Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Heavy Bombers
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by slimdaddy (U14035560) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
I'm sure that Germany's failure to manaufacture a heavy bomber fleet was an achilles heels as WW2 progressed. Knowing how ambitions Hitler was to conquer the word and GB's apparent lack appetite for war I've always found this odd.
Anyhow, I'm keen to know if there is a general consensus of the most effective heavy bomber of WW2. -
Message 2
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
Not an area I know much about, but I'm guessing the B17 Flying Fortress and its successor the B29 Superfortress were amongst the most advanced allied designs - particularly the latter, with its pressurised cabin and analogue-computer-controlled weapons systems.
-
Message 3
Posted by slimdaddy (U14035560) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
Hi Mike,
I'm not an expert myself though the US bombers were just as vunerable to German defences as the Brits were on daylight raids. Furthermore I'm sure I read somewhere that LAncasters had a bigger payload than their US equivalents. -
Message 4
Posted by Penske666 (U9181113) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
There was a German Heavy bomber but for some reason never reached production.
The whole Luftwaffe was a mess by the end of the war - Converting jet fighters (ME262) to bombers whilst having a ready made bomber (Arado AR234) was probably the worst mistake
Not sure which was the most effective allied bomber but the numbers used in single raids help to give certain victory. -
Message 5
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
The Luftwaffe was an air force in name only, and that only because of the victim-complex at the heart of Nazi ideology that resented being banned from having one.
German bombers existed as part of what today we would call an integrated air-land battle complex. Their role was to support land forces. The doctrine of strategic air power put forward by Trenchard and Mitchell was not present in the German system.
Add to that the shambolic amatuerish command structure of the Luftwaffe under Goering, a fighter pilot who knew nothing and cared less about bombers.
Even if they had developed something like the FW200 into a capable 4-engined heavy, the limited range of their fighters would have left them easy prey. -
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
Unlike the B17 or 29, the Lancaster could carry the heaviest bombs of the time, up to and including the 22000 lb grand slam. They carried more bombs over Europe than the U S bombers. So my vote for heavy bomber goes to the Lancaster. The best all rounder award has to go to the Mosquito. The bomber version could carry a bigger bomb load that the B 17.
-
Message 7
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
Later in the war the Germans did attempt to develop heavy bombers, the Heinkel He 177 for example which was plagued by development problems and as previously mentioned a chaotic command and procurement structure. There were also grandiose plans for jet propelled giant aircraft capable of bombing America but by this time the lack of suitable raw materials and fuel scuppered any such dreams.
As for the most useful bomber I would support GrumpyFred in recommending the 'Mossie'. Not only did it have a comparable bomb load with the B-17 but it also flew much faster and only needed a crew of two. A most cost effective aircraft. -
Message 8
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
I think the B17 had a higher operational ceiling than any other bomber of the time; they had good defensive weapons and were famous for making return flights even when heavily damaged.
Used primarily as a daytime precision bomber, the job description was totally different from that of the Lancaster. The US dropped 1.5 million tonnes of bombs on Germany in WWII, of which 640,000 were dropped by B17s. -
Message 9
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
Mike
Which flags up the fact that another aircraft type dropped more bombs than the B-17. There were more B-24 Liberators in USAAF service than B-17s. But the Flying Fortress gets all the attention.
The B-24 crews used to ascribe this to the fact that the B-17 had an extra crew member - the public relations guy from Boeing.
LW -
Message 10
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
Well -- "It's the economy, stupid."
Britain could afford a large heavy bomber fleet because it did not need to maintain a large army, and its leadership was willing to bet that the heavy bomber fleet was decisive -- no army Britain could field was going to win against the Germans on the European continent. With access to the world's markets and the support of the USA, it was relatively rich in fuel and the light alloys required for aircraft construction. As for the USA, it of course had huge industrial power.
But Germany did need to maintain a large land army, and it simply did not have enough metal to support both a large army and a large air force. And throughout the war its fuel supplies were at a level that would have a caused a panic in London -- In 1944 it could no longer provide enough fuel even for the small heavy bomber force that it did have.
In reality, it was simply impossible for the Luftwaffe to operate a large fleet of heavy bombers. And even if it did, strategic attacks on the enemy's industrial centers could only be a factor of significance in a long war -- but Germany would lose a long war anyway. So the Reich invested instead in tactical air power and excellent air-ground cooperation, in the hope to be able to finish the war with fast offensives.
A small number of long-range bombers was still useful for naval reconnaissance and nuisance bombing, so that is what they built. The design of the He 177, illogical as it seems with hindsight, was driven by the thought that increased bombing accuracy was necessary for the naval role, and would compensate for the smaller numbers.
With hindsight, I wouldn't even claim that the Luftwaffe was wrong. The effectiveness of the Allied strategic bomber offensive is still in doubt, even today. The effectiveness of tactical air power and ground support is beyond doubt -- it's impact on the battlefield was enormous, although often less by destroying the enemy than by nailing him down into trenches and shelters.
As for the best heavy bomber, without doubt the B-29, but it appeared quite late in the war. The best widely used heavy bomber was probably the Lancaster, but it was equipped for operations at night. Of the day bombers, the B-24 was not as famous or as loved as the B-17, but it was built in larger numbers. The B-24 was probably the better bomber overall, but the more rugged B-17 was a safer aircraft to fly in the heavy combat of 1943... -
Message 11
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010
Hello M-M,
The other reason that enabled Britain to concentrate on the production of heavy bombers was the agreement with the US that they (America)would be responsible for the production of transport aircraft. Which was the reason for the paucity of civilian airline aircraft available in Britain after the war and the lead in such aircraft gained by the USA, for example the DC6 and the Constellation ... whilst the Brits could only modify unsuitable existing Bomber aircraft. For example the Avro Lancastrian.
Another reason for the fuel shortage was of course the fronts that the German was forced to fight on coupled with the failure to capture the oil whilst Hitler vacillated on the real objectives of his campaign in the East.
As for the cost effectiveness of various bombers, one issue is the shear complexity of the B24 as opposed to the B-17. The B-29 on the other hand cost about one million dollars each I believe, and the loss of over thirty aircraft in two raids over Tokyo for example was not the sort of expenditure that could have been absorbed by Britain.
The Mosquito used wood (relatively cheap) and the non-essential trade of wood-workers which made it, as far as Britain's war effort was concerned most cost effective.
Regards Spruggles. -
Message 12
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010
The Lancaster was vulnerable to attacking fighters and flak, so the RAF concentrated on night missions. Flying at night reduced the accuracy of the bombing.
The Mosquito was fast and manouevrable, but couldn't carry a heavy bomb load for a long distance without losing its advantages of speed and agility. It was vulnerable in large formations because of its wooden construction.
The B17 was a formidable bomber though. Good performance over long range, and great defensive armamamnr meant it was used on daylight raids which ultimately were more accurate. -
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010
The Mosquito flew low and fast, hitting targets most of the time. The first marks were unarmed so would not fly in packs because it would draw attention to themselves.Their best defence was the fact theu could outrun most German fighters. Their bomb load was greater though than the B 17 The fighter nighter fighter and bomber versions were worth their weight in gold. And being wood they were the first stealth fighter, returning a very low radar return.
-
Message 14
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010
In practical terms, the B-17 was just as vulnerable to fighters in daylight as the British aircraft, and the armour, guns and ammunition carried for self-defence placed a major constraint on the bombload over any distance. It nwas the advent of the escort fighter, especially the P-51 Mustang, that allowed the USAAF bomber to operate in daylight.
In theory, the B-17s and B-24s had a more accurate bombsight. This was fine in the hot dry air over the Arizona test ranges. The weather was rarely so accomodating over Europe. On the other hand, Bomber Command got steadily more accurate at night (but never pinpoint) as new techniques and new equipment, especially H2S came in.
American research has shown that in the second half of 1944 and early 1945, Bomber Command at night achieved greater accuracy than the USAAF by day, mainly because the USAAF could not handle cloudy conditions. -
Message 15
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010
GF
We've done this one before.
When the Mosquitoes flew low for pinpoint attacks, the squadrons suffered casualty equivalent to that of the heavies. When they flew high and fast, their accuracy was no better than the heavies.
Mosquitoes could not carry anything heavier than a 4000lb bomb. If carrying 500lb (a more frequent load), they only carried 3000lb - the bombcarrier only held 6 bombs of that type. If equipped with H2S, the aircraft could only realistically carry markers, unlike the Lancs and Halifaxs.
While the Mossie's load to Berlin was equivalent to that of the B-17 over similar distances, the B-17 had a greater capacity overall.
Great aircraft, but not the answer to every operational maiden's prayer.
LW -
Message 16
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010
All the heavy bombers were vulnerable to enemy fighters, and to a lesser degree to flak -- flak was comparatively ineffective in bringing down bombers.
The idea that bombers would be able to themselves against enemy fighters in daylight was born in the 1920s, when the typical armament of a fighter was two rifle-calibre machine guns, and the typical armament wielded by a gunner on a bomber was one or two rifle-calibre machine guns. (But this had also been the case in WWI, and combat experience from that conflict did not actually support that theory.) But in the late 1930s and during the war the fighters became much more heavily armed, until many carried 10 or even 30 times the firepower of the interbellum. The armament of bombers could not keep up with this evolution, and increasing speed and altitudes made it more and more difficult to make defensive armament effective.
Manually aimed machine guns, although present on many bombers until the end of the war, became almost useless. The answer was the powered gun turret, which began to defend British bombers in the late 1930s, and appeared on US bombers as technology and combat experience were passed on across the ocean. Turrets vastly increased the effectiveness of the defensive armament, but they were bulky and very heavy, and for most of the war were limited to a maximum of two heavy machineguns or four rifle-calibre machineguns. The bombers of the period could not carry heavier turrets, although at the end of the war a turret with two 20-mm cannon appeared on the Lincoln.
Although the defensive guns on a B-17 or a B-24 had some effectiveness in deterring enemy fighters, they were nowhere near effective enough to make unescorted bombing tenable. The bombers probably expended about 40,000 rounds for every fighter they brought down (normal .50 ammunition load for a B-17 was 12,000 rounds, weighing 1600kg). In August 1943 a crisis was reached when the USAAF lost one of every six bombers committed to the attacks on Schweinfurt and Regensburg -- and actually rather more then one in four if aircraft that had to be written off after their return, are included. What saved the USAAF's bomber offensive was the appearance of effective long-range escort fighters, and aggressive counter-force tactics designed to destroy the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe.
Almost the same was true at night. Initially, the cover of darkness protected the RAF's night bombers well enough, but as the Luftwaffe expanded its defenses and developed better radar equipment, losses became unsustainable. The tide was turned when the RAF began to send nightfighters and intruders into enemy territory to take on the 'Nachtjagd'. Because the RAF had the advantage in radar technology and the Mosquito was the best nightfighter of the war, German losses soon exceeded victories.
As a bomber, the Mosquito was ahead of its time -- after the war most designers would acknowledge that on a modern bomber, the defensive armament wasn't worth carrying. It could not carry the bombload of a Lancaster -- an average 1,600 kg against 3,370 kg -- but it could deliver bombs more cost-effectively. The tactic nobody tried, because the aircraft weren't really there, was attacking in daylight with fast, unarmed bombers with a strong fighter escort. With hindsight, that might very well have worked. The relatively small loss in defensive power would have been offset by increased speed, which would have made it much more difficult for the Luftwaffe to gather fighters for an attack.
I doubt that daylight raids were really more accurate -- someone else already quoted the saying that the RAF precision-bombed area targets while the USAAF area-bombed precision targets. (In the costly raid on Schweinfurt that I already mentioned, only 8% of the bombs hit their target -- an industrial complex of considerable size.) The advantage of being able to see the target was, given the typical north-west-European weather, often very hypothetical. In reality both forces were dependent on navigation aids, radar and dropped markers to find their targets, and the USAAF soon adopted most of the equipment the RAF had developed for night attacks. -
Message 17
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010
The agreement that the USA would produce transport aircraft for both Allies is often mentioned -- but I am not sure it existed as such. There may have been a tacit agreement, brought about by the circumstances.
The USA already had a clear lead in transport aircraft before WWII, thanks to the efforts of Douglas and Lockheed. Already before the war, they had produced a new generation of commercially viable airliners, such as the DC-3 and the Lockheed 14. These had no British equivalent. Britain was stuck with aircraft such as the Handley Page H.P.42 and the de Havilland D.H.86 -- charming relics of a bygone age. (Chamberlain, as the famous picture shows, returned from Munich in a Lockheed Electra).
The reason was largely economic: The USA had a real market for internal air transport. For Britain, a smaller country with an excellent rail network, air transport was largely a matter of prestige, with a secondary interest in transporting small numbers of officials to the colonies and back. -
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010
Again, Britain opped more for long range flying boats to service the Empire rather than land based transports. D H did things like the Rapide, and Avro the Anson which was used by the RAF as a Coastal Command A/C. If you are ever passing the old Liverpool Airport, there is a Rapide outside what was the airport builsings, but is now a hotel. After the war, Handly Page turned out the Hastings, using mainly Halifax parts. Later Vickers turned out the Viscount and other companies turned out some nice passenger A/C, but the dirty deed was done. Until the arrival of Europian Airbus, the U S would almost control the passenger aircraft industry. Turning out some world beaters such as the 707 and 747. The RAF had the sense in 1982 to buy some surplus Tristars to fill the tanker/transport role. Now they are spending money having somebody redesign the wheel for the next generation. (Off subject)
-
Message 19
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010
Which flags up the fact that another aircraft type dropped more bombs than the B-17.Β
Not according to Wikipedia, which claims more US bombs were dropped by B17s than any other aircraft. So the remaining 860,000 tonnes must have been divided quite a few ways. -
Message 20
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 24th January 2010
An interesting discussion, with me agreeing pretty much with MM and LW.
I won't pick a single one, but to me the 3 most influential bomber of the war were the Mosquito, and the B29, with my vote as most "effective" to the Lancaster.
As mentioned above after the war "the Mosquito concept" was the one that rapidly became paradigm among designers... The Douglas Mixmaster was an attempt to better the Mosquito, and the Canberra is a perfect evolution of it.
The B29, while being an outmoded concept* (bomber defending itself), pioneered many of the systems used right through until the 1970s, and was a real leap forward at the time.
The Lancaster? Well it wasn't as advanced in looks or design as the B29 but it was "right". Many of the pilots praised its handling in dodgy situations, and toughness, and reliability. Reliability and handling are two areas it has over the B29, and the sheer adaptability of the bomb bay meant anything could be carried, unlike the B17 and the B24. If they had been escorted by hundreds of P51s and P47s I'm sure the Lancs could have flown daylight misssions just as well as thier US counterparts.
* The Soviets oddly hung onto the self defending bomber concept longer than anyone else. I dunno why. -
Message 21
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 24th January 2010
Yes, the USSR continued to put gun turrets on bombers and even transport aircraft for a considerable time after the war. I think there are two plausible explanations.
One is simply lack of experience. Although the USSR had a big heavy bomber fleet in the early 1930s, in WWII it concentrated on the tactical use of air power, with very limited use of heavy bombers. So they did not have the negative experience with defensive guns of the Western powers. They did not have much experience in modern bomber design at all, and the B-29 (with sophisticated remote-controlled gun turrets) would have a lasting influence on Soviet bomber design. Nevertheless, they have learned from their mistakes.
The alternative explanation is that the Soviets were confident that the balance of firepower worked to their advantage. In the immediate post-war years, USAF fighters were still stuck with a battery of .50 guns, an armament concept that had become firmly outdated and was of dubious effectiveness against a large bomber. But Soviet engineers were producing the best aircraft guns in the world, and the gun turrets on their bombers were fitted with 20-mm or 23-mm cannon. -
Message 22
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 24th January 2010
Never thought about the balance of gunpower concept but of course MM you are right! I might fancy my chances with 2x23mm cannon vs the 6 machine guns of a Shooting Star, Thunderjet, or a Sabre. Especially if I was in the tail turret and I was experienced and they were naive.
-
Message 23
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
Yet, if Wever had lived, maybe the Luftwaffe would have had four-engined bombers!
Hence, they have a development Do19, but no Do17s. In turn, it is replaced by a four-engined He177. And the Fw200 is confined to being a military transport. -
Message 24
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
Not quite so, the F200 Condor was used as a long range maritime bomber scouting far out into the Atlantic then passing on information to the U Boat packs. They were the reason for the introduction of the Cam Ships.
-
Message 25
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
MM and SS
The USAF also kept gun armament on its '50s-era bombers, and some of the B.52s kept theirs into the 1980s. The RAF was somewhat ahead of the trend by abandoning guns as early as it did (and the spec for the V-bombers originally had guns).
Cannon armament on a bomber was credible against gun fighters (and even the early AAM-equipped ones). The bomber was a more stable gun platform than the fighter, and being turreted, the guns could be trained to track their target. The bombers also had the advantage of their guns being radar-laid, which the fighters' were not.
USAF B.52s had a number of successes against NVAF Migs over Vietnam, including on one occassion a Mig-21 (the FISHBED pilot probably felt very, very silly).
For the recce Tu.95 BEARs there was also the possibility of encountering NATO maritime patrol aircraft, where having a gun would be definite advantage. RAF Nimrod MR.1s were wired for AAMs with this in mind, although the missiles were not actually fitted until the Falklands campaign, after they had encountered Argentinian Boeing 707s (which were not armed, of course, but were legitimate targets).
There is also the factor of crew confidence. Having the ability to shoot back, even if it is only of limited actual utility, is good for morale.
An example, from an earlier era, a Bomber Command operational research team went out to SEAC in 1944 to advise the RAF how to maximise their Liberator payloads on long range missions. the OR eggheads advised, among other things, that because Japanese fighters were so rarely encountered and as a successful defence was unlikely if they were, the bombers could save weight by dismounting the guns (and ammo) and airgunners. This idea was rejected out of hand, whatever statistical sense it made (to a non-flyer).
LW -
Message 26
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
MikeA
I've been trying to find my source, but it's buried somewhere.
Partisans of the B-17 and the B-24 both claim their favourite dropped the most bombs. The figure of 640,000-odd tons for the B-17 is correct. The B-24's contribution to rubble-bouncing in Europe was a bit over 452,000 tons. But the B-24 served in numbers in the Far East and Pacific and an overall total of 630,000 tons is claimed on a couple of sites. This, I believe, is the USAAF figure, so you have to allow for the RAF, RAAF and SAAF tonnage on top of that.
If I find my figure, which is higher, again, I'll post it, but this suggests in fact honours (or honors) were fairly even between the two types.
The RAF interest in the Liberator dated from the period in 40/41 when a target RAF Bomber Command frontline bomber force of 4000 was planned, but ti was recognised that UK production alone would not be sufficient. The surplus would have to come from the US. The B-24 had the advantage of not then being in USAAC service, so was available, but it also met the RAF requirement of being able to haul an 8000lb bombload to Berlin, which the B-17 could not do. Its range also made it THE most significant maritime patrol aircraft in the Atlantic battle (it served in RAF, RCAF, USN and USAAF maritime squadrons).
The RAF used the Liberator as its heavy bomber in the Med (including two SAAF squadrons)and the Far East and the RAAF used it in the Pacific. This meant Bomber Command could keep all its precious Lancasters to itself in any case, in the Far East only the Liberator had the legs to reach any worthwhile targets.
Production of the B-24 outstripped the B-17 by 18,500 to 12,500. This includes 2,100 for the RAF (compared with less than 200 B-17s). Of course, the B-24 served as a maritme aircraft and a transport as well as a bomber, but overall, it was more significant to the war effort than the B-17 (but it wasn't as pretty, and didn't have such a good press agent).
LW -
Message 27
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
To: grumpyfred
I know that in OTL the Fw-200 was a maritime recon-bomber - in part inspired by interest in the aircraft by the Japanese. But, in ATL where the Do-19 is built, much less likely that the Lw needs a civilian airliner conversion - it can utilise the aircraft already being built. -
Message 28
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
It also had an interesting habit of snapping off at the tail if landed heavily.
-
Message 29
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
LongWeekend,
USAF B.52s had a number of successes against NVAF Migs over Vietnam, including on one occassion a Mig-21 (the FISHBED pilot probably felt very, very silly).Β
In the Gospel According to St. Wiki,
the grand total was two. Three, if you count the both-sides-score shoot-down by VPAF Maj. Vu Xuan Thieu -
Message 30
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
WC
Interesting. My old Vietnam book has one of those as a Mig-19, which could just about get up to the relevant altitude, despite what wiki says, although it would have trouble staying there.
Still, who am I to argue with the USAF (even if they fibbed about what really shot down their bombers)?
LW -
Message 31
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
Incidentally, the mutual destruction does count: "A kill's a kill", even if you lose your own plane.
There are jokes about "Fox 4!", but there was discussion in the '50s about ramming incoming (nuclear-armed) bombers if all other options had been exhausted. And I'm sure GF can give us chapter and verse on the WWII occasions when aircraft ramming actually occured.
Cheers
LW -
Message 32
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
For the bomber aircrews of 1950-1960 the scenario of war must have been an odd one. I suppose the B47s would have used speed, and the B36 pure altitude to try and evade fighters? The 36 was certainly heavily armed, even if all the valves blew when the guns were fired! When they went to the lightweight versions it was straight up altitude, just like the WW1 Zeppelins.
-
Message 33
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
For 1950s bombers, speed was a reasonable enough solution, because both bombers and fighters were capable of high subsonic speeds but nothing more. Hence the speed differential was small, and fighters either had to make long tail chases, or to try hit-or-miss collision-course intercepts.
Even for a B-36 the experience was that at high altitude, fighters would have serious trouble keeping up. Hence "Featherweight III" modified B-36s only kept their tail guns. ("Featherweight II" bombers kept their guns, but they could be removed in a day.)
Bombers might not always look that fast, but jets can rarely afford to fly interception missions entirely in full afterburner, and cruise speed sometime is not that different. Such embarrassment was experienced by the RAF when Tornado F.3s had to lit the afterburner on one engine to keep up with Tu-142 or Tu-95 'Bear's... -
Message 34
Posted by caveman1944 (U11305692) on Friday, 29th January 2010
If the Germans had had four engined bombers the civilians in bombed areas here would have quit. -
Message 35
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 29th January 2010
I VERY much doubt that researcher. After all, the Allies bombed the German cities far more often, more regularly, and with heavier loads than they (the Germans) ever bombed the UK, and they didn't give up.
As a student of Orwell, he notes that the authorities thought people might crack under the strain, and prepared for it. However all that wasn't needed as the people just got angrier and keen for revenge. -
Message 36
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
A programme that I watched recently, gave these as the top 10 bombers of all time:
B17
Handley Page 0/100
JU88
Tupulov Tu-95 Bear
B47 Stratojet
Lancaster
Mosquito
B29
B2
B52
-
Message 37
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
Thats a fair enough list, I suppose the 0/100 was there as it was one of the key instruments of the first strategic bombing force. Too bad space could not be found for the Vulcan.
-
Message 38
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 11th February 2010
I have to disagree with ScepticalScotty regarding the most effective heavy bombers of WW2...at least in Europe. I don't see how one can dismiss the B-17 and the B-24 -- especially the former.
As far as strategic bombing is concerned I have no quarrel putting the Lanc ahead of either of them, but by 1944 industrial destruction was no longer the major goal of the heavy bombers -- at least, not in the eyes of many of the planners of Overlord. By mid to late 1944 those bombers, flying in daylight, had become bait to lure up the fighters of the Luftwaffe so they could be wiped out. It was a cold-blooded plan and one which, I'm sure, would have raised the ire of the American (indeed, all of the allied) public and probably would have caused a mutiny amongst the bomber crews had they known. But no one knew at the time, and it worked. By sending the P-51's to escort the bombers into the deep targets the stage was set for some of the biggest aerial battles of the entire war. The P-51's hammered at the fighters on the way in and during the bomb-runs and then, when their fuel was exhausted on the way home and they were forced to leave, the bombers would be met by P-47's, P-38's at the limit of their combat range, and finally by Spitfires and Tempests.
That plan did what it was supposed to do.
By June of 1945 the Luftwaffe was a shadow of what it had been. Heavy bombing had not destroyed the German's ability to produce FW-190's and Me-109's - they were still being produced in huge numbers. But it had wiped out the best of the pilots who flew them and many a/c sat on the ground waiting for someone to take them up. The D-Day landings were opposed on June 6 by just 2 Me-109's that made a single, ineffective sweep across the landing beaches and never showed up again that day.
Eisenhower was right when he told the British and American soldiers ''When you hear a/c overhead, don't be afraid. They'll be ours''. -
Message 39
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 11th February 2010
Eric, there is also another line from a soldier who served on the front line. "When a Jerry plane flew over we ducked for cover. When an RAF plane flew over Jerry ducked. When a Yank plane flew over, everybody ducked.
-
Message 40
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Friday, 12th February 2010
Well, I have to admit that one of their B-26 bombers mistakenly unloaded a batch of anti-personnel weapons on some of their marines while the latter were trying to get away from the vicinity of the Chosin Reservoir in Korea.
However, having noted that, I must add that in general my experiences with USAF, USN, and US Marine a/c serving in ground support are highly positive. From all that I could see, they did a truly great job.
(That being the case, and in view of the fact that a good many of those people fighting in Korea were veterans of WW2, I have to say that I think the soldier who delivered that line you quote was being just a little bit unfair.) -
Message 41
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 13th February 2010
Erik
I wondered if you had given up on us.
Probably the notorious Korean War blue-on-blue this side of the pond was the napalming of the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders by the USAF. But there were other occasions. The USAF has an unfortunate enduring repuation - as was said of a more recent conflict "90% of the air assets, 100% of the blue-on-blue".
In NW Europe in WWII, the 9th Tactical Air Force was christened "America's Luftwaffe". But a major cause of their inability to tell friend from foe was a lack of training in identifying what was going on on the ground. The P.47s of 9 TAF were used on arrival in UK as escorts for the bombers of 8th AF, alongside that Air Force's own fighters. They were not released from this task until May, too late to participate in major exercises, and too late to get much experience of attacking ground targets the other side of the Channel.
By contrast, the short-ranged fighters of the RAF's 2nd TAF had been able to take part in exercises, and were attacking targets in France (indeed, had been doing so since 1941). There was thus much more experience of the problems of ground support on the British side, not that the RAF was immune from making mistakes.
LW -
Message 42
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 13th February 2010
Blue on blue did happen, and indeed still does. The close ground support was more effective than the dropping bombs on targets from a great height. More so if your own troops were close.
-
Message 43
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 14th February 2010
Hi, Re the list. How come the Gotha was not included? The first effective long-range multi- engined bomber which was practically immune to the then defences. Just a thought.
-
Message 44
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 14th February 2010
A list of 10 is pretty short though! Is the Canberra on there?? With its export sucess and long career it has to be judged a pretty good aircraft.
-
Message 45
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 14th February 2010
The list is rather US-centric, not surprisingly as it is a US list.
The choices seem reasonable, but the list does demonstrate the difficulties of trying to do a "best ever" list, even over a relatively short 90-year period. The Tu-95 and the B-47 never saw combat as bombers, and the B-2 hasn't seen combat in anything resembling a threat environment, so comparing their performance with the Ju-88 or the Lancaster seems problematic. I would also question the B-29; it was an impressive piece of engineering, but it was forced out of its daylight high-level role by the Japanese defenders (what kind of a massacre would the Luftwaffe have inflicted?) into low-level night area bombing.
Also, the Ju-88 and the Mosquito were light bombers, all the others are heavies. It doesn't surprise me that the Canberra wasn't on the list - the USAF couldn't make the B-57 work for them, so US commentators tend to be unaware of the Canberra's impressive record elsewhere.
An illustration of the problems of comparison can be seen in the definition of Light, medium and heavy bombers. Pre-WWII, the RAF defines light bombers as those with a bombload of less than 1000lbs, mediums as 1000lbs and above (which made Battles and Blenheims mediums)and heavies as 4000lbs and above.
DEfinition of higher performance saw the Battles and then the Blenheims were quickly redefined as light, with the Hampdens and Wellingtons becoming mediums and only the Whitley being a heavy, at 8000lbs. By the mid-war period, a Mosquito was a light bomber with 3000lbs, and the minimum of 8000lbs for a heavy meant 8000lbs to Berlin (so a B-17 technically wasn't a heavy for Bomber Command purposes, although it would have been rude to say so out loud).
By the immediate post-war period, the spec for the Canberra classified it as a light bomber, but with a bombload of 8000lbs, while the heavies now looked to lift 20,000lbs. Difficult to compare a Canberra with a Ju.88 (a medium on entry into service).
I would agree that if you limit youself to ten for the whole period, you have a problem - if the B-47 is on there, then Canberra and Vulcan should be as well. But what about the F-111?
LW -
Message 46
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Sunday, 14th February 2010
Hahah F111? Well if you ask my mate Lt Col (Retd)Bob from Pennsylvania who flew the Aarvark in Vietnam he would say it was without doubt numero uno!!! If you ask a guy I know through a music forum who used to be an RAAF mechanic and worked on them for 10 years he would say they are best used as landfill.....
-
Message 47
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 14th February 2010
The B-29 was switched from daylight high-altitude bombing to night bombing at lower altitudes for technical reasons, not because the Japanese had an effective defense against high-flying B-29s. They did not: Their fighters lacked the altitude performance, equipment and heavy armament that was necessary to defend Japan against high-flying bombers. Most notably, while the USA built tens of thousands of aircraft with turbosuperchargers, Japan never managed to put a single one in service.
The B-29 was hit in its weakest spot by the climb to high altitude and the struggle to make headway against the jetstream: Its engines. The R-3350 was not a bad engine, and became successful post-war, but in 1944-1945 it was an underdeveloped and troublesome power plant.
However, the main motivation behind the change was a policy decision. Hansell, the commander before LeMay, was an advocate of precision bombing who wanted to destroy the Japanese aircraft industry with precision attacks. LeMay on the other hand adopted the ideas of the "Joint Incendiary Subcommittee", a working group formed in the middle of 1944 to figure out what it would take to burn out the six largest urban areas of Japan, or as one member put it, "an optimum result of complete chaos in six cities killing 584,000 people." They went as far as reconstructing blocks of Japanese housing in the USA to figure out what it would take to set them on fire.
The conclusion of their studies, and of the experience of area-bombing Germany, was that a firestorm would do enormous damage to a city and its inhabitants, but to start one a dense load of incendiaries needed to be dropped in a limited area. LeMay did not have enough B-29s to achieve this effect by high-altitude bombing. By switching to low-altitude attacks, LeMay could load more firebombs in his aircraft instead of fuel, and their loads would not be scattered as much as when dropped from high altitude -- firebombs didn't have good ballistic properties. By targeting densely populated residential areas with mostly wooden housing, the conditions for a conflagration where set up: American officers were aware of the huge damage done by fires following the Tokyo earthquake of 1923.
In March 1945, his bombers put 1600 tons of incendiary bombs in a 30 square kilometers area, in a densely populated area of Tokyo. The resulting firestorm killed at least 80,000 people. From there on, LeMay did not look back, and by the end of the war his bombers had destroyed 43% of the area of Japan's sixty-six largest cities. -
Message 48
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 14th February 2010
Hi MM et al
Regarding the tendency of US a/c to bomb their own people when flying ground support, I can best offer my personal experience. I found them to be extremely good overall in tactical roles when the right a/c were used and the ground observers were experienced in identifying their own lines. The F4U Corsair was very, very good - probably the best a/c we had over there for that purpose. With the flaps down, the inverted gull wing permitted that a/c to slow below 100mph and as a result bombing and anti-personnel machine-gunning was extremely accurate. I think all the Corsairs flown in Korea were piloted by experienced US marines, and most were sergeant pilots. I never heard of a single instance of them hitting their own personnel.
Having flown on a couple of tactical missions in the USAF B-26 bombers in Korea, I think it must be extremely difficult for a pilot or bomb aimer and requires a lot of experience and a lot of help from the people on the ground. When flying over the ground at altitudes of a few hundred feet and at speeds in excess of 250 mph it's very hard to detect front lines or to segregate friend from foe, especially when both light arms and A/A are popping away at the a/c. Bombing accuracy is going to be very iffy under such circumstances.
Having experienced this from both air and ground, I have to say that at least some of the blame for fliers having bombed their own lines must lie with the ground observers and the people requesting assistance. Their own lines need to be clearly identifiable from the air or they might get hit and they would have to shoulder much of the responsibility.
Despite all these difficulties, as I noted above, we had no complaints that I can recall re air support from any of the air forces available. The RAAF flew more than a few support missions for us in P-51's -- an a/c definitely not designed for tactical ground support -- and they were remarkably good.
I think we need to put ourselves in the other person's place before we become too vigorous in our criticisms. -
Message 49
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 14th February 2010
MM
I believe it was a combination of both factors - the Japanese did manage to shoot down B-29s. Whether that factor is regarded as significant, the technical problems alone meant the B-29 did not live up to its design specification and did not do the job it was supposed to do in WWII, although it undoubtedly made a contribution.
I am not saying it was a bad aircraft, just questioning whether it counts as one of the "10 greatest bombers of all time". As a comparison, both the Bristol Blenheim and the Me.111 did sterling service for their respective operators, were produced in large numbers, and made important contributions to a number of campaigns. But nobody rates either of them as in the top ten.
LW -
Message 50
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 14th February 2010
Well, I would have a somewhat different top-10. The choice is of course always a bit arbitrary, but here goes:
1. Breguet XIV
French light bomber and reconnaissance aircraft, entered service in late 1917. Soon proved to be an excellent aircraft, and saw service in over 20 countries, including operations by the first air lines. The British Airco D.H.4 was a close competitor, but the American USAAS flew both, and considered the XIV to be the better bomber, stronger, faster, and better armed.
2. Caproni Ca.3
It is difficult to choose between WWI heavy bombers, but this twin-boom, three-engined Italian biplane had at least one important merit: It was among the first, rivaled only by Sikorsky's Ilya Mourometz, and entered service in 1915. The type gave Italy a strong bomber force in WWI, and was also built in France.
3. Vickers Vimy
Entering service in 1919, the Vimy saw no or almost no combat. But it was a good aircraft, and merits being included here by carrying Alcock and Brown from Newfoundland to Ireland in 1919, the first non-stop crossing of the Atlantic. Later epic feats included the flight of Keith and Ross Smith from England to Australia.
4. Vickers Wellington
Entered service in 1938, this was the most important and most successful Allied bomber of the first half of WWII. Reliable and resistant to damage thanks to its unusual geodetic construction, the Wellington formed the backbone of RAF Bomber Command for several years and also gave excellent service to Coastal Command.
5. Junkers Ju 88
The best Axis bomber of WWII, the Ju 88 was extremely versatile, serving from 1939 onwards as medium bomber, dive bomber, reconnaissance aircraft, heavy fighter and nightfighter. A fast and agile aircraft that was continuously upgraded, the Ju 88 was a competitive combat aircraft from the start until the end of the war.
6. Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Of the two US heavies, the B-17 and B-24, at least one deserves mention. While the B-17 was a very successful bomber and became iconic, the B-24 proved considerably more versatile, making good for its possible shortcomings as a high-altitude bomber by its excellence as a maritime bomber. From 1941 onwards, the USA built over 18,000 B-24s, considerably exceeding the number that it constructed of any other combat aircraft.
7. de Havilland Mosquito
The radical concept of a fast unarmed bomber resulted in an aircraft that from 1942 onwards made all other medium bombers obsolete and proved in many ways more effective than the heavy bombers. But it was also the best nightfighter of WWII, one of the best reconnaissance aircraft, and an excellent fighter-bomber. The biggest shortcoming of the Mosquito was that there were never enough of them.
8. English Electric Canberra
In many ways a post-war, jet-engined equivalent of the Mosquito, W.E.W. Petter's design proved extremely durable, especially as a reconnaissance platform.The RAF operated its Canberras from 1951 to 2006, and India's examples served into 2007.
The Canberra was also built in the USA as the Martin B-57. Although the operational life of that type was not as long, it was noteworthy for its reconnaissance modifications, which spied over the USSR and as recently as 2006 were active over Afghanistan.
9. Tupolev Tu-16 'Badger'
It's hard to say for which bomber Tupolev's design bureau should be given most credit: The TB-3 heavy bomber of the 1930s, the fast SB of 1934, the jet-engined Tu-16, or the enormous turboprop-engined Tu-95. A swept-wing jet bomber with two large jet engines, the Tu-16 was revolutionary when it appeared in 1954 and it remained in service well into the 1990s, while derivatives are still used by China. It was also the basis of the Tu-104, which was the world's second jet-power airliner, and for some time the only one in regular service.
10. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
The huge B-52 entered service in 1955 and remains in the frontline today primarily as an operational bomber, a unique achievement. They are now likely to last until 2040. As the last B-52 were rolled from their factories in 1962, the aircraft will then be older than some pilot's grandparents. Apart from lack of an affordable replacement, the B-52 stays in service because of its huge bomb load, long range, and great reliability.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.