The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Shortround6]

Yes, I think combat record definitely should come in to it. To that end, yes, I think the Lanc should score points over the B-29, she is the one that actually dropped them in combat. I can't really put it any more succinctly than that

Following that thinking means that few, if any aircraft, introduced into service from late 1944 on could be considered as the "best in category" because they wouldn't have enough time to build up as big a service record.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

And the B29 is the only plane to have dropped atomic weapons. Of which the Lancaster did not.

And Lanc ..... The B29 could carry two large naval mines on a 1600 mile mission. Could the Lancaster do that?

Well the RAF's largest mine was 2,000lb so yes, she could carry two of them that far (at a push without auxiliary tanks), indeed standard loading pattern 6 consisted of 6 such mines, but you could carry just 2. But that's rather besides the point though because if you think that's the argument I was trying to make you've completely missed the point I was trying to make. You mention the A-bombing as though you think I'm gonna say 'no, no that's different you see...', but I'm not, in exactly the same way the Grandslam is a feather in the cap of the Lanc, the A-bombs are a feather in the cap of the B-29.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Following that thinking means that few, if any aircraft, introduced into service from late 1944 on could be considered as the "best in category" because they wouldn't have enough time to build up as big a service record.

I fail to see how that follows on from what I said as I said that combat record is part of it. I believe combat record should matter to an extent, if nothing else it protects against the extreme cases. For example there was a B-29 flown around Britain in 1944. So there was a B-29 in Europe during the war but I'd be surprised if you were to argue that the B-29 was the best bomber in Europe during the war! I guess we just disagree as to how much emphasis to put on it.

 

[Readie]

The'A bomb' may be the B29's claim to fame in the PTO but, in the ETO its irrelevant as not even the maddest commander would consider nuclear weapons when they own troops were in the vicinity. would they????

 

[Shortround6]

Combat record should count as it helps point out turkeys or problems of which the B-29 had many. It was not well loved by many of it's crews, some of which, when given the choice at the end of WW II elected to go back to the US by ship rather than trust to flying back in their B-29s, or so the story goes. It took quite a while to sort the B-29 out.

But claiming that bomber A is better than bomber B because during a certain time period Bomber A dropped weapon C while bomber B did not even though bomber B was perfectly capable of dropping weapon C seems to be cutting things a bit fine.

Tell me that you don't like the B-29 because it killed a number of it's crews because of engine troubles or other problems that the Lancaster didn't suffer from anywhere near as bad.

 

[Shortround6]

The'A bomb' may be the B29's claim to fame in the PTO but, in the ETO its irrelevant as not even the maddest commander would consider nuclear weapons when they own troops were in the vicinity. would they????

The B-29 had a number of "claims" to fame in the PTO. The mining campaign is a little known one and the "A" bombs while the most destructive raids flown by small groups of air planes do over shadow the rest, like burning 16.4 square miles of Tokyo in one raid. It took many more planes but it destroyed more buildings over a wider area and killed more people than either "A" bomb drop. The "A" bomb cities were chosen because most of the bigger cities had already been turned to rubble.

 

[Mustang nut]

To usea B 29 you need pretty much complete superiority, If the B 29 was available in 1943 would it have been used in Europe which plane would escort it, on another thread it was stated that the use of the B 29 had to be re considered due to cost loss rates acceptable on B17s wernt acceptable on B 29s it was simply too expensive to lose.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

To usea B 29 you need pretty much complete superiority, If the B 29 was available in 1943 would it have been used in Europe which plane would escort it, on another thread it was stated that the use of the B 29 had to be re considered due to cost loss rates acceptable on B17s wernt acceptable on B 29s it was simply too expensive to lose.

Not true - the B-32 was the aircraft to be used inEurope to replace both the B-17 and B-24

 

[wuzak]

To usea B 29 you need pretty much complete superiority, If the B 29 was available in 1943 would it have been used in Europe which plane would escort it, on another thread it was stated that the use of the B 29 had to be re considered due to cost loss rates acceptable on B17s wernt acceptable on B 29s it was simply too expensive to lose.

Interesting question.

In 1943 the USAAF still believed in the idea that a bomber like the B-17 could fly to target and back unescorted. While this proved to be folly, the B-29 was far more capable of uperating unescorted because it could fly higher and faster, and it had a more formidable defence.

I would suggest that had the B-29 operated in Europe from late 1943 the tactics used would vary from those used for the B-17 and B-24.

 

[syscom3]

SR .... your claims about the B29 are not supported by facts. The veterans on the B29 website almost to a man, say that the B29 of middle 1945 was a reliable weapon. Your claim that they would have rather taken to sea route home to the USA is not borne out by reality. My "BS" detector is going off and I challenge you to provide proof of your assertions.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would wager to say that everyone is still patiently waiting for Ratsel to back up his claim that the Ju 88 was the best bomber "bar none".

 

[Readie]

Not true - the B-32 was the aircraft to be used inEurope to replace both the B-17 and B-24

I'm not convinced that we really needed a replacement for the Lancaster Flying Fortress.
I realise that the PTO demanded range but, in the ETO the old faithfull's delivered some pulverising attacks on the German war machine.

Having said that the LW delivered some pretty pulverising attacks on Britain too...Plymouth was flattened with twin engined bombers.

I have always been eternally grateful that the LW didn't have the Lancaster.

Cheers
John

 

[syscom3]

I'm not convinced that we really needed a replacement for the Lancaster Flying Fortress.
I realise that the PTO demanded range but, in the ETO the old faithfull's delivered some pulverising attacks on the German war machine.

It would have replaced the B17 and B24. If it weren't for the inexplicable and inexcusable delays in getting the first production types built, we would have seen it flying in Europe by the fall of 1944.

 

[Lucky13]

I said that

I'd like to issue an apology if I ever did say that, it must have been a very long time ago. I was young, stupid and didn't know what I was saying.

And today is different because.......??
What about the Dauntless, how would the war in the Pacific developed, if they hadn't sank IJN carriers when they did, Australia next??

 

[Lucky13]

Well, since it's all seem bugged down around the Lancaster and the B-29, I was wondering....

1. How many missions did each type fly?
2. What's tonnage dropped by each type?
3. What's the percentage in accuracy for each type?
4. Survivability for each type?
5. Mission abort percentage for each type?
6. Adaptability for each type and different missions?
7. Ease of maintenance for each type?

Can probably think of a few more.....

How did the B-29 compare to the Lancaster and flying night missions?

 

[Shortround6]

We are back to comparing the war record. Due to numbers built and time served this can lead to some rather absurd conclusions. Like comparing the Blenheim to the A-26.

1. How many missions flown by each during WW II?
2. what was the tonnage dropped by each in WW II?
3. Accuracy? measured how?
4. Survivabilty? Ok the A-26 gets this one
5. Mission abort????
6 Adaptability Paragraphs on this one,
7. Ease of maintenance?? Blenheim wins hands down. Two 9 cylinder engines vs two 18 cylinder engines put it far ahead to begin with

In three out of seven catagories the Blenheim is way ahead. Does this mean that the Blenheim is a better light bomber than the A-26? NO WAY.

It may have done more to help win the war with thousands built vs hundreds (during the war) and serving for years vs months. I don't think that means it was a better or more capable aircraft.

I know that these are not the bombers under discussion at the moment, just pointing out that a methodology that relies too heavily on war record can give some strange results.

 

[Lucky13]

Thanks, but was thinking solely between the B-29 and the Lancaster, since they seem to be the two that we're mostly, well.....arguing about....

 

[Readie]

Thanks, but was thinking solely between the B-29 and the Lancaster, since they seem to be the two that we're mostly, well.....arguing about....

There is no argument L13. The Lancaster was a superior and ultimately more adaptable / flexible heavy bomber. Now before theB29 boys blow a gasket, I am only talking about ETO and the Lancasters generation.
Cheers
John

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not to blow a gasket or anything, but how is it any different in the ETO as in the PTO? When comparing any aircraft, aircraft A is aircraft A, and aircraft B is aircraft B.

The B-29 was a superior aircraft to the Lancaster. Period. It was superior in design, performance, defensive armament...

The Lancaster was the better aircraft in the ETO because the B-29 did not serve in the ETO, but that does not make it a superior aircraft.

Again I am not blowing a gasket or anything like that, nor am I trying to take anything away from the Lancaster. It was a marvelous aircraft and did its job with exceptional ability. I would take a Lancaster over a B-17 or B-24 any day. People always want to use service record and what not, but the B-29 was still the next generation and was a superior aircraft in all respects to any of the earlier generation of heavy bombers to include the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster.

 

[Readie]

Not to blow a gasket or anything, but how is it any different in the ETO as in the PTO? When comparing any aircraft, aircraft A is aircraft A, and aircraft B is aircraft B.

The B-29 was a superior aircraft to the Lancaster. Period. It was superior in design, performance, defensive armament...

The Lancaster was the better aircraft in the ETO because the B-29 did not serve in the ETO, but that does not make it a superior aircraft.

Again I am not blowing a gasket or anything like that, nor am I trying to take anything away from the Lancaster. It was a marvelous aircraft and did its job with exceptional ability. I would take a Lancaster over a B-17 or B-24 any day. People always want to use service record and what not, but the B-29 was still the next generation and was a superior aircraft in all respects to any of the earlier generation of heavy bombers to include the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster.

Chris, I said 'within its generation'. I am being specific. The Lancaster proved itself in the specialist raids and with its hitting power. The Flying Fortress very very bravely flew daytime raids and the it proved itself to be tough as old boots. Both are classic bombers, my contention is that the Lancaster was a bit useful. Nothing more nothing less. Its is futile to compare the Lancaster to the B29. They are poles apart and of a different generation. Maybe if the ETO had dragged on a few more years we would celebrate the B29 as the bomber that levelled Germany.
Cheers
John