The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

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

If every air force in the world was posed the question "Which single bomb carrying airplane would you choose for your air force (not navy), which do you choose?"

Your choice depends on your strategic Doctrine but if it is to drop many bombs on targets far away, you narrow the choices down very quickly.

For those that wish to pursue that doctrine, the choice narrows to one, in my opinion.

If your choice is that I want a multi role weapon system capable of fast recon, intermediate range level bombing, low level attack capability, night fighter capability and I don't need long to very range strategic capability to achieve my national objectives then you would not choose the B-29

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by parsifal

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.......

Hello parsifal,

I would tend to see that differently. For example Vietnam:

You had Ar234's (F-105's and F-4's) and you had a B-29 (B-52). IIRC the only thing that stopped or was capapble to stop the Tet offensive was at the end masses of B-52's pounding the living daylights out of those Vietmin and Vietcong's in order to safe those beleaguered Marines and GI's.

In the First Gulf war B-52's, B1's and B2's also took over that role in the first wave, then came in the strike aircrafts.

So I would conclude that for smaller - precision strike - targets a Ar.234 or a B-25/A-26 was just the right aircraft but in terms of bombing capability (inflictable mass bombing damage it was the B-29.

The two terms used nowadys are not a (medium bomber, heavy bomber) but a Strike Aircraft and a Bomber. So since the thread is about Best Bomber you would have to choose a bomber IMO not a strike aircraft.

Regards
Kruska

[Vincenzo]

there is some trouble here why best bomber is synonymous of best strategical bomber?

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by 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?

good point, but perhaps not so good if your own guys are just around the corner

[parsifal]

Hi Kruska

I guess if you are going to put the mediums into a different category, which kinda does make sense, then the B-29 is head and shoulders in front of the opposition. Heck, the russians even copied it from a coupe that were interned at Valdivostock at the end of the war (I believe they were the TU-4)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

Which is going to win the war though?

Dont take me wrong. I am not trying to take anything away from the smaller medium tactical bombers, but the few Ar 234's were not going to win the war for any side.

[Vincenzo]

no bomber, like all the others weapons, but ICBM if enemy haven't it, can win a war alone

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

no bomber, like all the others weapons, but ICBM if enemy haven't it, can win a war alone

This is WW2, there are no ICBM's. Stay on topic...

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

good point, but perhaps not so good if your own guys are just around the corner

If you call 2,000 miles of Pacific ocean "just around the corner."

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by 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?

You guys keep on repeating that, and it only proves that the B29 was the best strategic bomber of WW2. There's no argument about that, but Parcifal is right claiming it's like comparing apples to oranges when you say it's better than a mossie or an ar234.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Marcel

You guys keep on repeating that, and it only proves that the B29 was the best strategic bomber of WW2. There's no argument about that, but Parcifal is right claiming it's like comparing apples to oranges when you say it's better than a mossie or an ar234.

I know this thread should be broken out to best heavy, medium, light etc. - the point here if you rolled it into one based on performance, equipment, innovation and firepower, the B-29 takes it and I think most of us could agree on that.

[Marcel]

Agreed, B29 certainly was the best heavy.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Which is going to win the war though?

Dont take me wrong. I am not trying to take anything away from the smaller medium tactical bombers, but the few Ar 234's were not going to win the war for any side.

Adler

I dont think any single plane (or weapon system for that matter) can claim to be a sole war winner. Granted, the few AR 234s made no difference to the course of the war, but what impact would they have had if there were 500 or 1000 of them, with adequate fuel and pilots, and available from a more critical point in the war (say during Kursk)

The B-29 coupled with the A-Bomb had a massive impact on the end of the war, and demonstrated the power that the US possessed in 1945. But there is very strong evidence to suggest that a more significant factor in forcing the Japanese to the peace table was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo. That, and the concerns for the emperors safety (of which the A-Bomb was a big issue)

[syscom3]

The B29 could also carry two large naval mines, which were liberally employed in the many Japanese coastal choke points.

And that actually turned out to be one of the more effective ways the allies had in stopping the Japanese inter coastal shipping.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

But there is very strong evidence to suggest that a more significant factor in forcing the Japanese to the peace table was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo. That, and the concerns for the emperors safety (of which the A-Bomb was a big issue)

Read David Jablownski's book "Ring of Fire." Japan had about 8,000 aircraft stashed for the invasion and even wanted to engage one final battle "Just to save face." Even though the Japanese had the Soviets on their doorsteps (and they did fear the Russians) they knew they were going to see every one on of their major cities incinerated and they were powerless to do anything about it.