The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Dragonsinger]

Drgondog
All I am saying is that because of an unbalanced leader pushing resources and men beyond sensible limits Germany ran out of time to fulfil the promise of some very strange ideas. The Germans made plenty of crazy ideas work and they are all there in the records and many of them read like science fiction projects, ICBMs, cruise missiles, atomic bomb research, stratospheric jet bombers, flying wing aircraft. THEN we go on to the weird stuff! This was the mid 1940s and over half a century on we are still refining these ideas.

The Germans never, as far as I am aware, did launch an attack on the North American continent, but to deny point blank that they would not have been able to is not a tenable position. For example no one seems to have bothered to check up on the German carrier "Graff Zeppelin". Had she taken part in an offensive backed by U-Boats and surface vessels a large area of the North American continent would have been considered within range.

From a Japanese point of view I need only say Torra! Torra! Torra! If they could achieve that there is no argument about the vulnerability of the West coast of the North American continent. I will accept that like the attack on Pearl Harbour this would have been only a one shot strategy but I would welcome your opinion on it's value as a propaganda or terror tactic, and although I do not particularly like the comparison I would urge you to compare it to the effect achieved by 911.

Regarding Tinker Belle then if Tinker Belle is the idea of in flight refuelling and fairy dust paraffin (kerosene) from a towed tanker, I agree.

As far as sarcasm goes if it illustrates the point then use it. It is a valued tool in debate but be very aware that it can bite the user as well as the recipient.

I will be perfectly happy to continue this debate but should it be on this thread?

Regards
Dragonsinger

[syscom3]

Trackend, if the B29's only had a need for a 500 mile range to bomb targets, its payloads would have been immense by the standards of the time.

Its better to compare the Lanc's flying 1600 mile missions (with all the gadgets the B29's carried) and carrying a usefull payload.

If you want to argue which aircraft was the best bomber of the war in Europe, then the Lanc wins hands down.

[BIG BIRD]

The Piaggio P.108 was the most advanced and importint bomber of world war two because it was instrumental in the pioneering of features that made the super fortress so successful.

[kool kitty89]

Could you elaborate on that please?

[BIG BIRD]

The Piaggio P.108 was the first aircraft that used remote controle guns. I will need some time to find more elaborate details, but many B-29 features were used on the p 108 wich came first.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by BIG BIRD

The Piaggio P.108 was the first aircraft that used remote controle guns. I will need some time to find more elaborate details, but many B-29 features were used on the p 108 wich came first.

The P.108s remote control turrets were just that - the B-29's system was a computerized fire control system light years a head of the P.108.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by BIG BIRD

The Piaggio P.108 was the most advanced and importint bomber of world war two because it was instrumental in the pioneering of features that made the super fortress so successful.

Ahhhh, no.........

Although an advanced aircraft, the B-29 was light years a head of the P.108. Again another large taildragger from a by-gone era that was 100 mph slower than the B-29. It had half the range and the B-29 had a service ceiling 6000 feet higher. Although the P.108 first flew in 1939 be assured that it did nothing to "pioneer" anything related to the B-29. Designers at Piaggio were attempting to match the B-17 and they barely were able to do that.

[BIG BIRD]

Well I think your right but the Piaggio P.108 was developed 4 years ahead of the b-29, and until the b-29 started active duty the p 108 was the most technologicly advaned, not nesicarily the best bomber. Compared with other italian bomers it a marvel.

[BIG BIRD]

Giovanni Casiraghi an italian designer who helped lead the p.108 project went to america and picked up info, do you now if he had a part to play in the B-17 ,b-24 or b-29 project.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by BIG BIRD

Well I think your right but the Piaggio P.108 was developed 4 years ahead of the b-29, and until the b-29 started active duty the p 108 was the most technologicly advaned, not nesicarily the best bomber. Compared with other italian bomers it a marvel.

Later model B-17s (Fs and Gs) were still better in terms of performance, bomb load and reliability. The P.108 had engine reliability problems since day one and that affected it's operational deployment - Mussolini's son was killed in one.

I'd compare it to a B-17 C or D - there was no real technological breakthroughs with this aircraft when compared to US or British 4 engine bomber designs - it did offer good defensive armament but that's about it. The P.133 was supposed to be a vast improvement to the 108 but the program was cancelled.

Originally Posted by BIG BIRD

Giovanni Casiraghi an italian designer who helped lead the p.108 project went to America and picked up info, do now if he had a part to play in the B-17 ,b-24 or b-29 project.

Giovanni Casiraghi lived in the US in the 1930s and actually worked for Waco for a short time. He was inspired by the B-17 and actually wanted to build a better aircraft than the B-17. He came close if you want to compare the P.108 to the B-17D but by the time the P.108 was operational, B-17Fs, Gs, and the Lancaster eclipsed it.

[BIG BIRD]

Dive bomber wise the il-2 was probily the best dive bomber. I have heard that 20mm cannon shells somtimes bounced of there hull. Dos anbody have any verification to those claims.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by BIG BIRD

Dive bomber wise the il-2 was probily the best dive bomber. I have heard that 20mm cannon shells somtimes bounced of there hull. Dos anbody have any verification to those claims.

I can be wrong, but I think the Il-2 wasn't actually a divebomber.

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by Marcel

I can be wrong, but I think the Il-2 wasn't actually a divebomber.

well it could dive if needed, but of course that doesn't make it a dive bomber

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

well it could dive if needed, but of course that doesn't make it a dive bomber

So can my Aunty, maybe she's a divebomber as well But seriously, the Il-2 wasn't designed a s divebomber, was it?

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by Marcel

So can my Aunty, maybe she's a divebomber as well But seriously, the Il-2 wasn't designed a s divebomber, was it?

as a dive bomber in common sence, certainly not . Dives up to 40 degr were acceptable though.