The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by johnbr

I would like to now why on the B29 they did not give it the RR Dart Turbine.I think it would have been a good combo .

2 reasons - B-47 and B-52........

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I'm not just looking at the payload I'm looking at the fact if not for the 8th AF performing the daylight missions the Luftwaffe would have been very much stronger . The fact being the USAAF were forced to develop long range escorts which also forced the LW to meet the challenge of attacking bombers with a protective fighter screen which if you follow the bouncing ball caused the LW high losses .

In short the presence of USAAF bombers and fighters in strength over Germany proper in daylight was a far bigger part in the destruction of germany and the LW then night bombing hence the 24 or 17 was more important .

But how is that indicative of the qualities of the bomber itself? That would have applied equally if the USAAF had been flying Wellingtons or B-23's surely? That is a tactical benefit, not proof of the B-24.

Technologically it is certain that the B-29 was the best bomber of WW2, but in terms of what was the best bomber available for operations for most of the war, it has to be the Lancaster for heavies or the Mosquito or Ju-88 for the smaller classes in my view.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

2 reasons - B-47 and B-52........

The RAF never had either of those, so I wonder if the question related to RAF Washingtons?

BEA operated Dart powered Dakotas successfully for several years but the engine wasn't powerful enough for the B-29. The reason we probably didn't bother re-engining our aircraft (with bigger turboprops like the Proteus) was cost and timescale, they were only ever going to be a short term stop gap in the RAF.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Waynos

But how is that indicative of the qualities of the bomber itself? That would have applied equally if the USAAF had been flying Wellingtons or B-23's surely? That is a tactical benefit, not proof of the B-24.

Technologically it is certain that the B-29 was the best bomber of WW2, but in terms of what was the best bomber available for operations for most of the war, it has to be the Lancaster for heavies or the Mosquito or Ju-88 for the smaller classes in my view.

Which one was more responsible for the downfall of the Germans certainly the b17/24 combo as they drew the LW fighters to them . With the LW fighters facing a tougher opposition they incurred heavier losses . Now the 8th had bad losses in daylight without the escorts but they in the end did get escorts and this combo wrecked the LW .
The best bomber is the one that caused the most havoc IMHO . Its to bad Portal advised Churchill that long range fighters that would be able to hold their own against the LW fighters was an impossibility

[Waynos]

The best bomber is the one that caused the most havoc IMHO

Yes, I can see where you are coming from with that view. However I would class that as more a case of being 'most effective use of the bomber' rather than which was the most capable aircraft, which is where my opinion differs.

If I understand your definition, if the equipment was reversed and the USAAF flew Lancs and Halifaxes on these raids then they would get your vote?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Yes, I can see where you are coming from with that view. However I would class that as more a case of being 'most effective use of the bomber' rather than which was the most capable aircraft, which is where my opinion differs.

If I understand your definition, if the equipment was reversed and the USAAF flew Lancs and Halifaxes on these raids then they would get your vote?

I don't think they could fly the same mission as they were woefully underarmed with the 303's and no ventral armament . as it was the the germans could sit back out of range of the 303's and have a free shot. I am not knocking the RAF or RCAF who flew the bulk of these night missions , its with hindsight that I believe that the resources could have been put to better use.

[Waynos]

I am not knocking the RAF or RCAF who flew the bulk of these night missions ,

No, I can see that and I don't disagree with the logic of what you are saying. I just don't think it illustrates which was the best bomber. If you are saying their contribution was to draw up the LW fighters for the USAAF fighters to shoot down, then the bombers own armament doesn't matter does it? Any bomber could have flown those missions. You seem to talking about their usefulness as bait rather than as bombers, unless I have misunderstood you?

[FLYBOYJ]

I think what's missing here is the ability to cause the "most havoc" but also have the best survival rate based on the mission at hand. While the efforts of the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster can be recognized, their participation is still over a 3 year period in an environment that was not far from the enemy. the B-29 had a deployment a little over a year and had to fly thousands of miles to bring the fight to the enemy and sometimes the flight there was more dangerous than the actual mission. IMO the B-29 is still out in front.

[Waynos]

There is another good way of looking at it. If you had a choice, which bomber would you choose to fly?

For me that would be a Mosquito

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Waynos

No, I can see that and I don't disagree with the logic of what you are saying. I just don't think it illustrates which was the best bomber. If you are saying their contribution was to draw up the LW fighters for the USAAF fighters to shoot down, then the bombers own armament doesn't matter does it? Any bomber could have flown those missions. You seem to talking about their usefulness as bait rather than as bombers, unless I have misunderstood you?

no their contribution was to bomb but at some point you must be able to defend yourself and the Bomber Command heavies were lacking that ability. Although both airforces had the priority of hitting the oil refinerys the USAAF also tacked on the destructiopn of the LW, The Commonwealth in sending 20 or 30 Havocs over France with a fighter cover in the 200's was not going to draw up the LW the USAAF by hitting Germany in daylight sure did .

[Waynos]

In terms of actual bombing though can it truly be said that the USAAF was more effective than the RAF/Commonwealth? Surely drawing up the fighters is a side issue?

Was it ever stated that bringing up the LW to fight was an aim of the daylight raids, or was it a side effect? I am not an expert on these matters, I just don't see how 'trying to get intercepted' shows an aptitude for bombing.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I think what's missing here is the ability to cause the "most havoc" but also have the best survival rate based on the mission at hand. While the efforts of the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster can be recognized, their participation is still over a 3 year period in an environment that was not far from the enemy. the B-29 had a deployment a little over a year and had to fly thousands of miles to bring the fight to the enemy and sometimes the flight there was more dangerous than the actual mission. IMO the B-29 is still out in front.

Carrying an atomic bomb 1600 miles from base is also way of saying the B29 was the best.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Waynos

There is another good way of looking at it. If you had a choice, which bomber would you choose to fly?

Depends on the mission....

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Waynos

In terms of actual bombing though can it truly be said that the USAAF was more effective than the RAF/Commonwealth? Surely drawing up the fighters is a side issue?

Was it ever stated that bringing up the LW to fight was an aim of the daylight raids, or was it a side effect? I am not an expert on these matters, I just don't see how 'trying to get intercepted' shows an aptitude for bombing.

operation Point Blank and here is an excerpt fron that order
"The ulterior or strategic object of destroying selected segments of German industry was seen to be dependant "upon prior (or simultaneous ) offensive against German fighter strength which was therefor designated as an intermediate objective second to none in priority"

[kool kitty89]

On the armament, the Lancaster and Halifax were capable of decent defensive mountings, though they were .303's. However, it would be fairly simple to switch to .50's, or maybe 20mm or a mix. (probably lfewer guns though, ie 4x .303 turret to 2x .50 turret, or sigle 20 mm, with single gun implacements, ie ventral mount on Lanc, with single .50)

so 2x .50 (or 1x 20 mm)in nose, dorsal, and tail turrets. 1x .50 in ventral mount. On Lanccaster.

Still not as well protected as the B-24 or B-17, (particularly from below) but probably good enough. (possibly a better ventral mount could be developed for the Lanc, was that ever done?)