 | The Best Bomber of WWII: #4| Aviation Discuss The Best Bomber of WWII: #4 in the World War II - Aviation forums; Originally Posted by red admiral
With the 234 you don't lose half of your production run, you don't ... |
|
07-03-2006, 01:48 PM
|
#61 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,518
Country:  | 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! 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | 
|  | |
07-03-2006, 03:50 PM
|
#62 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 232
| 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. | |
| | |
07-03-2006, 04:12 PM
|
#63 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,518
Country: | 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....
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
07-03-2006, 05:19 PM
|
#64 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Saffron Walden/Sheffield
Posts: 3,001
Country:  | 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, 05:42 PM
|
#65 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,864
| 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, 05:53 PM
|
#66 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,518
Country: | 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...
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
07-03-2006, 06:47 PM
|
#67 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,051
Country: | 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, 05:31 AM
|
#68 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 232
| 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, 05:46 AM
|
#69 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 28,590
Country:  | 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!
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
07-04-2006, 06:38 AM
|
#70 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: UK
Posts: 3,422
Country:  | 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, 07:46 AM
|
#71 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 232
| 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, 07:48 AM
|
#72 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 28,590
Country: | 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.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
07-04-2006, 07:52 AM
|
#73 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 28,590
Country: | 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.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
07-04-2006, 09:38 AM
|
#74 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,100
Country: | 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. | |
| | |
07-04-2006, 09:42 AM
|
#75 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 28,590
Country: | 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.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 PM. | | |
