Poll: Best strategic bomber of Cold War (1950-1970)? (2 Viewers)

Which is your pick for best Cold War strategic bomber?

  • Avro Vulcan

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

    Votes: 21 70.0%
  • Boeing B-47 Stratojet

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Convair B-58 Hustler

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Convair B-36 Peacemaker

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Handley-Page Victor

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear"

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Tupolev Tu-16 "Badger"

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • Total voters
    30

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

ShVAK

Airman 1st Class
212
11
Aug 15, 2012
Which bomber would you want on your side most at the height of the Cold War?

Vote here!
 
You've got a problem, you start your period of coverage too early.
Only one of those aircraft was operational in 1950, the B-36. The rest you'd have to wait till 56 or so until they became operational, some hadn't even had their first flights till several years after 1950.

If the period was 1956-, i'd be a no brainer to me, the B-52.
 
I should've specified that as "in service from '50-'70 at any given point" if that makes any sense. Not that they were operational by '50. Same with the interceptor poll.
 
Yes I know, but once we get into mid-70s and 80's we're talking hardware that is largely still being used today. I wanted to see how 50's and 60's designs are evaluated by the folks around here.
 
The Tu-95 and B-52 both had their first flights in 1952, both became operational in 56, and both are still operational today, with maybe plans to stay operational for ANOTHER 20 years.

So i'd guess it'd come down to a choice between those two, afterall they have stood the test of time.
I'd pick the Buff, the B-52.

Just think of that, a weapon system staying in use 80 years.
How long did some of the great fighting sailing ships of the 18th and 19th century stay in use?
 
Were it available the Valiant B.2. Why (and how) on earth did a bankrupt Britain fund 4 different strategic bombers. By the way, in the cold war period, the Vulcan was an awesome very high altitude fighter were it so armed. At extreme height I have been reliably told of one out maneuvering an F14 with ease.
 
These types of threads make me nuts. Can you choose a 1970s bomber for operation in 1950? And if you choose an early bomber, say B-36, are you stuck with it until the '70s? :confused:
 
The Madsen machinegun is probably still in service somewhere, 110 years after it was introduced. 9 years longer then M1911 pistol. :)

2009 photo of Madsen machinegun in service with Brazilian police.
The Madsen machine gun, not quite dead yet
madsen1.jpg
 
Wow that's crazy. I'm sure Brazil has the means to replace it with something in house or imported that is modern and vastly simpler* by now but it's still kicking. Amazing for a gun that pretty much disappeared from continental Europe after WWII.

*The Madsen is actually an extensively modified Peabody-Martin lever action. I've seen a gif of it and still don't know how it works so well, let alone works at all.

220px-Madsen_Machine-Gun-Sectioned.jpg
 
I've seen similiar statements by gun experts. The designer was either genius or extremely lucky.

What amazes me is the Madsen machinegun continued to sell right up to about 1950. By then it was competing against BAR, ZB vz.26 (i.e. Bren), MG34, MG42 and quite a few other LMGs that were more modern.
 
Speaking of which, I think some countries still use the MG42 (MG3) design in 7.62 NATO and swear by them. 70 years after conception and it's still the best damn GPMG ever built.
 
I'm surprised they were worried about the B-58 being able to penetrate enemy air-space at high-altitude. From what I remember
  • Our MIM-14 missile batteries had a great deal of difficulty being able to carry out a successful mock-intercept against them; the SA-2 and MIM-14 were said to have similar capabilities
  • The MiG-21, Su-9, Yak-28, Su-11, and Su-15, and Tu-28 all had speeds that were either inferior to the cruise speed to superior to cruise, but inferior to top-end dash-speed, and IIRC, the first two, third, and fifth needed rear-quarter intercepts at first.
  • Comparisons against the F-106's were unrealistic as the USSR did not have anything similar to the Genie (I'm not sure if the USAF thought otherwise...)
  • I do know that the SA-2's did have variants with nuclear warheads as of 1964: I'm not sure whether we knew that or not, but that does seem a good way to make interceptions greatly more likely! I could imagine wanting to fly in the weeds rather than stay up high
 
Last edited:
I got some questions regarding two designs

Vulcan vs Victor
  • Vulcan was better down-low than the Victor at the least for metal fatigue issues
  • Was the Victor able to maneuver better than the Vulcan at altitude?
Bear vs Buff
  • There does not seem to be any area the Bear has an advantage over the BUFF in terms of survivability, though it seems to have a greater internal payload
  • The Tu-95 down low with turboprops: Could it fly further?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back