The Best Bomber of WWII: #4 - Page 5 - Aircraft of World War II

FLYBOYJ · 07-03-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red admiral

With the 234 you don't lose half of your production run, you don't use as many resources to build them, you only lose 1 crewman and you have about 75% - 50% of the bombload of a B-17/24

With an engine that lasted 20 hours if you were lucky!

red admiral · 07-03-2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

With an engine that lasted 20 hours if you were lucky!

Better than flying for an hour then being shot down.

It was only the 004B that had the lifetime problems, they were alleviated with the 004C and 004D.models.

FLYBOYJ · 07-03-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red admiral

Better than flying for an hour then being shot down.

It was only the 004B that had the lifetime problems, they were alleviated with the 004C and 004D.models.

Doesn't mean squat - the 234, while very advance was still a flash in the pan by the time it was deployed. It's outcome on the war was minimal and with a bomb load could still be easily intercepted. As far as great bombers of WW2 it belongs in the bottom 50....

mosquitoman · 07-03-2006, 07:19 PM

Along with the Batttle and the Vildebeest then

syscom3 · 07-03-2006, 07:42 PM

The Arado was fast. Thats what its only adavtage.

It did not have an advanced avionics suite like the Lanc and B29 had. It didnt have the payload to make a difference. And it didnt have the range.

No capability at night, no capability in cloudy weather.

Bottom line, it was an interesting jet, but would have had no impact on strategic bombing.

FLYBOYJ · 07-03-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

Along with the Batttle and the Vildebeest then

hehehehe

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

The Arado was fast. Thats what its only adavtage.

It did not have an advanced avionics suite like the Lanc and B29 had. It didnt have the payload to make a difference. And it didnt have the range.

No capability at night, no capability in cloudy weather.

Bottom line, it was an interesting jet, but would have had no impact on strategic bombing.

Agree...

plan_D · 07-03-2006, 08:47 PM

The Ar-234 would have been an exceptional tactical bomber however. Speed was the focal point of the Mosqutio excellence, and the Ar-234 had it in abundance. I know this is not a bomber variant, but the Ar-234 was never reported by Allies on recon missions yet the plane brought plenty photographs.

I disagree that the Ar-234 would be an effective strategic bomber, of any sort. But tactically it had the potential and proved it's ability by destroying the Remagen Bridge. Given more time and development, it would have been one of the premier tactical bombers of the war. But history happened and the war ended.

red admiral · 07-04-2006, 07:31 AM

Everyone seems to have different images of "best" ranging from most effective to most impact on the war.

Bombs dropped per plane lost seems a good indicator, and since losses with the Ar 234 are negligible it is "best".

The Ar 234s flying recon over Britain were never intercepted to my knowledge.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-04-2006, 07:46 AM

And that is why I said it was better to be a recon aircraft than a bomber since its bomb load was negligable.

The best bomber is hands down B-29, how you can even argue with that red admiral goes right over my head!

trackend · 07-04-2006, 08:38 AM

Im with you Adler the B29 in my opinion was by far the best and most advanced heavy bomber to come out of WW2 most other machines where 3or more years behind thats not to say that it was the most effective as its role during WW2 lasted for a relitively short time compared to the Lanc and B17
But then the thread is after the best not the most effective.

red admiral · 07-04-2006, 09:46 AM

See I'm having the same problem with people not understanding that the Ar 234 is "best".

The B-29 is undisputedly the best piston-engined bomber in WWII. But it was the last save the B-36. The Ar 234 was the new generation of aircraft and a taste of things to come. The B-29 just cannot compete with that.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-04-2006, 09:48 AM

Besides red admiral, do you have info on the ammount of bomb tonnage was dropped by the Ar-234. I am sure you will see it was not much.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-04-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red admiral

See I'm having the same problem with people not understanding that the Ar 234 is "best".

The B-29 is undisputedly the best piston-engined bomber in WWII. But it was the last save the B-36. The Ar 234 was the new generation of aircraft and a taste of things to come. The B-29 just cannot compete with that.

Yes the B-29 can compete with that. The B-29 can drop an Atomic Bomb, the B-29 can carry one aircraft the amount of tonnage as many Ar-234s.

No one is argueing with that the Ar-234 was not a good aircraft. It was a marvelous aircraft but as it comes to bombers it does not rank as the best and no where near it.

It was a decent tactical field bomber and a a really good recon aircraft but not as a strategic bomber.

davparlr · 07-04-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

First of all in June 1944 there was still a year left in the war. 2nd even if it had not seen combat until March of 1945, the war was still going on and therefor it is a WW2 bomber. Therefore since it was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 it is number 1.

1. B-29
2. Lancaster
3. B-17
4. B-24
5. Halifax

I agree except I might would select the B-24 over the B-17 due to a better range/payload value, quantity produced and success in other roles (it seems to have made an impact in the Battle of the Atlantic). I know nothing about the Halifax. The B-29 was easily the best bomber going on to become the first strategic bomber for the US and the USSR. The Arado maybe fortold the future of combat aircraft but in itself was nothing.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-04-2006, 11:42 AM

Exactly there about there Arado.

It was a great aircraft but its range was limited and its payload was limited. Its only advantage over the others is its speed.

The B-17 and the B-24 to me are a toss up. Personally the B-24 was probably a better bomber but you can not beat the survivability of the B-17 which the B-24 did not have.

07-03-2006, 07:19 PM	#64
mosquitoman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Saffron Walden/Sheffield Posts: 2,991	Along with the Batttle and the Vildebeest then __________________ When you realise that the light at the end of the tunnel is actually an oncoming train, you know it's time to run for your life

07-03-2006, 07:42 PM	#65
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,275	The Arado was fast. Thats what its only adavtage. It did not have an advanced avionics suite like the Lanc and B29 had. It didnt have the payload to make a difference. And it didnt have the range. No capability at night, no capability in cloudy weather. Bottom line, it was an interesting jet, but would have had no impact on strategic bombing. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

07-03-2006, 08:47 PM	#67
plan_D Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,978	The Ar-234 would have been an exceptional tactical bomber however. Speed was the focal point of the Mosqutio excellence, and the Ar-234 had it in abundance. I know this is not a bomber variant, but the Ar-234 was never reported by Allies on recon missions yet the plane brought plenty photographs. I disagree that the Ar-234 would be an effective strategic bomber, of any sort. But tactically it had the potential and proved it's ability by destroying the Remagen Bridge. Given more time and development, it would have been one of the premier tactical bombers of the war. But history happened and the war ended. __________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004 To those in that club.

07-04-2006, 07:46 AM	#69
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,150	And that is why I said it was better to be a recon aircraft than a bomber since its bomb load was negligable. The best bomber is hands down B-29, how you can even argue with that red admiral goes right over my head! __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

07-04-2006, 09:48 AM	#72
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,150	Besides red admiral, do you have info on the ammount of bomb tonnage was dropped by the Ar-234. I am sure you will see it was not much. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

07-04-2006, 07:31 AM	#68
red admiral Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 374	Everyone seems to have different images of "best" ranging from most effective to most impact on the war. Bombs dropped per plane lost seems a good indicator, and since losses with the Ar 234 are negligible it is "best". The Ar 234s flying recon over Britain were never intercepted to my knowledge.

07-04-2006, 08:38 AM	#70
trackend Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Canvey Island, Essex Posts: 4,029	Im with you Adler the B29 in my opinion was by far the best and most advanced heavy bomber to come out of WW2 most other machines where 3or more years behind thats not to say that it was the most effective as its role during WW2 lasted for a relitively short time compared to the Lanc and B17 But then the thread is after the best not the most effective.

07-04-2006, 09:46 AM	#71
red admiral Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 374	See I'm having the same problem with people not understanding that the Ar 234 is "best". The B-29 is undisputedly the best piston-engined bomber in WWII. But it was the last save the B-36. The Ar 234 was the new generation of aircraft and a taste of things to come. The B-29 just cannot compete with that.

07-04-2006, 11:42 AM	#75
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,150	Exactly there about there Arado. It was a great aircraft but its range was limited and its payload was limited. Its only advantage over the others is its speed. The B-17 and the B-24 to me are a toss up. Personally the B-24 was probably a better bomber but you can not beat the survivability of the B-17 which the B-24 did not have. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode