The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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

typed a reply then realised I had lost myself too. You said 'carry', not 'accomodate'. Two different meanings and I was arguing the wrong point syscom.

however I did mean to ask what you meant by this;

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

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

Much better post, please try to do that more often.

Now on to your post.

1. Was the B-29 not the most advanced bomber built during the war?
2. Was the B-29 not the bomber that could carry the heaviest bomb load over the farthest distance?
3. Did the B-29 have superior performance to the majority of other bombers out there?
4. What bombers were more superior to the B-29?

Answer those questions and you will see that that best heavy bomber built during WW2, was the B-29. Fact is fact, that can not be argued.

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.

The B-29 could carry a heavier bomb load than all other bombers over a longer range. The B-29 could also carry a Grand Slam or 2 Tall Boy bombs.

Originally Posted by river

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.

Then you should say which was the bomber that contributed the most. Contributing the most, does not necessarily mean the best.

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 B-29 was modified to carry the Grand Slam. The Lancaster had to be modified as well to carry it.

Originally Posted by Waynos

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

I believe the Lancaster was second to the B-29, beating out the 17 and 24 only because of its bomb load.

Originally Posted by syscom3

It also carried aerial mines, and also an atomic bomb. None of the other three could carry those two weapons.
.

Actually that is false. The Lancaster carried mines on a regular basis. In fact the first operational mission by Lancasters was by RAF Sqaudron No. 44 which was deploying mines on March 3,1942 in the Helgoland Bight.

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The B-29 was modified to carry the Grand Slam. The Lancaster had to be modified as well to carry it.

Yes, that is correct. I merely meant to say (unsuccessfully) that too. I read syscoms post saying the B-29 could carry the Grand Slam easily, as meaning it could be carried as a matter of course. I recognise he did not mean this but instead was referring to lifting capacity (I assume?)

I believe the Lancaster was second to the B-29, beating out the 17 and 24 only because of its bomb load.

Thats what I meant about proviso's to let your favourite in. The B-29 WAS the best heavy bomber of WW2 by a country mile. To find a way for the Lanc to be best you have to find a category that B-29 can be excluded from (ie mainstream bomber over a period of years during WW2) which just means that the Lancaster was the best.....until the B-29 appeared

[lingo]

The thread seems to have shifted emphasis from the best bomber of WW II to the best heavy bomber, to suit the posters preference. If we are to give priority to speed, then the Germans win with their Arado jet. If we are to talk about efficiency then the Ju 88 and the Mosquito are both worthy contenders. Load carrying ability at the last year of the war goes to the B-29 and before that to the Lancaster. It's all a movable feast!

[river]

Hi,

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

1. Was the B-29 not the most advanced bomber built during the war?
2. Was the B-29 not the bomber that could carry the heaviest bomb load over the farthest distance?
3. Did the B-29 have superior performance to the majority of other bombers out there?
4. What bombers were more superior to the B-29?

Answer those questions and you will see that that best heavy bomber built during WW2, was the B-29. Fact is fact, that can not be argued.
...
...

Then you should say which was the bomber that contributed the most. Contributing the most, does not necessarily mean the best.

It could be argued the Arado AR234 jet bomber was more advanced than the B29. Maybe not in the weaponry department, but certainly in the power plant area.

Carrying the heaviest bombload the furthest distance is great for long distance missions, like those in the PTO. However, in the ETO there was less emphasis on range. Having said that, I admit that if the B29 was used in the ETO it no doubt could of carried almost double the bombload of the exisiting heavy bombers, when considering the less distances involved.

Basically, if we are focusing purely on performance and outright payload capacity, then yes, the B29 was the best bomber of WW2. But,again, this is one definition of "the best".

Personally, I define the best as to which machine contributed the most, which would puts the emphasis on the Lanc, B17 and B24.

If the best is defined as versatility and enduring the entire war, perhaps it would go to the Ju88 or the Mosquito.

We need a better definition of what the best actually means, or nmore specific questions such as..

1) Best technically
2) Best dispatch/reliability
3) Best contributor
4) Best economically (ie bombload vs crew vs fuel/engines)

I am just throwing the above questions up as basic examples, and each question would probably provide a different answer.

Perhaps a weighting system, based on numerous factors, and the final result provides an answer. If so, what are the salient factors that are important for a bomber. For example...

1) Bombload
2) Speed
3) Altitude
4) Accuracy
5) Range
6) Defensive ability
7) Crew
) Theartres of operation
9) Reliability

Again, just examples. and to include light and medium bombers, items such as bombload could be done as a percentage of weight of the laden aircraft.

But.. I fear that perhaps I am looking at all of this a tad too seriously and therefore the best comes down to personal choice/favourite with a smattering of selected facts to help support your decision.

river

[Waynos]

I wouldn't agree that the Ar 234 was a more advanced aircraft. It was basically the same as the Gloster Meteor in that, engines apart, it was exactly the same as all other aircraft in its class. Bolting on jet engines made no difference to its overall advancement, it just gave it a higher performance. De Havilland was developing a Jet Mosquito, but it was not a more advanced plane than the standard one, just faster.

The B-29 was amuch more advanced design technically than either the Ar 234 or the Mosquito - pressurisation, high lift, low drag, high aspect ration wings of extremely advanced section to name two features. Calling a design advanced just because of its engines is a tad superficial.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Actually that is false. The Lancaster carried mines on a regular basis. In fact the first operational mission by Lancasters was by RAF Sqaudron No. 44 which was deploying mines on March 3,1942 in the Helgoland Bight.

You are correct. I forgot about those, and the mining of the Danube.

[parsifal]

my further two cents worth. This is going to ruffle feathers, but I need to put in a reality check for you guys, in the same way as the uber panzer guys need to take a reality pill once in a while.

For exactly the same reasons as the Tiger tank cannot be viewed as the "best tank of wwii, the B-29 cannot make that claim either. Oh its a technical marvel alright, head an shoulders above everybody else, but only if you view it from the narrow technological point of view.

So where does the B-29 fail?

I have two criticisms. Firstly, the B-289 could not undertake all functions successfully. Its maritime strike capability was limited, as was its ability to provide ground support to battlefield situations.

Secondly my opinion is that in the context of WWII, it fails on the grounds of cost. I read that the 3500 B-29s produced cost more to build than the entire 19000 B-24 program. How would 3500 B-29s fare, compared to 19000 B-24s over germany? They would have been cut to pieces, simply because there would not have been enough of them. If we assume similar deployment rates to Germany as was done historically in the PTO, th en ther would have been about 300 by the end of 1944, rising to about 500 by March 1945. At that same time, ther were thousands of B-24s and B-17s battling the Luftwaffe. I doubt that the B-29, despite its higher individual survivability, would have fared better overall, when viewed as agroup. There simply were not enough of them, and that was because they cost so much per unit to produce.

So while I agree they are the best from a technological point of view, from an operations point of view I see them as having rather limited potential in the WWII context.

[lingo]

The B-29 didn't have to face the fearsome German Flak so we will never know how it would have fared in European skies.

[Njaco]

Great post, Parsifal.

My.02 is that taking into consideration ALL aspects of bombers and the missions needed during WWII in almost all theatres, the Ju 88 would win. From mission requirements to bomb load to areas of operation and adaptability, the Ju 88 was mostly effective for the Luftwaffe.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by river

Hi,



It could be argued the Arado AR234 jet bomber was more advanced than the B29. Maybe not in the weaponry department, but certainly in the power plant area.

Carrying the heaviest bombload the furthest distance is great for long distance missions, like those in the PTO. However, in the ETO there was less emphasis on range. Having said that, I admit that if the B29 was used in the ETO it no doubt could of carried almost double the bombload of the exisiting heavy bombers, when considering the less distances involved.

Basically, if we are focusing purely on performance and outright payload capacity, then yes, the B29 was the best bomber of WW2. But,again, this is one definition of "the best".

Personally, I define the best as to which machine contributed the most, which would puts the emphasis on the Lanc, B17 and B24.

If the best is defined as versatility and enduring the entire war, perhaps it would go to the Ju88 or the Mosquito.

We need a better definition of what the best actually means, or nmore specific questions such as..

1) Best technically
2) Best dispatch/reliability
3) Best contributor
4) Best economically (ie bombload vs crew vs fuel/engines)

I am just throwing the above questions up as basic examples, and each question would probably provide a different answer.

Perhaps a weighting system, based on numerous factors, and the final result provides an answer. If so, what are the salient factors that are important for a bomber. For example...

1) Bombload
2) Speed
3) Altitude
4) Accuracy
5) Range
6) Defensive ability
7) Crew
) Theartres of operation
9) Reliability

Again, just examples. and to include light and medium bombers, items such as bombload could be done as a percentage of weight of the laden aircraft.

But.. I fear that perhaps I am looking at all of this a tad too seriously and therefore the best comes down to personal choice/favourite with a smattering of selected facts to help support your decision.

river

I can agree with you on the majority of that. You are correct that it is subjective. In all actuality you would have to break them down into types of bombers.

[trackend]

Said it once but will repeat it again as it was well down this thread, B29.
Techknowlogically far inadvance of its nearest comparison. and opened a new era in stratigic bomber design

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Great post, Parsifal.

My.02 is that taking into consideration ALL aspects of bombers and the missions needed during WWII in almost all theatres, the Ju 88 would win. From mission requirements to bomb load to areas of operation and adaptability, the Ju 88 was mostly effective for the Luftwaffe.

I'm biased....I love the Mossie, but really, before we can argue "the best", we have to define what we mean by "the best" the best what!!!, the fastest, the cheapest, the most versatile, the best strategic bomber.......waht are the criteria for determining "best"

I would suggest that perhaps the following criteria might serve as a starting point in developing such criteria

1) Survivability......ruggedness of construction
2) Bombload
3) Perfomrance....speed, rate of climb, manouvre, max altitude
4) Range
5) Defensive Armament
6) Multi-role capability
7) Armour protection/self sealing tanks
8 ) Availability...bombers available for the last month of the war are basically useless in my opinion, except as technological curiosities
9) and of course unit cost

perhaps ther are other criteria. i put about two minutes into that list.......once we have a list that we can agree on, then we have to give a relative weighting to each criteria.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by parsifal

my further two cents worth. This is going to ruffle feathers, but I need to put in a reality check for you guys, in the same way as the uber panzer guys need to take a reality pill once in a while.

For exactly the same reasons as the Tiger tank cannot be viewed as the "best tank of wwii, the B-29 cannot make that claim either. Oh its a technical marvel alright, head an shoulders above everybody else, but only if you view it from the narrow technological point of view.

So where does the B-29 fail?

I have two criticisms. Firstly, the B-289 could not undertake all functions successfully. Its maritime strike capability was limited, as was its ability to provide ground support to battlefield situations.

Secondly my opinion is that in the context of WWII, it fails on the grounds of cost. I read that the 3500 B-29s produced cost more to build than the entire 19000 B-24 program. How would 3500 B-29s fare, compared to 19000 B-24s over germany? They would have been cut to pieces, simply because there would not have been enough of them. If we assume similar deployment rates to Germany as was done historically in the PTO, th en ther would have been about 300 by the end of 1944, rising to about 500 by March 1945. At that same time, ther were thousands of B-24s and B-17s battling the Luftwaffe. I doubt that the B-29, despite its higher individual survivability, would have fared better overall, when viewed as agroup. There simply were not enough of them, and that was because they cost so much per unit to produce.

So while I agree they are the best from a technological point of view, from an operations point of view I see them as having rather limited potential in the WWII context.

Good post and I agree with that as well. As I said I think it has to be broken down. There were so many different bombers and missions. From a technical standpoint the B-29 was obviously the best, but from an economical or certain mission requirements it may not be.

[Waynos]

One thing that is also worth noting is that the B-29 was not only a leap ahead technologically over the Lancaster and B-17 & 24, it was also much more advanced than such as the Vickers Windsor and Avro Lincoln (and B-32?) which were directly comparable in timescale. I always fly the flag for British aircraft out of habit, but if you can't give credit where its due whats the point?

Speaking of which, I can't see how the Ju-88 could be rated above the DH Mosquito. The Mossie was faster, carried more bombs and was equally adaptable to say the least. I think the Ju 88 is certainly one of histories greatest aircraft, just behind the Mosquito I know, I know, lots of other don't