The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by renrich

I sometimes wonder if the waist gunners in the heavy bombers ever hit anything except by accident. Obviously they could score some hits but when you think about the leads and angles involved it must have been difficult. I had a friend in Colorado who was a fight engineer and top turret gunner on a B26 and at least in his later years a topflight rifle and shotgun shooter. I asked him if he ever thought he hit anything from his turret and he said no because it was very difficult.

Perhaps you're right. But then again, there's also the aspect of simply providing defensive fire even if it's not very accurate...
It also depends on the angle: if the enemy aircraft advances from the side or from the back makes a huge difference. A passing fighter coming from the back seems an extremely difficult target for the waist gunners.


Kris

[river]

Hi,

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

There is no doubt the B-29 was the best heavy bomber if not the best bomber of WW2.

Yes there is. I doubt it.

seeyuzz
river

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by river

Hi,




Yes there is. I doubt it.

seeyuzz
river

Great post. I am sure your credentials mean a lot to this discussion!

Why don't you give some real reasons why you do not think it is the best, instead of spamming a thread with something like that????

[river]

Hi,

The B29 was a wonderful machine, but it was not used throughout the entire war, and served only in the PTO, where the air defense of Japan was not as robust or as experienced as that of the Germans.

So, the B29s had a more "easy" time than the bombers that served in the ETO. I am not belittling the B29 or the job it did or the crews who manned her. Far from it, I do think it is a superb bomber.

But, from the perspective of enduring the war and being used on all fronts, I'd say the B17, Lancaster or B24 would be regarded as the best heavy bombers of WW2.

Considering the various types of bombers, each tailored for a speciic task, I don't beleive it is possible to say any single bomber was the "best". Sure, it is possible to discuss with more relevance which bomber was best in it's respective category (ie light, medium and heavy bombers), but I can't see how it is possible to pick a single bomber and say it was the best - at least without defining boundaries of what "best" means.

seeyuzz
river

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by river

Hi,

The B29 was a wonderful machine, but it was not used throughout the entire war, and served only in the PTO, where the air defense of Japan was not as robust or as experienced as that of the Germans.

So, the B29s had a more "easy" time than the bombers that served in the ETO. I am not belittling the B29 or the job it did or the crews who manned her. Far from it, I do think it is a superb bomber.

But, from the perspective of enduring the war and being used on all fronts, I'd say the B17, Lancaster or B24 would be regarded as the best heavy bombers of WW2.

Considering the various types of bombers, each tailored for a speciic task, I don't beleive it is possible to say any single bomber was the "best". Sure, it is possible to discuss with more relevance which bomber was best in it's respective category (ie light, medium and heavy bombers), but I can't see how it is possible to pick a single bomber and say it was the best - at least without defining boundaries of what "best" means.

seeyuzz
river

How about the B29 incorporated all of the best features of the other three?

Bigger payload, longer ranged, sophisticated (for its day) integration of defensive and offensive avionics, etc.

[river]

Hi,

If you define best as having the biggest "routine" bombload (as the Lancaster could carry 22,000lbs, but for shorter range and it had to be modified to carry the Grand Slam), plus the incorporation of the best features of the pre-existing bombers, then you could make a case and say the B29 was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

But, if you define the best as to which bombers flew the most missions, endured the longer hardships of war, was produced in greater numbers, and was used in multiple theatres of operation, then I don't think you could include the B29.

If you define the best as which bomber carried the most payload per crew, then perhaps it would be the Mosquito.

river

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by river

Hi,

If you define best as having the biggest "routine" bombload (as the Lancaster could carry 22,000lbs, but for shorter range and it had to be modified to carry the Grand Slam), plus the incorporation of the best features of the pre-existing bombers, then you could make a case and say the B29 was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

But, if you define the best as to which bombers flew the most missions, endured the longer hardships of war, was produced in greater numbers, and was used in multiple theatres of operation, then I don't think you could include the B29.

If you define the best as which bomber carried the most payload per crew, then perhaps it would be the Mosquito.

river

The B29 could easily carry the Grand Slam, and even two of them for shorter ranged missions. It also carried aerial mines, and also an atomic bomb. None of the other three could carry those two weapons.

The Lanc, B17 and B24 did not have the avionics the B29 carried. Nor was the defensive firepower comparable to the B29.

And as events proved in the Pacific, the B17 didnt have the range to make it usable. The B24 and Lanc were on the outer edges of payload vs range. But only the B29 could combine a usefull payload over long ranges.

And the Mossie could have been used in more light bomber roles, but it wasnt.

[Waynos]

The Lancaster was the only operational bomber of WW2 that could accomnodate the Grand Slam bomb. That was entirely due to its bomb bay design which placed no limitation on the size and shape of the weapon carried (an idea carried over in todays Nimrod) the US practice of having smaller individual bays prevented any American type from doing this without major modification or some sort of separate cradle being developed so I don't know how you get a B-29 'easily' carrying two of these huge weapons syscom? Due to the reasons I said the Lanc could carry anything that any other bomber, B-29 included, could carry.

Having said that I would readily agree that the B-29 was the best bomber of the war. It was a technological leap forward over all preceding aircraft and the speed, range and altitude at which it could deliver these weapons was unprecedented, Remember the B-29, As the Washington B.1, was a standard bomber type with the RAF until 1957.

Defining best can be a dodgy business, but if you simply take is as being the finest performance and capability for a bomber by 1945 then you have the Mosquito and B-29 above all.

If you want the best 'mainstay' heavy of the war, ie actually operated over a number of years rather than the latest tech, then it would have to be (for me) the Lancaster over everything else, but if you put in proviso's to allow your favourite aircraft to win, it starts to get a bit pointless

[Vincenzo]

Grand Slam on B-29 were external load

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Waynos

The Lancaster was the only bomber of WW2 that could accomnodate the Grand Slam bomb. That was entirely due to its bomb bay design which placed no limitation on the size and shape of the weapon carried (an idea carried over in todays Nimrod) the US practice of having smaller individual bays prevented any American type from doing this without major modification or some sort of separate cradle being developed so I don't know how you get a B-29 'easily' carrying two of these huge weapons syscom? Due to the reasons I said the Lanc could carry anything that any other bomber, B-29 included, could carry.

The B29 had two large unpressurized bomb bays that were in similar design to the Lanc, in that there was no fuselauge obstructions like that of the B17/B24.

Go see the B29 thread that provides information of the B29 carrying not one, but two Grand Slams.

If you want the best 'mainstay' heavy of the war, ie actually operated over a number of years rather than the latest tech, then it would have to be (for me) the Lancaster over everything else, but if you put in proviso's to allow your favourite aircraft to win, it starts to get a bit pointless

The B29 was a magniture better than the other three.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by Vincenzo

Grand Slam on B-29 were external load

No they weren't. They were semi recessed, as on the Lancaster, in a modified bomb bay but it was never used operationally (due to the success of the A Bomb raids) and it was still a heavily modified aircraft (more so than the Lancaster) but the B-29 did not need to sacrifice its defensive guns, which was obviously a plus.

'Easy' would be a standard aircraft bombed up in the normal way to my mind. The fact was that without the Lancaster, none of these bombs would ever have been dropped operationally as the B-29 would have been too late.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The B29 had two large unpressurized bomb bays that were in similar design to the Lanc, in that there was no fuselauge obstructions like that of the B17/B24.

Go see the B29 thread that provides information of the B29 carrying not one, but two Grand Slams.

You missed my point, but it was my own fault as I wasn't clear.

in 1945 the B-29 was still only conducting trials with these weapons. It was about 2 weeks away from its first operation when the war ended. The Lancaster was a proven operational type that actually dropped them on the enemy. Thats quite a difference. I actually support the B-29 as the best bomber of the war if you read my post.

The B29 was a magniture better than the other three.

Yes it was, but how does that contradict what I said?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Waynos

You missed my point, but it was my own fault as I wasn't clear.

in 1945 the B-29 was still only conducting trials with these weapons. It was about 2 weeks away from its first operation when the war ended. The Lancaster was a proven operational type that actually dropped them on the enemy. Thats quite a difference. I actually support the B-29 as the best bomber of the war if you read my post.



Yes it was, but how does that contradict what I said?

How about the B29 carrying an atomic weapon and the Lanc couldnt?

The B29 also carries the large aerial mines that finally sutdown the japanese inland seaways. The lanc couldnt do that.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Waynos

'Easy' would be a standard aircraft bombed up in the normal way to my mind. The fact was that without the Lancaster, none of these bombs would ever have been dropped operationally as the B-29 would have been too late.

Explain that in more detail. You lost me on it.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by syscom3

How about the B29 carrying an atomic weapon and the Lanc couldnt?

The B29 also carries the large aerial mines that finally sutdown the japanese inland seaways. The lanc couldnt do that.

Why couldn't it? What was the problem? Did the bomb/mine weigh more than 22.000lb?