The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[FLYBOYJ]

Again folks, looking into an ACTIVE bomber that contributed to the war effort - looking into it's construction, systems, armament, performance, operational impact and longevity, the B-29 takes it by a mile hands down. The closest bomber to the B-29 was the Lancaster but it was a half of generation behind the B-29.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Again folks, looking into an ACTIVE bomber that contributed to the war effort - looking into it's construction, systems, armament, performance, operational impact and longevity, the B-29 takes it by a mile hands down. The closest bomber to the B-29 was the Lancaster but it was a half of generation behind the B-29.

I have lost track of the number of times that this point has been correctly made.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Glider

I have lost track of the number of times that this point has been correctly made.

Me too glider - I think I'm going to have to post it about every 2 or 3 pages....

[eddie_brunette]

The best bomber for me was the DH96 by far. Just think if the "1000 bomber raid" were all Mosquitoes. IMO they're more accurate than the Lancs, 24's and 17's, much faster and they could probably defend themselfs better

edd

[Dragonsinger]

Hi FBJ

You mean that the other bombers were a generation earlier dont you?
Besides none of them were ever required to do the things the B29 was. It was wartime and the CREWS were unbelievable regardless if they hated the aircraft they were given they flew them to and beyond the ability of the aircraft on paper.
This is the same for all the competitors. and if, for example, the Feuhrer had ordered a bombing mision to the States then massed Dorniers and Heinkles would have done it somehow.

Men Not Machines.

Regards
Dragonsinger

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Dragonsinger

Hi FBJ

You mean that the other bombers were a generation earlier dont you?

Yes...

Originally Posted by Dragonsinger

Besides none of them were ever required to do the things the B29 was. It was wartime and the CREWS were unbelievable regardless if they hated the aircraft they were given they flew them to and beyond the ability of the aircraft on paper.
This is the same for all the competitors. and if, for example, the Feuhrer had ordered a bombing mision to the States then massed Dorniers and Heinkles would have done it somehow.

Men Not Machines.

Regards
Dragonsinger

Perhaps - my point is if you compare all operational heavy bombers rivet by rivet, wirebundle by wirebundle, avionics, armament and firecontol the B-29 was the most advanxced heavy bomber of WW2.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by eddie_brunette

The best bomber for me was the DH96 by far. Just think if the "1000 bomber raid" were all Mosquitoes. IMO they're more accurate than the Lancs, 24's and 17's, much faster and they could probably defend themselfs better

edd

Just think of a single B29 with an atomic bomb.

You could miss your target by a mile and still destroy it.

Could the Mossie do that?

[starling]

i like the vickers wellington.she served the whole war,and did more jobs as well.she fought through the blitz and dished out some,in retaliatary raids on berlin etc.took part in the 1000 aircraft firestorm raids.coastal command,the lot.had a good bombload.i hope u all agree.yours,starling

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by starling

i like the vickers wellington.she served the whole war,and did more jobs as well.she fought through the blitz and dished out some,in retaliatary raids on berlin etc.took part in the 1000 aircraft firestorm raids.coastal command,the lot.had a good bombload.i hope u all agree.yours,starling

The Wellington did a good job and served well but comparing it to a B-29 would be like comparing a Hawker Fury to a Spitfire.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Dragonsinger

Hi FBJ

You mean that the other bombers were a generation earlier dont you?
Besides none of them were ever required to do the things the B29 was. It was wartime and the CREWS were unbelievable regardless if they hated the aircraft they were given they flew them to and beyond the ability of the aircraft on paper.
This is the same for all the competitors. and if, for example, the Feuhrer had ordered a bombing mision to the States then massed Dorniers and Heinkles would have done it somehow.

Men Not Machines.

Regards
Dragonsinger

All the pilots and crews in Germany would not have been successful in putting one Dornier or Heinkel over the US or Hitler would have ordered it done - I suspect that if the Ju 390 could have really reached NY with one bomb, Hitler would have ordered it done for propaganda reasons.

Do you have an approach in mind that would have put any German bombers over the US.. bases, refueling approach, range and payload from some nominal base?

Aircrews are crucial but they are just one component of the weapons system and tactics to make it all work.

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by drgondog

All the pilots and crews in Germany would not have been successful in putting one Dornier or Heinkel over the US or Hitler would have ordered it done - I suspect that if the Ju 390 could have really reached NY with one bomb, Hitler would have ordered it done for propaganda reasons.

Do you have an approach in mind that would have put any German bombers over the US.. bases, refueling approach, range and payload from some nominal base?

Aircrews are crucial but they are just one component of the weapons system and tactics to make it all work.

And the US could not of put one plane over the ETO if they had to fly from New York..I think he is meaning if they were in Cuba or south of the border of the US..It would be like the US in England... The crews on all sides made there planes work..For stuff that they never were made to do ...

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Haztoys

And the US could not of put one plane over the ETO if they had to fly from New York..I think he is meaning if they were in Cuba or south of the border of the US..It would be like the US in England... The crews on all sides made there planes work..For stuff that they never were made to do ...

No, but we could from Africa (or USSR) as an example - and other places that the Germans would have been hard pressed to defend.

On the other hand the Germans had no surface fleet to put a footprint Anywhere they could strike the US - or do you have a different POV?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Haztoys

And the US could not of put one plane over the ETO if they had to fly from New York..I think he is meaning if they were in Cuba or south of the border of the US..It would be like the US in England... The crews on all sides made there planes work..For stuff that they never were made to do ...

I forgot to mention - the Germans had zero hope of any foothold in South America save Argentina and our ability to blockade Argentina, as well as put bases in Brazil was absolute.

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I forgot to mention - the Germans had zero hope of any foothold in South America save Argentina and our ability to blockade Argentina, as well as put bases in Brazil was absolute.

I do understand this Mr Drgondog fully...And you are 100% right ...

But my post was a "what if " ..My Friend ...The german crews would of made do as all crews do..And made it work...

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by drgondog

On the other hand the Germans had no surface fleet to put a footprint Anywhere they could strike the US - or do you have a different POV?

And did not need one in the sort of war they were doing at the time ...But "I feel" if they were in the US's shoes and had to go way over sea's to fight..They would of done much as the US did .. Big fleet and all .. Not many other ways to fight a over sea's war...My point were what "if" and fighting in the other mans boots sort of post.. Army's make do with what they have ...All the planing in the world changes once the fight starts .. You think you have it covered ...But the other guy give you a curve ball to deal with..

You are right on your points...My friend