The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by Glider

The only real debate is what was the second best bomber.

Can't argue with that!

So what was the second best bomber of WW II?

TO

[Glider]

In order
2nd Best - B32 Dominator
3rd - Lincoln
4th - Lanc

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Glider

To be honest the B29 was by far, the best bomber in WW2. all other contenders were prototypes and or maybe entering production, certainly not in squadron service.

The only real debate is what was the second best bomber.

Aha, but was it? What about the German jet bombers that entered service right at the very end of the war. Dont get me wrong, I am a BIG fan of the superforts. But the AR 234s and such were pretty good as well, at least from a technical standpoint

[syscom3]

Glider, how did you come up with the B32 as being #2?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Aha, but was it? What about the German jet bombers that entered service right at the very end of the war. Dont get me wrong, I am a BIG fan of the superforts. But the AR 234s and such were pretty good as well, at least from a technical standpoint

The only technical jump the German Jet bombers really had over the B-29 was it’s propulsion system.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Glider, how did you come up with the B32 as being #2?

Its a personal view I admit, but I believe that the B32 had a number of problems that were not really solved including problems with its pressure system. Plus most of the guns were manual turrets not as sophisticated as the B29 and it was noisy.
Due to problems at altitude it spent most of its time on low medium missions which defeated the main idea of a high altitude bomber.

I agree that the AR 234 was a remarkable machine but lacked flexibility.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Aha, but was it? What about the German jet bombers that entered service right at the very end of the war. Dont get me wrong, I am a BIG fan of the superforts. But the AR 234s and such were pretty good as well, at least from a technical standpoint

Was the Ar 234 going to carry 10,000lb of bombs and drop them on a target 2000 miles away?

[syscom3]

Glider ... I have to look at some bomb bay drawings of the B32 .... but if it didnt have the big open style that the B29 and Lanc had, then this plane was nothing more than a "B24-improved"

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Was the Ar 234 going to carry 10,000lb of bombs and drop them on a target 2000 miles away?

No, but it was going to enter airspace completely dominated by enemy fighters, carry out its mission, and live to tell the tale. There are not many bombers, including the B-29 that could achieve that

[Glider]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Glider ... I have to look at some bomb bay drawings of the B32 .... but if it didnt have the big open style that the B29 and Lanc had, then this plane was nothing more than a "B24-improved"

Thats probably a little harsh, but basically true.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by parsifal

No, but it was going to enter airspace completely dominated by enemy fighters, carry out its mission, and live to tell the tale. There are not many bombers, including the B-29 that could achieve that

Sounds a bit like the Mossie !!!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

No, but it was going to enter airspace completely dominated by enemy fighters, carry out its mission, and live to tell the tale. There are not many bombers, including the B-29 that could achieve that

And fly 2000 miles across an ocean to do it?

[Vincenzo]

i'm not so sure that B-29 is the best bomber, i think it's hard fly a tactical mission over enemy line with a so large plane, i think need a split of problem in best tactical bomber and best strategical bomber, for strategical sure B-29 is best in its times, if talking for all WWII i think need take a bomber with a large timeframe like B-17 or Lancaster

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

i'm not so sure that B-29 is the best bomber, i think it's hard fly a tactical mission over enemy line with a so large plane, i think need a split of problem in best tactical bomber and best strategical bomber, for strategical sure B-29 is best in its times, if talking for all WWII i think need take a bomber with a large timeframe like B-17 or Lancaster

The B-29 was not designed to fly a tactical mission - it was a very heavy strategic bomber. It was the most advanced 4 engine heavy bomber platform that saw action in WW2 and was almost a generation a head of both the B-17 or Lancaster. No other ETO bomber of either side was capable of flying the mission the B-29 accomplished with its bombload.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Glider

Sounds a bit like the Mossie !!!

My point exactly. there is this whole sub-class of bombers such as the Mosquito, the AR 234, the A-26, and the Tu-2, that pointed the way to the future, relatively small, fast, unarmed (defensively), relying on speed, altitude or similar for defence, and in WWII terms very survivable.

My criticism of the B-29 was that it was "old school", big, frightfully expensive, and in the end following an obsolete philospophy, namely the idea of a heavily armed and armoured, relatively slow moving behemoth, basically a moving target.

to be fair, the B-29 did have many great qualities. It flew relatively fast, and relatively high, and as the guys point out it carried a bucket load of bombs further than any other aircraft. it was also very accurate and strong. but i cant help wondering if a different concept had been tried, namely an unarmed, very high speed, and very high flying bomber had been tried, if the result would not have been cheaper and even less vulnerable. that was certainly the way of the bomber in the post war era