 | The Best Bomber of WWII: #4| Aviation Discuss The Best Bomber of WWII: #4 in the World War II - Aviation forums; Originally Posted by Glider
The only real debate is what was the second best bomber.
Can't argue with that!
... |
|
06-02-2008, 08:30 AM
|
#481 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 1,961
Country:  | Quote:
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
__________________  “Let's get Enterprise and Hornet turned into the wind." | 
|  | |
06-02-2008, 08:47 AM
|
#482 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,794
| In order
2nd Best - B32 Dominator
3rd - Lincoln
4th - Lanc | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 09:27 AM
|
#483 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 837
Country:  | Quote:
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
__________________
Do not judge on abilities, but on choices | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 09:33 AM
|
#484 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,087
| Glider, how did you come up with the B32 as being #2?
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 09:45 AM
|
#485 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,947
Country: | Quote:
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.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 12:04 PM
|
#486 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,794
| Quote:
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. | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 12:17 PM
|
#487 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,416
Country:  | Quote:
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?
__________________  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" | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 12:43 PM
|
#488 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,087
| 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"
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 04:33 PM
|
#489 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 837
Country: | Quote:
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
__________________
Do not judge on abilities, but on choices | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 05:23 PM
|
#490 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,794
| Quote:
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. | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 05:25 PM
|
#491 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,794
| Quote:
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 !!! | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 05:31 PM
|
#492 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,947
Country: | Quote:
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?
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 06:36 PM
|
#493 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lazio
Posts: 126
Country:  | 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 | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 07:30 PM
|
#494 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,947
Country: | Quote:
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.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
06-02-2008, 08:22 PM
|
#495 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 837
Country: | Quote:
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
__________________
Do not judge on abilities, but on choices | |
| | | 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 07:49 PM. | | |
