The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Vincenzo]

Surely the B 29 is the best strategic/heavy bomber of last 15 months of war but there is none of strange is some look a bomber with a large timeline in a 6 years war

[eddie_brunette]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Just think of a single B29 with an atomic bomb.

You could miss your target by a mile and still destroy it.

Could the Mossie do that?

Just think of 10 000 civilians, you only need to take out a radio station, could the B29 do it You need a sqaudron to do it, and it probably would miss the target

I'm all agaisnt killing thousands by carpet bombing.

Presicion bombing, one or two aircraft.

edd

[syscom3]

Taking out a radio station isnt going to win a war.

BTW, could the mossie carry two large naval mines 1600 miles from base?

[ToughOmbre]

I still say that the title of this thread should be "The 2nd Best Bomber of WWII.

Saying that the B-29 wasn't the best bomber of WWII is like saying Babe Ruth was not the greatest baseball player or Wayne Gretsky was not the greatest hockey player of all time.

Some things in this world are absolute, and the B-29's place in WWII history is one of them.

TO

[Dragonsinger]

Haztoys, drgondog

Well the Japanese DID manage to get a couple of bombs on to US soil by launching baloon carried bombs. No it was not a great success but it happened. The RAF got Vulcan bombers over Port Stanley and exactly how far outside the range of a Vulcan is that? NO! Sorry. They did it so thats inside their operational range then.

What I meant was that given the German propensity for making crazy ideas work by assuming that there was a logical solution to an illogical demand they could possibly have come up with something.

Possibly an Arado towing three gliders full of fuel and a very long siphon tube. Drop each tanker as its empty and give the pilot a sailing dingy and water and he could get back to Europe/Africa. Let's face it, it might just be possible to refuel an aircraft in flight.

Admittedly you would need to be desperate to try the above. Were the Germans that desparate? Did the mission take off and fail?
To be honest I wouldn't put anything past people who had designed and tested a flying saucer.




Dragonsinger

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Taking out a radio station isnt going to win a war.

BTW, could the mossie carry two large naval mines 1600 miles from base?

Strategic bombing in itself neither, if you don't have an army and tactical bombers to conquer some airbases for you.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Strategic bombing in itself neither, if you don't have an army and tactical bombers to conquer some airbases for you.

Japan was defeated without an invasion. The submarine blockade brought Japan to its knees and the B29's delivered the coup-de-grace.

Now just what did the mossie do that was superior to the Lanc and b29?

[comiso90]

IMO the Mossie, as fantastic as it was, had some peers that although weren't as good could still perform similar roles... The JU-88 comes to mind..

The B-29 had no peers... nothing else could come close.

.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Japan was defeated without an invasion. The submarine blockade brought Japan to its knees and the B29's delivered the coup-de-grace.

Now just what did the mossie do that was superior to the Lanc and b29?

Ah, so you think the whole war in the Pacific wasn't necessary? Just blocking and bombing should have been enough?
And what do you think makes you able to compare Mossies to Lanc's and B29?

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by comiso90

IMO the Mossie, as fantastic as it was, had some peers that although weren't as good could still perform similar roles... The JU-88 comes to mind..

The B-29 had no peers... nothing else could come close.

.

I would think for instance the Lanc could have been adequate enough to perform the same missions.Just the same situation as the Mossie vs the Ju88. Even better, the Lanc, B17, B24 and Halifaxes did that in the ETO, and against a much harder enemy.
Don't get me wrong, I do see the B29 as the best heavy bomber, but the others weren't bad, either.

[trackend]

B29 just has to be the best bomber of the war but not the most effective I think there is a big difference, the B29 effectively combined the best traits.
But as it was a relitive late comer to the conflict it had less impact.
I know it dropped the A bombs but it was the bombs not the plane that was significant. The B17 and the Lanc had far more overall impact on the bombing campaign. Pay load goes to the Lancaster, durability to the B17 the B29 achieved both in one aircraft add better and more sofisticated technoledgy therefore this must end up as the best aicraft.
However as with all the WW2 weaponry it was the mass produced tools that did the greatest amount of work From the Sherman to the Jeep or the Lee Enfield to the M1 Garand.
In the bombing campiagn it was the Lanc and the B17

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Why are we comparing the Mossie to the B-29.

Two different kind of aircraft, two different kinds of missions....

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by trackend

B29 just has to be the best bomber of the war but not the most effective I think there is a big difference, the B29 effectively combined the best traits.
But as it was a relitive late comer to the conflict it had less impact.
I know it dropped the A bombs but it was the bombs not the plane that was significant. The B17 and the Lanc had far more overall impact on the bombing campaign. Pay load goes to the Lancaster, durability to the B17 the B29 achieved both in one aircraft add better and more sofisticated technoledgy therefore this must end up as the best aicraft.
However as with all the WW2 weaponry it was the mass produced tools that did the greatest amount of work From the Sherman to the Jeep or the Lee Enfield to the M1 Garand.
In the bombing campiagn it was the Lanc and the B17

Actually history takes note from various Japanese sources that the night firebombing missions were devasting to Japan. The Japanes concentrated far more of their industry within the city boundaries and the 20th AF literally burned every city above the size of Nashville to the ground. Proportionately the B-29 may have done more damage to Japanese Industrial targets than the US Strategic and RAF Bomber Command combined.. (and it may not have).

I'm a little unclear how one compares the quantitative results between the three bombing campaigns but the Japanes were effectively throttled on sea by US sub fleet and B-29 Inland water mining campaign.

The B-29 simply ran out of large targets on the mainland - all effectively occurring from March 1945 when LeMay figured out that the Japanese were nowhere as formidable as the Germans relative to either Fire departments, fire containment or night fighting capability.

This was a mission that could not even start with Lancs, B-24s or B-17s until Okinawa was consolidated and the job was pretty much done by then.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Why are we comparing the Mossie to the B-29.

Two different kind of aircraft, two different kinds of missions....

My point exactly.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Dragonsinger

Haztoys, drgondog

Well the Japanese DID manage to get a couple of bombs on to US soil by launching baloon carried bombs. No it was not a great success but it happened. The RAF got Vulcan bombers over Port Stanley and exactly how far outside the range of a Vulcan is that? NO! Sorry. They did it so thats inside their operational range then.

So, give me an illustration of New York in some obscure range of Heinkels' in an operational context - or similarly any Japanes bomber you care to name.


What I meant was that given the German propensity for making crazy ideas work by assuming that there was a logical solution to an illogical demand they could possibly have come up with something.

But they didn't, did they?

Possibly an Arado towing three gliders full of fuel and a very long siphon tube. Drop each tanker as its empty and give the pilot a sailing dingy and water and he could get back to Europe/Africa. Let's face it, it might just be possible to refuel an aircraft in flight.

Possibly Tinker Belle spraying fairy dust on the Arado?

I am being somewaht sarcastic and apologise but I confess I have no idea where you are heading with this.

Admittedly you would need to be desperate to try the above. Were the Germans that desparate? Did the mission take off and fail?
To be honest I wouldn't put anything past people who had designed and tested a flying saucer.:

Dragonsinger

Would you consider that they tried everything in their technical grasp and political will but did not succeed? In other words what Could have happened, in effect, Did happen?

I have no problem with a "Men not Machines" thesis, but point out that bombing Japan with a bomber took place via the USS Hornet early and China/Marianas land bases late... and none at all on US from either Japan or Germany - and how badly do you suppose they would like to have achieved that for propaganda purposes?