the strategic bombing useless, I'm only saying it was just a part of the whole, the bombing of the oil wouldn't have had such an impact if the Russians wouldn't have prevented the Germans from taking the Russian oilfields (while being supported by medium bombers and fighter bombers). My final point: Bombers should be judged on how they performed their role, not by the payload or range they had.
__________________
"I'm no hero. Soldiers on the ground, they are heroes. In an aircraft you can always evade the bullets."
-Jan Linzel, Dutch fighter pilot | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 AM. | | |
