The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

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.

Qualities for a tactical strike aircraft

Originally Posted by parsifal

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.

And that "old school" way of thinking lasted almost 20 years after WW2 - it ended with ICBMs and even then the big heavy bomber took the low road and was still (and still is) functional in to days world.

Originally Posted by parsifal

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

You could not have saturated large industrial areas in a cost effective manner with light bombers alone - you would of needed thousands of light bombers to accomplish what you are proposing - even though a war was raging, there were still costs attached in fighting it and the large heavy bomber was cost effective - the B-29 lasted into the 1950s the Mossie, although a great aircraft did not have longevity in the post WW2 period, not only was it overtaken by the jet, it's construction doomed it in the long term unless an operator had the resources to deal with it's constrution.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

You could not have saturated large industrial areas in a cost effective manner with light bombers alone - you would of needed thousands of light bombers to accomplish what you are proposing - even though a war was raging, there were still costs attached in fighting it and the large heavy bomber was cost effective - the B-29 lasted into the 1950s the Mossie, although a great aircraft did not have longevity in the post WW2 period, not only was it overtaken by the jet, it's construction doomed it in the long term unless an operator had the resources to deal with it's constrution.

its probably true that it was infeasible to use medium or light bombers in place of a a B-29. The range an payload issues are pretty daunting.

But consider this...there is a fairly strong argument to say that a Mosquito and a Stirling attacking say Berlin will deliver about the same tonnage of bombs over the target, and the Mosquito will do it much more accurately, and safely (about twice as safe actually) The Mosquito is able to do this, because it can bomb the target, return, reload, and bomb again, and still be back home before the Stirling. As stated above, it will do this with about half the casualties of "heavy" bomber (of the british kind). If you look at crew costs, the savings become even greater. The Germans were amazed that the British did not adopt this strategy

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

But consider this...there is a fairly strong argument to say that a Mosquito and a Stirling attacking say Berlin will deliver about the same tonnage of bombs over the target, and the Mosquito will do it much more accurately, and safely (about twice as safe actually)

How, what and when are they bombing? - are we taking out a specific target like a small armory or are we trying to level an aircraft factory? Are we doing this at night or in foul weather? A Stirling could carry about 18,000 pound of bombs in it's short range configuration, a Mosquito could carry 4,000 pounds of bombs and I think could of been overloaded to 6,000 pounds.

Use a Lancaster for this comparison.....

Originally Posted by parsifal

The Mosquito is able to do this, because it can bomb the target, return, reload, and bomb again, and still be back home before the Stirling. As stated above, it will do this with about half the casualties of "heavy" bomber (of the british kind). If you look at crew costs, the savings become even greater. The Germans were amazed that the British did not adopt this strategy

Look at the reasons I just gave and you could see why that tactic wasn't adopted - the Germans discarded their strategic bomber concept and they spent most with little effective bomber offensive. It's a lot more complicated than you think and you could see why the allies utilized a strategic heavy bomber. In the end it was one of the reasons why the war was won.

[parsifal]

I do agree that the strategic bomber offensive was a factor in the defeat of the germans. I believe it is a much maligned Allied initiative. In 1944 for example I have read estimates that suggest the germans suffered losses of about 35% productive capacity due to the bombers.

I also concede that the Mosquitoes would have only had any success if the very nature of the RAF Bomber offensive had changed. They could not haul the required tonnage of bombs (notwithstanding my rather flippant comments above), but they could haul enough bombs to be used strategically. But the offensive would have had to change from an area bombing approach, to one of precision bombing. However, the Mosquito apparently excelled at this sought of attack, taking out specific targets rather than bludgeoning entire cities.

I dont think either a Stirling or a Lanc can take their full bombloads to Berlin, but I do know that the Mosquito could haul a 4000 lb warload that far. Regulalry, Berlin was hit by 800-1000 heavies, with varying success. If production had concentrated on Mosquitoes, rather than Lancs and Halibags, I dont think I would be exaggerating (although I am theorising) to say that thestreams would have been in the 1500-2000 region.

I am aware of the german failure with their medium bombers. But my understanding is that at range the German mediums had to discard a significant proportion of their bombloads. I have heard that to attack the
midlands, for example, He111s could only carry about 2000 lbs (correct me if I am wrong, because my memory is hazy, and I havent checked like i should)
The late war Mosquitoes were much more efficient than that


Its an alternative strategy at least worth considering in my view

[syscom3]

And what if the light or medium bomber has to hit its heavily defended target in bad weather?

No avioncs aids and its as good as useless.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

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.

I think weare repeating ourselves. The AR234 was not designed for strategic bombing, a the B24 wasn't designed for tactical support. Both were the best in their classes, so voting for both of them is basically right. If the requirement are as you described, the thread should have been "Best strategic bomber".

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by syscom3

And what if the light or medium bomber has to hit its heavily defended target in bad weather?

No avioncs aids and its as good as useless.

Syscom

I dont know the avionics fit that goes into a mosquito, but i think its record speaks for itself. It was a precision bomber able to operate at night. That is a pretty self explanatory and high standard of navigation.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Syscom

I dont know the avionics fit that goes into a mosquito, but i think its record speaks for itself. It was a precision bomber able to operate at night. That is a pretty self explanatory and high standard of navigation.

I don't think it was anymore accurate then any other bomber and the CEP of the avionics gave it a accuracy measured in hundreds of yards

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I do agree that the strategic bomber offensive was a factor in the defeat of the germans. I believe it is a much maligned Allied initiative. In 1944 for example I have read estimates that suggest the germans suffered losses of about 35% productive capacity due to the bombers.

I also concede that the Mosquitoes would have only had any success if the very nature of the RAF Bomber offensive had changed. They could not haul the required tonnage of bombs (notwithstanding my rather flippant comments above), but they could haul enough bombs to be used strategically. But the offensive would have had to change from an area bombing approach, to one of precision bombing. However, the Mosquito apparently excelled at this sought of attack, taking out specific targets rather than bludgeoning entire cities.

I dont think either a Stirling or a Lanc can take their full bombloads to Berlin, but I do know that the Mosquito could haul a 4000 lb warload that far. Regulalry, Berlin was hit by 800-1000 heavies, with varying success. If production had concentrated on Mosquitoes, rather than Lancs and Halibags, I dont think I would be exaggerating (although I am theorising) to say that thestreams would have been in the 1500-2000 region.

I am aware of the german failure with their medium bombers. But my understanding is that at range the German mediums had to discard a significant proportion of their bombloads. I have heard that to attack the
midlands, for example, He111s could only carry about 2000 lbs (correct me if I am wrong, because my memory is hazy, and I havent checked like i should)
The late war Mosquitoes were much more efficient than that


Its an alternative strategy at least worth considering in my view

You've answered your own question but had the B-29 been deployed over Europe, it "would of" been able to carry it's full 22,000 pound bomb load to Berlin. Going back to the original statement - The B-29 hands down was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Syscom

I dont know the avionics fit that goes into a mosquito, but i think its record speaks for itself. It was a precision bomber able to operate at night. That is a pretty self explanatory and high standard of navigation.

It operated at night in clear weather for the most part. Again it was limited by bomb load and range. Comparing it to any heavy is "apples and oranges."

[Vincenzo]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The B-29 was not designed to fly a tactical mission - it was a very heavy strategic bomber.

this is obvsiously and for this it can't be simply the best bomber

[trackend]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

You've answered your own question but had the B-29 been deployed over Europe, it "would of" been able to carry it's full 22,000 pound bomb load to Berlin. Going back to the original statement - The B-29 hands down was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

Agreed The other bombers Lancs, B17's etc had done most of the work but the B-29 was far more modern and had learned from it's pedecessors what was required for a heavy bomber just as later the B59 used hindsight in its development to its advantage.
I agree many of the wartime aircraft carried on for some years later IE the Mossie lasted till 1955 ending as PR or the DC3 which still flys.
But by the end of WW2 most aircraft designs had had their day the B29 being a late comer was bound to go on for sometime.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

. Comparing it to any heavy is "apples and oranges."

Exactly, so how can a conclusion be made about which is best...you prefer apples, and Im partial to oranges. Surely it would depend on which aircraft did its designated task the best, and then you have to work out the measures by which doing the job "best" is measured. all this table thumping and grandstanding gets nowhere fast.

I never said, or implied that the B-29 was a bad, or even a worse aircraft. What i did say, or imply was that it represented perhaps the best of its kind, but that post war, the idea of a relatively slow moving, heavily armed (defensively) was seen by many as a dated concept, and that there was trend toward the smaller faster, more difficult to intercept aircraft. You have not refuted that. But if I can now commit an act of self harm, you could have countered it, very effectively......in the early 30's the trend was precisely what I have advocated, smaller, faster etc. that led to such aircraft as the Blenheim and the early He-111s. Against the early fighter aircraft of the '30s, these types were largely unstoppable, but as fighter performances improved through the late '30s, the speed/altitiude/size formula appeared to become obsolete. The result was the heavily armed and armoured big bombers, that culminated in WWII with the B-29. But then a few designers doubled back and produced improved versions of the small/fast/high flying types that led to the alternative breeds, like the Mosquito, A-26, even the B-26. I'll put it to you that both philosophies have merit, and that the question of "best bomber" is not nearly so clear cut as you would like

[syscom3]

parsifal, if you consider that the B29 carried an atomic bomb, 1600 miles from base.....

I think we can say its payload was 15,000 tons.

Now what other airplane could do that?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Exactly, so how can a conclusion be made about which is best...you prefer apples, and Im partial to oranges. Surely it would depend on which aircraft did its designated task the best, and then you have to work out the measures by which doing the job "best" is measured. all this table thumping and grandstanding gets nowhere fast.

I never said, or implied that the B-29 was a bad, or even a worse aircraft. What i did say, or imply was that it represented perhaps the best of its kind, but that post war, the idea of a relatively slow moving, heavily armed (defensively) was seen by many as a dated concept, and that there was trend toward the smaller faster, more difficult to intercept aircraft. You have not refuted that. But if I can now commit an act of self harm, you could have countered it, very effectively......in the early 30's the trend was precisely what I have advocated, smaller, faster etc. that led to such aircraft as the Blenheim and the early He-111s. Against the early fighter aircraft of the '30s, these types were largely unstoppable, but as fighter performances improved through the late '30s, the speed/altitiude/size formula appeared to become obsolete. The result was the heavily armed and armoured big bombers, that culminated in WWII with the B-29. But then a few designers doubled back and produced improved versions of the small/fast/high flying types that led to the alternative breeds, like the Mosquito, A-26, even the B-26. I'll put it to you that both philosophies have merit, and that the question of "best bomber" is not nearly so clear cut as you would like

If I may slither back to this debate, both for WWII and beyond.

The speed, altitude, size formula was countered to a large extent by very late war increases in interceptor and radar technologies - but for strategic airpower, range and payload dominated the landscape.

Until mid air refueling, the smaller ships did not have the range despite being able to carry say a small/medium nuc (F-105/A4 comes to mind).. but interceptor ranges had increased to point where mid air refueling near a strategic target was infeasible... so the small, fast ship can't get anywhere close to USSR in cold war.

Tactics and technologies continued to make say, the B-52 relatively unstoppable in a practical sense - first with low altitude - below radar tactics, second via 'stand off' capabilities with either small hard to detect dash nuclear missles - Mach 3 capable with 2-6 MT payloads or Cruise Missles

The key in WWII (and today) is range combined with payload combined with survivability.

Back to WWII. Mossie doesn't work during WWII because of the ranges required.. lancaster does to a degree but in PTO the B-24, then even moreso, the B-29 was the only weapon system capable of taking heavy loads to the Empire. (Yes I know B-32 was capable, but not as capable)

It, then the B-36, became the intermediate threat to USSR until the B-47 and B-52's arrived. The B-36 dominantly because it was the Only beast in the world that could carry the H-bomb for several years. The ultimate stick that weighed more than the medium (conventional) and light bombers of the day.

I agree that in hindsight it might have been interesting for strategic planners in ETO to take a hard look at Mossies in many strategic objectives and achieved great things with it - but destroying Japanese cities and ending the war would not have been one of its achievements, nor would it have been the nuclear deterrent for the next five years after WWII.

I think you have persuasive arguments, but I like my choice for most of the reasons stated.