What is your favorite bomber of WWII?

[Striker]

Hey all,

What is your favorite bomber of WWII, and why?
I think that my favorite bomber is the North AmericanB-25 Mitchel. It was probably the best medium bomber because of is firepower and bombload. Whats your opinion?

[Paolo Tagliaferri]

Heavy Bomber: B-17
Light/Medium Bomber : JU-88
Tactical Bomber : IL-2 and evolutions

Here you are :)

[simon]

Best Heavy, Avro Lancaster, probably the most versatile airframe of any of the heavies, and could carry a greater bombload than the others.

Best Medium, I'd have to go for the Ju88, again a very versatile airframe and an excellent all round aircraft.

Best Ground support, I'd have to agree with Taglia, the Stormovik, although the Petlyakov Pe2 and the Ju87D and G series must be close runners up.

Best Light, the De Havilland Mosquito.

[Paolo Tagliaferri]

Best bomber pilot: H.U.Rudel :D

[simon]

Best Heavy Bomber Pilot must be either Leonard Cheshire or Guy Gibson. Gibson because of his exploits with 617 Sqn and his achievements with the Pathfinders afterwards. Cheshire because of his equally amazing career which including Dive-bombing in a Lancaster!

[Paolo Tagliaferri]

quote:Originally posted by simon
... which including Dive-bombing in a Lancaster!

This sounds interesting ... can we know more?

[simon]

617 Squadron (the Dambusters) adopted the practice of dropping their own marker flares on targets when they found that the Pathfinder Force just wasn't accurate enough for their purposes, especially if they were trying to hit small targets like V-1 launch sites.

The problem was that to mark acurately enough meant flying very low, and Lancasters attracted too much fire and were too big and slow to avoid it.

Returning from a training flight with practice bombs one member of the squadron, McCarthy, broke away and dove on a patch of seaweed, scoring a direct hit.

So the idea formed, and the next proper operation with the rest of the squadron flying at altitude, Cheshire and McCarthy Divebombed the V-1 site, pulling out and Leveling off at around 100-150ft. For those of you who know the layout of a Lancaster, or even have a model of one, I'm sure you'll agree that the view from the bomb-aimer and nose turret position must have been pretty terrifying!

The results were impressive. The V-1 site was obliterated, and the marking and bombing were amazingly accurate, plus the two marking aircraft got away with little or no damage as the defending AA gunners found it difficult to aim due to their unusual manouevre!

This proved 617's case for accurately marking their own targets and they were able to argue for a more agile plane, better suited to the task of dive-bombing, and subsequently they got a number of Mosquitoes and even trailed Mustangs.

[Paolo Tagliaferri]

quote:Originally posted by simon

plus the two marking aircraft got away with little or no damage as the defending AA gunners found it difficult to aim due to their unusual manouevre!
The gunners were probably fleeing terrified ... I don't think that spotting a Lancaster diving on you makes you braver :)
Great job Simon!

[jake431]

I may have posted this before, I can't remember. BUT - my favorite bomber of WW2 was the B-24 Liberator; it kept my Grandfather alive for 30 missions in the 7th AF, and that's all I could ask.

Now, getting past sentimental reasons, I'd say that my favorite bomber of the war is the B-26 Marauder, at least in Europe. Despite being a "handful" for the inexperienced pilot, it built a remarkable record, with the lowest loss rate of any bomber in the US inventory. In the Pacific, after the B-24, I'd say the Dauntless; it sank more ships than any other type.

-Jake

[simon]

Yeah, the Liberator tends to get overlooked, particularly in Europe as the Fortress is seen as more glamorous, but they were vital.

The Dauntless was undoubtedly the best carrierbourne Divebomber of the first half of World War Two, I think much of it's reputation comes from Midway where they sank the Carriers Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu and the Cruiser Mikuma. Out of interest what do you think of its successor the Helldiver?

And to carry on the theme of carrier planes, what are your views on the various Torpedo bombers?

[jake431]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Out of interest what do you think of its successor the Helldiver?


I am not terribly knowledgeable about it, but it seems from what I've read it had LONG teething problems, and though it eventually replaced the Dauntless, crews preferred the Dauntless long after the Helldivier replaced it. I've read of many crews basically calling it a dog of an airplane.

quote:Originally posted by simon


And to carry on the theme of carrier planes, what are your views on the various Torpedo bombers?


I'd say that the Avenger and Barracuda were both very good at their jobs. Neither was a "glamourous" airplane. I think the Barracuda has a neat look to it though, if looks count for anything.

What are your thoughts?

-Jake

[simon]

Looks definitely count, that's one of the reasons I dislike the Helldiver, the Dauntless is a nice looking plane, the Helldiver however you look at it is just ugly!

Course, if you're flying one in combat looks don't count for anything if the plane you're in is no better than its predecessor!

As for the Torpedo planes, I've always liked the Swordfish personally, but for a modern (By WWII Standards) plane with a half decent chance of survival against enemy planes, the Avenger was probably the best Carrier Based Torpedo plane of WWII. The Barracuda is an interesting choice, and is a plane few people even realise existed. Somewhat lacking in armament though, but a distinct improvement on the Swordfish or the Albacore.

I also liked the B5N "Kate" and B6N "Jill", both of which were quite nice looking planes with clean lines, although very limited chances of survival in all but the best circumstances!

[jake431]

Well, then so long as looks count, I'd have to add to my bomber list:

- A-20 Havoc.
- Mosquito

I've always been a fan of fighter-bombers. Corsairs, Thunderbolts, Fw-190's, Typhoon, Tempest, they are all tough planes. But, I don't want to hijack the thread, I digress.

-Jake

[simon]

I also like the A-26 Invader, the successor to the A-20, although it appeared somewhat later in the war. For British Bombers, I've always liked the Wellington as well, on looks and because it was a tough, versatile plane.

[marelepierre]

B-17 was the best!

[simon]

B-17 was good, but did not live up to expectations regarding the ability to defend itself, plus the need to carry all those crewmen and guns limited the space available for bombs and the weight that could be carried. The B-29 was much better, and to be honest I don't know why it was not used over Europe, the only thing I can assume is that the USAAF didn't want to risk a salvageable example being captured and rebuilt by the Germans and thought the chances of the Japanese being able to copy the technology in any they captured was far less (Any ideas anyone?).

The Lancaster and Halifax were at least as good as the B-17, in my opinion probably better since they could carry a much greater bombload. Although it barely counts as a World War Two bomber as the war ended just too early for it to see service, the Avro Lincoln was a distinct improvement on the Lancaster.

[jake431]

As far as I understand, the B-29 was too long legged for use in Europe; the B-17's and B-24's (obviously since they were longer ranged than the B-17) were more than up to the task. Plus, it would have been a real pain to build the manufacturing capacity for two fronts of B-29's.

There were enough B-29's to overwhelm Japan, but not, I think both Japan AND Germany.

-Jake

[Ricky]

Going by looks alone, I have to say the Handley-Page Hampden.

Nick-named the 'Flying suitcase' (due to its extremely narrow fuselage) it had the looks (and apparently the agility) of a twin-engine fighter. Unfortunately it had a poor bombload and inadequate defensive armament, and despite undertaking missions over Germany in 1939/40 was soon withdrawn from front-line use.

Favourite bomber? The Arado Ar 234 Blitz.
Just because the only operational jet bomber of the war deserves the recognition!

[^]

[simon]

Interesting choice in the Hampden. The Hampden, and it's near identical twin the Hereford (Same airframe, different engines) limitations were more down the narrow fuselage than it's defensive weaponary, since the latter was on a par with most contemporary bombers, look at the Dornier Flying Pencils, Whitley and Ju88A and you'll see they were roughly equal (Although the Wellington, my personal favourite of the RAF pre-war bombers, had significantly better armament, although even that was not good enough to stop them being slaughtered on unescorted daylight raids).

The problem was the narrow fuselage was designed in peacetime when it was expected that having the crewmen working in such close proximity would improve morale (The same logic was actually used in the design of the Ju88's cockpit), although in the Hampden's case the fuselage was so cramped it made it virtually impossible for crewmen to change position mid-flight, bad if your gunner or navigator is injured, much worse if it's your pilot slumped over the controls!

As an aside, regarding the agility I did read a reference in one book that apparently around the time of the Battle of Britain a Hampden actually chased, caught and shot down a Messerschmitt Bf110!

As for the Ar234, well technically the honour of being the first operational jet bomber should go to the Me262, since the Schwalbe were initially delivered to bomber units, and operated initially as "Blitz Bombers", but technicalities aside, you're right the Ar234 does deserve a mention! ;)

Regarding the B-29s (Jake), I always thought they would have been better used in the European theatre since their better performance at altitude, greater ceiling and better armament would have made them harder for the Luftwaffe to intercept, but I have to admit your explanation does make a lot of sense. Plus I guess by the time they would have become available in any significant numbers it was clear that the war in Europe was largely just a matter of time, so why waste time and resources cross-training crews to the new aircraft when they could have a greater impact elsewhere.

PS, glad you like the Warbirds Resource group, and no, unfortunately I'm not on commission!:D

[jake431]

Interestingly enough, over Japan, their high altitude ability was not much used. If you read Col. Morgan's memoir, he talks about going on those early high altitude raids over Japan and their problems with the newly discovered jet-stream, before LeMay had them going over at lower altitudes with the (now infamous) incendiaries.

He also talks about what a dog it was in the air, not nearly as much fun to fly as B-17's.

BTW, I asked my grandfather what his favorite plane was to fly (He flew, that I know about, in no order: B-24's, A-24's, A-36's, A-35's), and he said the Dauntless; it was stable and nosing over into a dive was "great fun". He doesn't regret being transferred into a B-24 until, as he put it, "Well, I'm alive, so how could I complain?" He also strongly feels that the reputation of the B-24 being a handful was undeserved. He got it to do all kinds of stuff, including a three point landing. He thought all those pilots hoping to fly B-17's were just complaining, and that the B-24 was the better bomber. I guess production statistics agree with him, but in every other arena there is still contention!
-Jake

[simon]

Although I haven't read Col. Morgan's memoirs, I had heard in other books that problems with the jet stream made accurate bombing at altitude virtually impossible, it does seem a shame that it prevented the B-29s from being used to their full advantage, but I guess they got the job done one way or the other!

As for the Liberators, as much as it seems a shame in retrospect, I think the bulk of the reason for their being overshadowed by the B-17s is just that the Flying Fortresses just looked nicer in the propaganda releases at the time. It makes sense really, although unfair, afterall how many of us wanted to be a fighter pilot when we younger (Albeit briefly), and how many little boys by comparison would list flying a C-130 as their ideal job!

[jake431]

What I find interesting about B-17's is that, to me they really look like 1930's airplanes, which of course they were. The B-24, well, it looked like it had been designed from the ground up to do it's job, like modern bombers. Of course, B-17's undeniably look more glorious in era photos.

Also, you can't forget that the ETO was the "glory" theatre of the air war and that's where all the B-17's were, basically. My Grandfather, stuck out in the middle of the Central Pacific, was about as far away from the glory as was possible at the time. From his diary I think he just apprecited the long legs of the B-24 to get him home over miles of open ocean. Far from the tense formation flying of the ETO, his war was one of nearly formationless isolation, moments of terror over a target and then back to isolation, or worse, tense hours flying a damaged plane home for 5, 6 hours. Fighter sightings were rare (although his B-24 got one, according to his journal). Really, about as different an experience as can be imagined from what Bombers in ETO experienced. All in all, I'm not surprised the Lib didn't get the glory.

But you can't deny that it got the job done.

-Jake

[Ricky]

It is true that the Liberator was more of a 'slogger' compared to the rather glamourous image of the 'Flying Fortress'. However, despite the sterling work that the Liberator carried out (and it was a superb bomber / maritime patrol aircraft / transport / whatever else it was adapted for) it was handicapped by its low 'ceiling' - the inability to work effectively at high altitudes probably ensured the view that the B-17 was 'better'. If I recall correctly, several B-24's were quite severeley damaged/destroyed during mixed B-17/B-24 raids by bombs falling onto them from the B-17's above. This might be just one of the many myths of WW2 though...
;)

In a similar way, I have always preferred the Handley-Page Halifax to the Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster certainly had the better performance of the two, while the Halifax was adapted to a greater number of roles. My preference is partly based on looks, but mostly due to the simple fact that my Grandma used to be based with a Halifax squadron - she was a driver, and drove the aircrew to and from their aeroplanes.
Similarly, I have a soft spot for the Bristol Blenheim - great 1930's aeroplane, but dangerously outdated & underperforming by WW2 - because my friends Grandfather was a turret gunner in one.


[:o)]

[jake431]

I've read that one of the reasons for the greater attrition amongst B-24's was that the Germans knew that they carried a greater bomb load than the B-17's, and since the flew at different altitudes, it made sense to target their flak at the B-24's, since they had the potential to do greater damage, on a plane for plane basis.

Certainly in Europe the high altitude requirements hampered many good performers elswhere: B-24's, P-38's, to name just two.

[simon]

Another big factor was that intercepting bombers was all a matter of speed, the Luftwaffe could reach the lower Liberators quicker and so tended to go for them rather than the Fortresses where they had the choice.

I think another big reason for the relative fame of the B-17 over the B-24 is that the B-17s achieved most of the 8th AAF's firsts in World War Two, by comparisson the Liberator was just following in the Fortresses' footsteps, so to speak.

It is also worth mentioning that the "bombing" of other aircraft caused by bombers being out of formation was not exclusively a problem of B-17s bombing B-24s, I've seen a series of pictures showing one B-17 bombing another, a Lancaster being bombed through the wing and as if to prove that they too could be tough, a picture of the wreckage of a Liberator which had taken a direct hit in the fuselage from a 500lb bomb, and still managed to make it to southern Italy and perform a fairly respectable crash-landing, with bomb still lodged in place. Sadly but predictably, this sort of thing became a problem mainly in the larger formations.

Another bomber I have something of a soft spot for is the Stirling, potentially a great heavy bomber, hampered from the start by a truly idiotic specification.

[jake431]

The Stirling had the twinned tail wheels did it not? What was the specs that caused to to be such a poor performer?

[simon]

The specific dictated the wingspan must be small enough to fit in a standard RAF hangar at the time, this in turn was to severely limit the type's performance at altitude later on, and really limited the ceiling.

Also it was designed at a time that the senior officers of bomber command still believed that 10x100lb bombs were better than 1x1000lb bomb since with the former you could damage 10 buildings, with the latter you could only damage 1. This completely ignored a lot of conventional wisdom, but ultimately the Stirling was built with a large but shallow bomb-bay, meaning that later on as the RAF were developing bigger and better bombs the Stirling just couldn't carry them.

A bigger wingspan and bigger bomb-bay would have made all the difference to what was otherwise an excellent plane.

Oh yeah, you're right about the tail wheels!

[Ricky]

Yeah, the Stirling was a great shame - the limiting specifications resulted in a heavy bomber that flew at the perfect altitute for the German heavy AA...

As far as bombers go, can we include torpedo bombers? If so, I would like to bring forward the Savioa-Marchetti (I hope I spelled that right) SM.79. Maybe a shade obsolete as a conventional day-bomber, as experiences during the few Italian raids on England showed, it was a superb torpedo bomber, carrying two torpedos if memory serves.
[8D]

[simon]

Your memory is spot on, the SM.79 was probably one of the best land based torpedo bombers of the war, and were operated by brave and dedicated crews. As for the Battle of Britain attacks on England, I believe most were carried out by Fiat Br.20 Cigogna's with escorts of Fiat G.50 fighters. On a historical note, I also understand that in common with many of the unsuccessful Italian campaigns of WWII the attacks on Britain were ordered by Mussolini against the express wishes of his own military and Hitler himself.

At the same time, I think most of the aerial campaigns and air battles of WWII showed the same thing, against modern fighters the bomber's ability to "Always get through" had been seriously over estimated by interwar planners, and the only way any bomber, whether it be an SM.79, Wellington, He111, or B-17, could stand a chance on daylight raids was with an overwhelming fighter escort, preferably air superiority or even better supremacy.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by simon

B-17 was good, but did not live up to expectations regarding the ability to defend itself, plus the need to carry all those crewmen and guns limited the space available for bombs and the weight that could be carried.

but it did do the job, and once supported by fighters it did a good job.

quote: The B-29 was much better, and to be honest I don't know why it was not used over Europe, the only thing I can assume is that the USAAF didn't want to risk a salvageable example being captured and rebuilt by the Germans and thought the chances of the Japanese being able to copy the technology in any they captured was far less (Any ideas anyone?).

Logistics probably. The B29 was really too late for Europe and the USAAF had decided to standardise types, removing B17s from the Pacific theatre and B24s from Europe to ease management and match horses and courses. It took several years to build a B29 copy from a model (ask the Russians, and even then they had to buy the tyres on the war surplus market in the west!)

quote:The Lancaster and Halifax were at least as good as the B-17, in my opinion probably better since they could carry a much greater bombload. Although it barely counts as a World War Two bomber as the war ended just too early for it to see service, the Avro Lincoln was a distinct improvement on the Lancaster.


Halifax was downgraded in UK priorities wrt Lancaster for various technical reasons (Operations Research decision). Effective Lancaster bombing occurred only in the later stages of the war after B17s and escorts had absorbed the German fighter defences and they could operate in daylight.

R.V. Jones' books are interesting in this regard if you read between the lines, as is Roderick Chisholm's 'Cover of darkness'

[Ricky]

Admittedly the British night-time bombing was hampered by the obvious navigational and accuracy problems that occur from operating in darkness and with (initially at least) rather rudimentary equipment. However, it is probably worth noting that the American daylight raids were often just as inaccurate. Admittedly, they had the Norden bombsight, which could under ideal conditions 'put a bomb in a pickle barrel'. However, conditions in Europe were rarely ideal! Lots of cloud cover negated the superlative Norden bombsight, and there were even many cases where American bombers bombed Switzerland, resulting in some US bombers being shot down by the Swiss!

But yes, I take your point about the American daylight raids soaking up the Luftwaffe fighter force, allowing the British to bomb during the day.

:)

[simon]

Personally I do not like the "Who had the better airforce RAF vs USAAF" arguments that seem to crop up on sites like this. For a start they usually just devolve into bitchey slanging matches.

The innaccuracies of the RAF's bomber offensive was more a matter of policy than anything else, when called upon to do so, such as in the attacks on German and French infrastructure in the lead up to Operation Overlord, both Bomber Command's heavies and the Tactical Air Force attacked targets with equal accuracy to that achieved by the 8th and 9th Air Forces. The policy of area bombing was decided early on and was mainly the results of the misguided views of interwar planners that they could "break" the morale of the civilians, and so finish the war only needing to deliver the coup do grace to an already finished and demoralised enemy.

That this remained policy despite all the evidence to the contrary is a tragedy for the bomber crews and civilians who were killed as a result, all the more so since the RAF could have achieved so much more if they had gone for targets of military value instead.

I would also say that although the US Daylight bomber offensive may have soaked up the German Day fighters, they did little to negate the German night fighters which were equally deadly against the night bombers, especially when equipped with radar. Additionally the Red Army Airforce probably did as much to "Soak up" the strength of the Luftwaffe (And Whermacht too) as anyone else did, if not more.

I find the suggestion that the RAF could only bomb effectively once the Americans had paved the way slightly insulting when you consider that the US did not even begin bombing Germany until summer 1942, by which point the RAF had been attacking targets since war in Europe was declared in 1939.

My own preference is to say that the two Air forces complimented each other very well, the British were effective night bombers, although our aircraft and crews were not especially suited to daylight attacks, and the Americans were effective day bombers, although equally the early experiments with 8th AAF crews bombing at night showed that the USAAF was incapable of bombing to any degree of accuracy due to a combination of crew training and equipment. Together however, to use Churchill's expression we could bomb around the clock to ensure the Germans and the Luftwaffe received no respite from attacks.

That however is just my view.

On the subject of B-29s, I know it would be beyond the scope of the German's to begin producing them by reverse engineering a captured example, however they did repair and rebuild captured aircraft, including a number of B-17s, which were used both as training aids and directly used against the Allies. However some of the technology, such as the barbettes and their aiming systems, may have copyable.

[Ricky]

Very true - though most of the technology used in the B-29s had already been utilised by the Germans, though never all in one plane. For example, remote-controlled gun barbettes in the Me210 & Me410, pressurised cabins in the high-altitude Ju86, and so on. However, as you point out, the Germans were far more capable of re-using captured equipment (or more willing to do so) than the Japanese.

Bringing in a new slant (again), are we counting dedicated 'ground attack'/'close support' aircraft as bombers?
If so, then I vote for the Hawker Typhoon (obviously!)
However, as far as dedicated close support aircraft go, the Henschel Hs 129 (I hope that is the right designation) was superb.
And of course, the many great aircraft in the Russian inventory. I have a soft spot for the rather overshadowed Petlyakov Pe-2. Origionally designed as a high-altitude twin-engine fighter, it was redesigned as a tactical bomber. However, it retained something of the performance of a fighter, with the PE-2's often being forced to throttle back to allow their escorting fighters (Hawker Hurricanes) to keep up!

[:p]

[simon]

I think in all fairness we can probably include Ground attack aircraft such as the Petlyakov Pe-2, but not Fighter-Bombers such as the Typhoon, although it is a bit of a grey area, and as with anything like this it's probably a bit of a matter of personal choice.

As for the Barbette's and aiming systems, the B-29's had a peculiar system, a bit different from any other on any aircraft I've read about, although it would probably only have an application on bomber aircraft, it was really fairly advanced for the time.

[Tobz]

Got to be the Mossie, surely!? And who said it qualifies as a 'light' bomber??? It was regularly hauling a 4000lb load all the way to Berlin! Thats the same load as a B17 on a long range operation... but 100mph faster and at a much lower loss rate. It should also win points for the radical simplicity of its design and its versatility - in fact, it would also have a good claim to be entered into 'the best fighter' thread simultaneously (not to mention best reconnaisance, best night fighter, best anti-shipping strike...!)

Oh, and got to take issue with the Lanc winning too easily over the Halifax on performance and versatility. Late models of the Hali had comparible or even superiour performance (mk.iii could top 300mph) and were often prefered to the option of a Lanc by their crews as a result. They also had a slightly better armament package with the four gun B.P dorsal turret and ventral .5 which they proved to advantage during the RAF daylight raids during the last days of the war.

[simon]

...and late model Lancasters reached 348mph.

I think mainly the Halifax is eclipsed by the Lancaster because of the famous exploits of a certain squadron that looked so good on film!

But also in terms of performance with bombload, the Lancaster could fly significantly higher and faster with bombs than the Halifax, this really became important with the deep penetration bombs used from about early 1944 onwards, where they needed to be dropped from a higher altitude than the Halifax could achieve with them.

Aside from that, in general bombing I would agree that the Halifax was broadly on a par with the Lancaster.

As for the ventral gun, it was my understanding that this was removed on all but the first few production batches because it was ineffective as a defensive weapon, was it reinstated later once RAF Daylight attacks resumed?

As for the Mossie, definitely, I would call it a light because of it's size, there's no way you could call it a medium, although its maximum bombload is certainly respectable for a medium as well. I can remember reading an interesting piece from a former RAF Mossie pilot who described the Mossie "Jumping" 1,000ft higher after releasing it's 4,000 pounder!

On the subject of classifications, does anyone actually know for certain how bombers were classified? It was always my understanding that the definitions changed somewhat throughout the war as bigger planes and heavier bombloads became available, but generally it was broadly based on bombload. The problem with this is that every so often a plane like the Mosquito crops up that throws a spanner in the works.

[Tobz]

348mph straight and level in a Lanc? Sure that wasn't a Lincoln? Seems pretty damn fast! If its the case, I stand corrected. It's really interesting when looking at performance figure overall to see how the manufacturers juggle them to the best advantage. None of them ever seem to state clearly how these 'ideal' figures compare to operational speeds with a full bombload/compliment of crew/warload. The oft quoted example was the Hurricane, which once statistician said was seldom able to top 300 'in the field' due to accumulated damage, poor engine servicing etc. Always great when one of the original pilots comes out of the woodwork for a chat, as that seems to be the only way to put the debate to rest.

As for the ventral gun, I think the main reason it was removed was that early on, there didn't seem to be much point including it in aircraft which operated in the cover of darkness, as interceptions tended to occur from astern. The ventral position also provided space for the H2S scanner. I can never work out why there wasn't a rapid rearmament in the ventral position after the Germans introduced 'Schrage muzic' cannon - as having someone looking out below might have saved a lot of lives. Whether this is becasue the RAF didn't twig what the German were up to until after the war I don't know - but I guess there must have been enough 'near misses' for witnesses and battle damaged heavies coming home for them to have worked it out?

[Tobz]

ps. I read an annecdote about a late model Halifax downing a fighter which strayed too close beneath with its .5 ventral gun. Maybe they were reintroduced for the daylight raids as the H2S was no longer really needed for daylight tactical missions?

Talking of bombers and armament, has anyone read anything about the weird rearward firing guns on the Blenheim? How on earth were they aimed/operated - and given that they represented nearly half the bomber's compliment of defensive guns, were they any good in that position!? Belnheims certainly seemed to fair as badly as the Battles at the hands of 109s over France...

[simon]

I've just checked and I was 3mph out, the Lancaster MkVI reached 345mph, admittedly this was a highly specialised version (Only about a dozen built), and had all but the rear turret and H2S stripped out. It was used exclusively by Pathfinders to mark for the main bombing fleets.

I think there was no re-armament after the introduction of Shragge-Muzik because in most cases there wasn't much room to mount a Ball type turret due to the large bomb-bays most RAF bombers had, look at a Lanc and you'll see what I mean, the addition of a ball turret would have slowed the bomber formations down, meaning that they were exposed to prolonged attacks by fighters, flak, had a lower range, fuel efficiency, etc. To show what sort of effect this kind of thing might have had, look at the YB-40 "Escort Fighter". A B-17 with an extra Dorsal turret and more ammunition but no bombs, designed to boost the firepower of a bomber formation. Only disadvantage was that the rest of the formation had to actually slow down so that these "fighters" could keep up with them once they'd dropped their bombs! Needless to say this experiment was fairly quickly abandoned.

As for the Blenheim, in all fairness I would say that any WWII bomber faired badly on unescorted daylight raids, and the Blenheim was no exception. It must have done better than the Battle though, as the former was withdrawn from frontline service in June 1940, the Blenheim soldiered on in one form or another till 1943! Has to be said though, I do like the Blenheim.

The gun your referring to, I assume is the unusual rear facing twin chin gun, it was aimed by the Pilot (I believe) by a reflector sight and was more or less fixed to the rear. A similar arrangement was available on the Beauforts. As to how effective it was, I really don't know, but I suppose a rough measure of the effectiveness could be gauged by the fact that the He111H had an optional fixed Mg in the tail, again aimed by the pilot, in the latter case most were not fitted or quickly removed since they were almost completely ineffective and required the bomber to fly straight and level when attacked by a fighter in order that the pilot might aim his one machine gun.

As to the operational speeds vs the ideal capabilities of an aircraft, I've read a number of accounts in which new pilots at squadrons during the Battle of Britain had to have a poorer aircraft, and frequently found themselves having to run their plane at full throttle to keep up with their squadron mates who were merely cruising. Another interesting account was of a Hurricane Pilot who with his Mechanic filed down the rivet heads on the whole of his aircraft! In his account he reckoned his must have got a good 5mph extra out of this improvised streamlining!

Many speeds were verified by the use of theodolite surveying equipment on the ground, taking the angles, altitude and distance of the stations allowed mathematicians to calculate the velocity of the aircraft in question, once this was run in the field for a few months and subject to all the vagaries of ammunition, bomb loads, questionable fuel quality and possibly indifferent maintenance I guess it's only natural the actual performance deteriorated. In the manufacturer's defence, they were trying to sell a warplane, I guess equally it's only natural that they would make sure it was pushed to it's limits.

I know this is the "Bomber" thread, but on that subject I have also read an interesting account that RAF Fighters during the Battle of Britain would sometimes operate with their fuel tanks only half filled. The reason? Less weight meant more speed and greater agility.

[Martiobarbulus]

The B-24 was the coolest looking heavy...
The B-25 was the coolest medium..

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by simon

I've just checked and I was 3mph out, the Lancaster MkVI reached 345mph, admittedly this was a highly specialised version (Only about a dozen built), and had all but the rear turret and H2S stripped out. It was used exclusively by Pathfinders to mark for the main bombing fleets.

I think there was no re-armament after the introduction of Shragge-Muzik because in most cases there wasn't much room to mount a Ball type turret due to the large bomb-bays most RAF bombers had,



There was a move by the Operations Research people in (I think) 1944 to remove all defensive armament from Lancasters. This would have given the bombers a significantly increased speed and was anticipated to lower aircraft casualties and to markedly lower crew losses. The reference indicated a suspicion that the propaganda about the gallant rear gunner fighting the aircraft back to base, fending off the night fighters, was a serious barrier to implementing a policy of speed, smaller crews and greater efficiency.

A 20mph (or more) faster Lanc with intruder night fighters disrupting the defence would have been an interesting problem, especially if the bombers could be pursuaded to turn off their electronic fighter-homing beacons.

[simon]

I would also suspect that the Lanc crews would feel quite vulnerable flying in a big 4 enginned heavy without guns, even with Mosquito NFs as escort.

I think flying high, fast and unarmed might work well with a nimble small plane like the Mossie, but with a Lancaster against the likes of the He219, Ju88G, etc which had armament more than capable of downing a Lancaster with a short burst and were more than capable of catching even the fastest Lancaster I'm not so sure it would have been effective.

I could be wrong, but I just don't think an extra 20mph would be enough.

[Tobz]

Can't remember who's report the stats came in, but apparently, extra speed was most definately better than armament as a defensive measure. I think the operational stats even went on to state something along the lines that an extra 10 mph equated to a 10% decrease in the liklihood of interception. The night fighters were limited in their cimb rate, speed and maneoverabilty by the weight of equipment, anntenae etc. which meant that even relatively modest avoiding action on behalf of the bomber was enough for them to permanently lose their target (that was one of the reasons for the adoption of schrage music, as it allowed them a slow and stealthy approach from beneath and gave them a chance to hit the bomber in its most vulnerable areas in one devastating punch.) Interception was relatively imprecise due to the vaguaries of ground control and still primitive radar and therefore highly dependent upon the bomber's 'time over target'. Lower and slower, the more chance the night fighters had of finding their target and getting into an attacking position. You only have to look at the stats relating to the Halifax 'Specials' to see how their operational losses plummeted when the nose and dorsal turrets were deleted. Speed only rose to a still relatively modest 300mph but the operational losses were slashed. The logic and unavoidable conclusions of this weren't lost on post war designers - hence the next generation of UK bombers were all produced sans armament. And that applied not only to the agile types like the Vulcan and Canberra, but also the 'bomb trucks' like the Valiant and Victor. Even the Americans belatedly realised the same point and deleted the armament from their B36's, which up to that point had been festooned with 20mm. The presumption of the 'self defending bomber' had been disproved, but the lessons took a long time to sink in. And as you say (and demonstrate in your argument), psychology played an important part in the time it took for the lessons to be absorbed into design and equipment. Even sitting behind a few pop-gun 0.303s made a crew feel as though they might play some part in their destiny and give them a chance to 'defend' themselves. Perhaps the main role in practice of the air gunners during the night bombing campaign was their value as observers. Their main duty on sighting a suspected fighter was to shout 'Corkscrew! so that the pilot could take rapid evasive action'. Engaging in a one sided battle against 20 and 30mm cannon came very much second place.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by simon

I would also suspect that the Lanc crews would feel quite vulnerable flying in a big 4 enginned heavy without guns, even with Mosquito NFs as escort.


Two points:
1) the evidence available to aircrew was highly biased. Those who completed an operation without being intercepted were 'naive' and persuadable. Those who saw off or shot down a nightfighter were appreciative of their guns. Those who were shot down weren't there to give evidence ... Crews apparently believed flak did the damage, they were not aware of the radio-monitoring of German fighter interceptions
2) NF 'escorts' tied to the bomber stream would have been of limited effectiveness, disruption of the whole night fighter defense by 'hunting' night fighters was highly effective, hence the effort put into 100 Group.

quote:
I think flying high, fast and unarmed might work well with a nimble small plane like the Mossie, but with a Lancaster against the likes of the He219, Ju88G, etc which had armament more than capable of downing a Lancaster with a short burst and were more than capable of catching even the fastest Lancaster I'm not so sure it would have been effective.


The relative velocity would have been much closer making reaching the bomber stream more difficult and making approach/pursuit more difficult too. Further, the ground control stations would take longer to bring fighters within airborne radar range of targets, saturating this key phase of the interception process. The night fighters could not be lightened to increase their speed and as they would have to fly faster (rather than at economical speeds) their range would have been more limited. The increased difficulty of interception would have made them more vulnerable to British intruder night fighters.

According to Rawnsley, Cunningham's radar operator, the opinion of British night fighter teams was that if they could make contact with a bomber they would shoot it down ... he admitted the 4-gun rear turret might make a difference, but in most interceptions the bomber crew never even knew they were being stalked (including in exercises when the target aircraft's crew must have been on maximum alert).

[simon]

OK, with reservations I'll concede this one. Before I do, a few points...

Firstly even nightfighters could be stripped down to improve speed and performance, not only did later Mosquito NFs dispense with their four machineguns, but a specialised version of the He219 with only 2 20mm Mg151/20s was developed (the latter was intended to catch Mosquito bombers).

Second, when you consider the performance of nightfighters was reasonably achievable operationally, one thing you have to remember is that on the inbound leg at any rate the bombers would be slowed by their bombload, usually they achieved less than 75% of their listed maximum speed, so the bombers would not enjoy the full advantage of their speed until they were homeward bound.

Crews were shot down and returned to base, via air sea rescue, the Resistance and a number were shot down by Luftwaffe Intruders which frequently patrolled near RAF bomber bases waiting for returning bombers. That aside you're right of course and I'm splitting hairs over details, most of the crews that returned did so because they had avoided interception, or got lucky and downed a nightfighter themselves.

By NF "Escorts" I meant in the sense of Nightfighters co-operating with bomber formations rather than tied as close escort, like you explained, my fault, I should have explained myself better.

I still remain slightly unconvinced by this and I think it would have been a short term solution at best. One other notable airforce tried this idea, only in the Luftwaffe it was called the "Schnell Bomber", and at least in the desert and the Battle of Britain, the Dornier Flying pencils and Ju88s proved far from immune to interception.

However as I said at the begining, I will concede this one, with reservations...

[Ricky]

With reference to the German 'Schnell bombers', I'm not sure that this makes a terribly good comparison. Firstly during the campaigns in the Western desert and the Battle of Britain they were flying by day, thus making locating/identification/interception by hostile fighters much easier. Plus, when bombers are flying in formation it would probably be easier for the opposing fighters to locate the entire force, rather than having to loiter in the 'bomber stream' in the hope of intercepting individual targets. Also, they tended to be opposed by formations of allied fighters, rather than the more independant operations of German nightfighters, which would naturally increase loss rates.
Plus, the 'flying pencil' was by 1940/41 no longer an effectively 'schnell' bomber, having a top speed of 255mph compared to 394mph (Spitfire Mk.II - I think!) and 322mph (Hurricane Mk.II). The Ju88, according to acounts that I have read, was acknowledged as a very tough plane to intercept, owing to its speed (292mph).

I must admit, I was always of the opinion that our bombers should have carried more and/or larger caliber defensive weapons, but, though this does make sense for daylight bombers, there is certainly a case for having lightly-armed & faster night bombers.

:D

Incidently, has anyone yet brought up the Junkers Ju 88 for the 'best bomber' category?
It was certainly one of the best at the start of the war, and continued to be developed throughout the conflict (Ju188, Ju288, Ju388). It is even called by some the 'German Mosquito' owing to it's high-performance, popularity and adaptability.

[simon]

Rather than make a direct comparisson the point I was really trying to make there was that when this same idea was applied earlier the only real long term result was a bomber force as a whole that was obsolete in near record time. In the case of the RAF this wasn't too much of a problem since the war ended before this became a serious problem.

The only real reason the RAF heavies didn't have big and better guns, with a few exceptions was that they just weren't available until the war was almost over. It made more sense to give the 20mm Hispanos to the fighters, since they would get more benefit, and I have read that the US was reluctant to make large numbers of .50 cal Brownings available since they needed them for their own aircraft and armoured vehicles (Fair enough really), and even then the fighters benefitted more from the extra punch than the bombers really did, hence the Spitfire "E" Wing. By comparison the Britsh had been producing our own .303 Brownings and 20mm Hispanos since before the war really kicked off (In the case of the Brownings, long before), so to retool the factories just wasn't a practical option.

In any case, the Hurricane MkII could manage a slightly more respectable speed, around 340mph, plus I personally count the Do217 as a "Flying Pencil" as well (Same basic shape as its predecessor), and this was even faster than the Ju88, at a top speed of 320mph.

Although a number of writers regard the Ju88 as being as versatile as the Mosquito, I've not read of anyone actually calling it the German Mosquito. The German Moskito is a title usually used with reference to the Ta154, a wooden nightfighter whose specification and development was heavily influenced by the RAF Mossie. In any case the Ju88 appeared a while before the first Mosquito bombers arrived at RAF units, perhaps a fairer comparisson would be to say that the Mosquito was the RAF's Ju88? ;)

[Ricky]

Yes, fair cop...
The 'German Mosquito' comment was meant more as the Ju88 holding an equivalent position in the Luftwaffe as the Mosquito did in the RAF, but anyway.
[:I]
The Ta154, was that the Uhu (Owl) Nightfighter?
All wood, twin-engined, cannons in a ventral 'step', claimed as the best Nightfighter of the war?
I remember (but am not sure how true this is) reading that the German all-wood planes were very good, until the chemical factories that made the glue were bombed/captured, and the substitute glue was not up to standard, resulting in, um, a 'reduction in performance' of the planes concerned (ie: they had a tendancy to fall apart).
But this is all way off topic, and probably belongs in the fighter strand!
(Speaking of, the problem of dusting models which Simon & Tobz discussed in the fighter strand - it was partially solved for me by screening off a couple of bookshelves with a hinged perspex flap. Models can be seen, and stay clean).

Anyway, back to bombers...

[simon]

I think the Uhu was the Heinkel He219, but yes you're right, the Ta154 had all the promise of a great aircraft until by one of those curious twists of fate the RAF accidently bombed the factory producing the glue for the Ply-Balsa-Ply sandwich. No other glue was as strong and you're right they did display a tendancy to disintegrate, and eventually the whole project got shelved, although the prototypes and pre-production aircraft were used operationally, I've even read unconfirmed rumours that some were used as the bottom halves of "Mistels". So there's a tenuous link to the bomber thread here...

On that note what are people's views of the Mistels and the Aphrodite Project? And with regard to these unconventional uses of old planes and airframes has anyone heard anything outstanding about them either way?

Oh, yeah, didn't work for me, my mum still insisted on dusting my ships even behind glass doors! (Hence the nearly fatal damage to the Tirpitz!). Eventually I managed to convince her that if she really felt the need to dust them the best thing was to lightly grip a wingtip or base and just blow as much dust off as possible!

[Ricky]

I managed to pursuade my Mum that dust on a model made it look 'weathered'.
Until of course the dust was so thick as to obscure all detail & colour on the upper surfaces, when the 'blowing' method was used.

And yes, I was confusing the Heinkel and the Focke-Wulf, but they were both wunderbar...

(sorry, I will make a relevant reply soon)

;)

[simon]

Recently I've found a way around this dusting problem (Perhaps we should start a whole new thread on this?), when a model's freshly finished spray varnish it, then when it gets dusty it can be rinsed under a cold tap and left to dry on a radiator (not too hot!) or on a window sill in warm weather.

Back to Bombers...

I would like to put forward my own candidate, the Wellington. Perhaps not the most glamourous of aircraft, but it carried the RAF night Bomber Offensive in Europe till the four enginned Heavies became available, and in the Mediteranean and Far East gave excellent service until eventually more modern replacements arrived.

The tough structure meant it could survive very heavy damage and still bring its crew back to base.

After it's bomber career ended it found a second career with coastal command, and again excelled there. Wellingtons remained in service with the RAF into the 1950s ending their days as advanced and Navigation trainers. That's why the Wimpy gets my vote.

[Ricky]

Ah yes, the Wimpey. Utilising the Geodetric (is that right?) structure pioneered with the Wellesley (wasn't it designed by Barnes Wallace, or am I way out?). Incidently, this structure, the reason behind the strength of the airframe, is also the reason that Wellingtons never had a dorsal turret - it was not feasable to chop holes on the lattice-like framework, as it significantly weakened it, especially as there were already some large 'holes' - the bomb bay / cockpit etc. The Wellesley solved the problem of how to cut a hole for the bomb bay by not having one, the bombs being stored in rather ungainly underwing pods.

I have an RAF yearbook/almanac thingy from 1940, which inevitably praises the Wellington to the skies, recounting tales of 'daring raids on Heligoland Bight' and several examples of Wellington formations shooting down numerous German fighters (mostly Messerschmitt Bf110's) with little or no loss to themselves, thanks to the 4-gun rear turret.

But anyway, I have to say, your choice of the Wellington meets with my full approval! After all, the majority of the bombers used in the early '1,000 bomber raids' on Germany were Wellingtons.

[^]

[simon]

Again, spot on, the Wellington (And the Wellesley and the Warwick) were all designed using a Geodetic construction which was reknowned for its great strength and designed by Sir Barnes Wallace.

Despite the lack of a dorsal turret the vulnerability of Wellingtons to beam attacks was partially cured by the introduction of Waist gun positions which was possible without even slightly weakening the structure or adding excessive extra drag. Hadn't occurred to me about the dorsal turret before, but I have to admit it makes sense, I always just thought that the pre-war designers building this bomber at a time when the Bf109 only had 4 Machine guns didn't think it needed any more guns.

I guess the tales of daring were probably the RAFs way of dealing with the near catastrophic losses even the heavily armed Wellingtons suffered on the daylight raids. The Heligoland raids were some of the worst, although the Wellingtons were able to damage and destroy some of the intercepting fighters, losses of 7 planes out of a formation of 13 were fairly typical and dented the confidence in the ability of the bomber to always get through enough for the RAF to switch fairly quickly to night raids.

Having said that, I would just like to reiterate that every time unescorted daylight raids were attempted against an enemy capable of putting up any meaningful opposition the results were almost always heavy losses among the bombers, on occasion the whole formation would be lost, it didn't matter whether you had a formation of Flying Fortresses or Fairey Battles, so all things considered the Wimpys didn't do too badly.

I recently saw some pictures in a magazine of the Loch Ness Wellington, I can remember seeing the footage of it being recovered in the 1980s, and it's both amazing how good it's looking now, and to me a shame that it's the only one left.

[Tobz]

I read that one of the tactics evolved by the Germans to attack the Wellingtons during those early raids was to fly alongside the edge of their formation in a Bf110 and get alongside and as close in as possible, out of the arc of fire of both the nose and rear turrets. The gunner of the 110 would then line up on the cockpit of the Wellington and literally pick off the pilot from a few dozen yards... then he'd move on to the next Wellington. The Wimpy pilots were under strick instructions not to break formation and lose mutual protection, so they were essentially left as sitting ducks. I know the original Wellington was fitted with a ventral 'dustbin' turret which would have provided protection on the beam, but due to the massive drag it produced, it had been deleted from aircraft operational in 1939 - which is why I guess the blind-spot existed before the installation of the beam guns.

Ps. I think you'll find that the Loch-Ness Wellington is a welcome addition. I remember going to Hendon as a young lad (in the 70's) and seeing a pristine Wellington there

[curmudgeon]

Schnell bombers
The Germans sent these over one at a time as nuisance raiders from 1941 on ... including FW190s (bomber anyone? look at its maximum load). These were shot down in large numbers because the entire integrated night fighter/radar arm was able to muster its entire resources to track and intercept one lone aircraft. Except for the uncontrolled interceptors which moved to areas of concentration and used eyeballs (inefficient if Townsend's views are anything to go by) the radar nightfighters needed to be got within about 5km of their target before they could take over interception. With RAF use of radar aides they could of course bring in a fighter from 50km or more to their homing beacons. Efforts were being made to re-educate the crews to switch the devices off.

Wellington
- what about some of the 'funny' Wellingtons, including high speed, high altitude versions and the prototyped 4-engined 'Winsor'? Barnes Wallace's original design was amazingly adaptable ... and when pushed generated beasts with exceptional performance.

[curmudgeon]

So I can't spell 'Wallis'
And I can't spell 'Windsor'

And the high-altitude/high-speed Wellingtons were marks V and VI, examples of one of them made it to a squadron but not to active service so far as I can find

[preb]

my fav bomber is the good old avero lancaster bomber.i have met one of the origonal damb buster pilots and he said it flies like a bird but sounds like a tank!

[simon]

The Windsor could have been an exceptional aircraft, and the Warwick could have been one of the truly outstanding bombers of the war, if development delays hadn't postponed to the point the new 4 enginned types took over.

As for the Windsor, a combination of the Avro Lincoln, the "Jet-age" and the end of the war meant there was just no requirement for it.

The Warwick at least had a useful career as an Anti-submarine and Air-Sea Rescue plane, and apparently proved popular with its crews.

I don't want you to think I'm picking here, Preb, but it's Avro, the company was named after the founder, a man called A. V. Roe, he just dropped the last "e" to come up with Avro. ;)

For the Funny Wellingtons, what about the ones with the 50ft electro-magnetic ring for detonating magnetic marine mines (I think the Luftwaffe tried the same thing with some Ju52-3m's), apparently they were succesful until more effective countermeasures came into effect.

[Ricky]

Sweeping for magnetic mines in the Ju 52/3 was a less than popular duty in the Luftwaffe, owing to the highly dangerous nature of the work.

Speaking of the Ju52/3, how about nominating it for the 'most unlikely bomber' award - as many of the earlier military versions (the batches from the late 1930s) were equipped as bombers, with a ventral 'dustbin' for the bomb-aimer, who also doubled as a gunner.
[:p]

[simon]

Nope, most unlikely bomber has to go to the humble Tigermoth, which although not used operationally, was tooled up with light bombs (And even a couple of machineguns in readiness for See-Lowe which thankfully never happened.

Bet you never thought you'd see the Tigermoth on a Bomber thread!

[Ricky]

Ah yes, silly me for forgetting the Tiger Moth! Were'nt they also used for anti-submarine patrols? I seem to remember that they were sent up - unarmed - to look for U-boats, and if they found one, they were to 'buzz' it (ie: fly low at it, to make it seem they were attacking) in order to make the sub dive, thereby using up battery power & reducing effectiveness etc etc, besides being a nuisance to the crew!

[simon]

Yeah, I can remember reading that somewhere too. I think it was around that time that they started attaching 40 pounders to simple rigs beneath the wings, so that although it would need a direct hit to even damage a U-boat the Tigermoth crews could do a little bit more than just scare them.

I haven't actually read of any of them actually attacking a U-boat, so I don't know what the results were (If any), which is what makes me say I don't think they were used operationally.

Anyone else heard any more information?

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by simon


As for the Windsor, a combination of the Avro Lincoln, the "Jet-age" and the end of the war meant there was just no requirement for it.


And somebody was building B29s ...

As a kid at high school I wondered why the Bristol 188 was abandoned ... then the Lockheed A12 was publicly unveiled. The Windsor in 1941 would have been a contender, by late 1944 it wasn't. Nice engineering though

[simon]

Well... The Boeing Washington (RAF name) was only ever intended as a stopgap until the Lincoln was available in sufficient numbers, I don't think the availability of B-29s on a lend-lease basis was ever really a factor in the demise of the Windsor, the real nail in the coffin remained mainly the end of the war and the realisation that a nearly bankrupt Britain could not afford to sustain (And did not need to) a postwar bomber fleet the size of the wartime one, and definitely didn't need another four engine bomber at a time the Lincoln was due to start making an appearance in service squadrons.

Even as late as '43 the Windsor still potentially could have been a contender, but as all the Avro plane really was in all fairness was a slightly modernised Lancaster, they were always going to be ahead in the R&D stakes, so Vickers and the Windsor never really stood a chance.

[Ricky]

How about the A-26 Invader? So good they used it twice...
A superb tactical bomber that was resurrected for the Korean War (and possibly for Vietnam? Or am I confusing it with the Skyraider?)

[simon]

The A-26 Invader (They changed the designation to the B-26 in the post war period, I think after the decision was made to retire the Marauder so there was no confusion there!) has the distinction of being used operationally in more wars than any other bomber, and you're right it also served in Korea and the B-26K served, apparently with great success in Vietnam.

Not bad for an aircraft that was basically just a development of the A-20 Havoc. The Skyraider might actually have shared the honours with the Invader (Albeit as a fighter-bomber), but it just missed out on being used operationally in World War 2, but only by a few weeks.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Well... The Boeing Washington (RAF name) was only ever intended as a stopgap until the Lincoln was available in sufficient numbers, I don't think the availability of B-29s on a lend-lease basis was ever really a factor in the demise of the Windsor ...

Even as late as '43 the Windsor still potentially could have been a contender, but as all the Avro plane really was in all fairness was a slightly modernised Lancaster, they were always going to be ahead in the R&D stakes, so Vickers and the Windsor never really stood a chance.


On the specs the B29 (and the trivially upgraded post-war B50) were a generation ahead of the Windsor and the Lincoln ... which is why I made the cryptic comment about the cancellation of the Bristol 188 in the face of the existence of the project Oxcart 'Blackbird'.

Britain produced some weird prototypes in the late 40s while awaiting the various V-bombers, which were technologically competitive,

[simon]

Many nations produced wierd and wonderful prototype both during and after the second world war, either due to desperation, or as the fruits of the various German research projects were plundered by the Allies, the US was no exception, you only need to look at the Flying Saucer aircraft to see one of the wierdest odd balls.

The reason is pretty straightforward, in just over half a decade aviation had gone from a stage where monoplane fighters were still viewed with mistrust and suspiscion by the establishment, to having the first combat jets, guided missiles and atomic weaponry. No-one really knew if jets and A-bombs were there to stay, or if there was even more advanced technology on the verge of discovery, and with the cold war, or possibly even World War 3 looming it made sense to try and keep one step ahead of the enemy, whoever it was going to be next.

For the British, the B-29 may have been better than the Lincoln, but no-one could be certain with an increaingly aggressive Soviet Union occupying half of Europe that supplies of the Washington could be relied upon, so it made sense to have our own plane in production until the likes of the Canberra became available.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Many nations produced wierd and wonderful prototype both during and after the second world war, either due to desperation, or as the fruits of the various German research projects were plundered by the Allies, the US was no exception, you only need to look at the Flying Saucer aircraft to see one of the wierdest odd balls.
... until the likes of the Canberra became available.


Simon, we digress - perhaps another thread on the weirdos? The 5 years 1947-53 saw such an amazing number of tries (as BTW did the period around 1930).

As to the Canberra, so boringly conventional that one of its test pilots considered it a stop-gap, and still filling front-line roles 30 years later (PR versions in the Falkland war). Now that was an aeroplane ... the jet Mosquito.

[Tobz]

Ummm.. correction there curmudgeon... Canberra first flew in 1948. The RAF PR Canberras were making over-flights of Iraq THIS YEAR. Admitedly there's only four left in RAF service, but there's still no aircraft in their inventory which can perform the role. I make that 50+ years - not 30!

Incidentally, during the troubled development of the Tornado, the RAF used to joke that MRCA actually stood for 'Must Refurbish Canberra Again'...

I've also read an article recently saying that the B52's of similar vintage may still be in service in 25 years time... If only the politicians had kept the Vulcans respared and up to date. Hehehe, another digression!

[simon]

Why is the fact that an aircraft is "Conventional" so often rgarded as a bad thing?

Most of the best planes produced have been conventional in one form or another, and of the unconventional designs, only a few actually produce worthwhile results, but you're correct, this does really belong on it's own thread.

Personally I don't believe the B-29 was a generation ahead of the Lincoln. The next generation of strategic weapons were the ICBMs, and the next generation of bomber aircraft were the Jet bombers, against which the B-29 just couldn't compete. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it wasn't good, and it was superior to the Lincoln, but it was not a whole generation ahead.

Still, this doesn't belong on another thread, it really belongs on a whole different site! :)

[Tobz]

Hmmmm... well, I dunno Simes. I think I have to take sides with ol' Curmudgy regarding the B29. I spoke to an old RAF flight engineer once who'd flown in both Washingtons and Lincolns. His view was firmly in the camp that the B29/B50 was streets ahead of the Lincoln in just about every aspect - performance in terms of speed, climb and ceiling, crew comfort, defensive armament etc. They were very dischuffed when their Washingtons were taken away in the early 50's and they got rattly old Lincolns backs. The Lincoln was really just a griffon engined Lanc with .5s instead of 0.303s in his view. Rugged, reliable and cheap certainly - but definately a generation behind the technical innovations that the B29 brought forward - not least pressurisation which made a massive difference to the aircrews efficiency at altitude. The B29 was definately the ultimate bomber technologically to see service in WW2.

[simon]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were equal, and in most respects the thinking and technology behind the the B-29 was well ahead of what the British designers were coming up with and what British companies were building, but I still don't think it's fair to say that it was a generation ahead, it wasn't.

The B-29/B-50 was distinctly inferior to the next generation, the B-29 was perhaps the best and ultimate of it's generation, but in the same way that the Gladiator and CR42 were perhaps the best of the bi-plane generation, neither of the latter were in any way equal to the monoplane fighters of the late 30's/early 40's. You can't really say that the Superfortress was the equal of the jet bombers of the fifties.

I guess a lot comes down to what you consider to be the next generation though, but for me this really refers to the likes of the B-47 of the early fifties, and in this specific case the B-29/50 is inferior in every respect other than range, it just doesn't compare and it's not fair to say that the Lincoln was as far behind the B-29 as it was the B-47.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Tobz

Ummm.. correction there curmudgeon... Canberra first flew in 1948. The RAF PR Canberras were making over-flights of Iraq THIS YEAR. Admitedly there's only four left in RAF service, but there's still no aircraft in their inventory which can perform the role. I make that 50+ years - not 30!


So almost WWII (when did those guys hit the back of their envelopes and their drafting boards?) to now ... impressive.

To defend my B29 position - design of the B29 must have begun by 1940, when Wellingtons, He 111s etc represented the epitomy of design (OK B17s and B24s too if you must - but the early B17s through B17C were brave attempts and not suitable for combat). The B29 was a true high altitude, long range, load carrying bomber. It was different. It was in no way an upgraded/tweaked B17. In contrast the Manchester/Lancaster/Lincoln represented evolution of a technology.

Of the combatants only the US had the space, time, and resources to undertake such a risky venture (and early B29s were a problem, they were pushing the envelope of what could be delivered in the mid 1940s). I would suggest that the B47/52 line are direct progeny of the B29, differing in powerplant and swept wings (the B52 was originally designed to have turboprops!).

[simon]

To be fair, I would say that the B-29 was an evolution of technology, the next real leap in aviation was in terms of reliable jet propulsion, increasingly long ranged jet aircraft, and the ICBM.

What Boeing did with the B-29 was combine the best of all the technology available, gamble that someone would come up with engines powerful enough to get it in the air, and in the end came up with a real war winning, or at least war-shortening aeroplane that was one of the all time classics. It all could have come to nothing if the right engines hadn't turned up, but you're right the US was the only nation capable of making that gamble.

I still think the B-29 was the best of the 4 piston enginned heavy bomber generation, but just not comparable in any way with the next generation of strategic bombers, however much it influenced their design.

I suggest on this one we agree to disagree, otherwise we could be going round in circles forever.

[Tobz]

Chill there Simon! We're all friends here (I hope) Actually, I think this debate is entirely valid - so why not argue through the rationale? Thats the whole point of a discussion board surely, to examine a subject and explore an issue thoroughly. We're only going round in circles once we stop sharing information and start repeating an entrenched position. You've stated your case clearly and I understand your perspective - but I do take issue with your position. Nothing wrong with that! Opinions differ after all.

Overall, most things in design are evolutions - features change in increments over time. What marks a milestone or revolution is something which makes a real innovation and marks a rubicon. I mean, at the end of the day, it could be argued that the Hurricane was merely a Fury minus its top wing - but the step to monoplane design was revolutionary in terms of UK fighter design philosophy and thats a generally accepted turning point in aviation design. Your mention of the transition from piston to turbine power was equally epoch marking BUT in terms of the alteration of bomber design, a pod mounted engine is pretty much a pod mounted engine - tha package which goes with it determines the performance just as much. There were lots of proto jet designs which were arguably less advanced in terms of innovation than many of the last generation of piston powered aircraft. Just take a look at either the Meteor or Shorts Sperrin as examples! Either of these seen in their entirety from a design or engineering point of view, have to be regarded as less innovative or advanced than the B29. As you rightly point out, it was the choice of powerplant that made the difference and that was innovative in itself, but looking at the design of the Vampire with a wooden central nacelle and twin boom layout..! It was an OK perfomer but anachronistic in so many other ways. I know that anachronisms are not necessarily 'bad' - in fact they often have many interesting features and performance criteria that makes them invaluable in service (like building a certain bomber out of ply and balsa), but comparing them to something like a B29 makes the gulf between them very stark to my eye. Don't forget as well that the B29 was the first bomber with any claim to intercontinental capability (even if it was going to be just a one way trip) and really has to be seen as the first 'real' truly strategic bomber of the nuclear age.

In fairness to my jingoistic inner core, I reckon we took back the lead in bomber design with examples like the V-bombers, which were of more advanced conception than the B52... however, in terms of success, the B52 is still in service and they aren't! Its also a point of pride to note that the Americans were forced to buy the Canberra under licence as there was no bomber in their inventory as capable or versatile. But there's no denying that the B29 lead the field very, very clearly at the end of WW2 and through the early years of the cold war. After all, when the Russians decided to reverse engineer a bomber, they chose the B29 and not a Lincoln. Complete crew pressurisation was the principal innovation - something which had not been attempted either on the scale of the B29 or with its success. Add to that the semi-automated sytems, the remote controlled armament, aerodynamics etc and you have a package of new features and performance that, even though they were steps in aircraft development, still leapt several in one stride.

[simon]

Should have stuck a smiley face at the end there, was meant to come over as sort of tongue in cheek, not all stroppy!:D

First off I would disagree that it was the first bomber to have an intercontinental capability, that in my mind ought to go to the Ju290, which although militarily completely insignificant did have the capability to deliver an admittedly tiny bombload across the Atlantic and return.

In some ways I'm going to contradict myself and say that I actually think the use of podded engines was pretty revolutionary. Think about it, every other designer everywhere to some degree or another attempted to fair in the engine housing to the wings, in Britain we took this to the logical extreme and the results were the V bombers and in particular the Vulcan. Now consider how much that influenced aviation internationally speaking, how many large delta wing air liners are in service compared to those with podded engines... At a time when streamlining was considered everything the wing and engine combination of the B-29 was an inspired decision.

I may be wrong here, but my guess is the Russians chose to reverse engineer B-29s because they had them in fairly large numbers, which they didn't have with regard to the Lincoln.

But I really don't see that this is enough to say that the B-29 was a whole generation ahead, compared to the next generation it's like comparing a Vickers Vimy to a Wellington. The next generation were much faster, carried an equal or greater bombload, and because they were using jets held their performance much better at altitude.

Certainly there were many individual features that were possibly a generation ahead, the remote barbettes and aiming system were pure science fiction when the designers started the B-29, they just hoped that it would prove practical, complete pressurisation was an excellent achievement, but hardly that novel. Putting it all together in one complete package made an excellent aircraft, but one that when facing the next generation over Korea was proven decidedly inferior.

In terms of the leap in capabilities, jets made the next generation what it was, faster and higher flying, and much faster and higher flying than the B-29. The B-29 was good, but is it really fair to say that it's up there with the B-47, B-48 and B-52?

[Ricky]

Going back a step to the mention of the Vulcan - had Britain had the money to upgrade & maintain the Vulcan fleet in the same way that the US has done with the B52s, I believe that they would still be in use today.
But then I am a bit of a Vulcan fanatic, and was there (with tear in eye) for the 'final' flight, and am looking forward to its return to the show circuit.

But anyway, we are awfully off topic...


:)

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by simon

First off I would disagree that it was the first bomber to have an intercontinental capability, that in my mind ought to go to the Ju290, which although militarily completely insignificant did have the capability to deliver an admittedly tiny bombload across the Atlantic and return.


And there was a Me design too ... but did they ever drop a bomb on the new world?

I regard the B29 as a leap for conceptual reasons ... it was designed as the first long-range, stratospheric bomber and, with all sorts of caveats, it worked. Someone decided to build a bomber that operated at over 30,000 feet, cruised faster than current fighters, and did it. Other operational aircraft (excepting PR types) crawled to those altitudes, the B29 cruised. To make the design work all sorts of technical problems had to be solved - pressurisation, remote control gun barbettes, servo motor systems, (crude) gun-laying computers, etc, etc.

Of course except for the two atomic bombs most B29 damage was done in low level, night attacks with firebombs ... Yes they got to the stratosphere but then the jetstream gave real problems and largely prevented accurate bombing.

Totally off topic, the Vulcan was effectively the first stealth bomber ... after deployments to Woomera they used to fly back across the US at around 60 000 feet, and reportedly NORAD usually couldn't track them despite knowing they were coming and their flight path.

[Ricky]

The only bombs dropped in anger anywhere on the American continent during the entire war that I am aware of were the Japanese 'Balloon Bombs' - a helium balloon with a bomb hung underneith, which was released into a wind-stream that would take it to the USA. Obviously, they were incredibly ineffective. However, they might actually have killed one or two people.

There was at least a plan by the Japanese to bomb Panama (ie: the canal) with aircraft launched from - I think - submarines. Not as mad as it sounds. Several Navies in the inter-war years (including the French) experimented with including spotter planes in submarines. in WW2 the Germans even used a primitive helicopter...

And of course the German plans for intercontinental bombers (Ju290 etc) and missiles (a 2-stage V2 rocket), and my personal favourite, submarine-launched V2s.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

The only bombs dropped in anger anywhere on the American continent during the entire war that I am aware of were the Japanese 'Balloon Bombs' - a helium balloon with a bomb hung underneith, which was released into a wind-stream that would take it to the USA. Obviously, they were incredibly ineffective. However, they might actually have killed one or two people.


My understanding was that these were attempts to start forest fires ... which was a lot more plausable than hitting (say) Los Angeles

[simon]

Don't want to split hairs here, but they could have, therefore they had the capability to. Whether they actually did or not is irrelevant when you're talking of an aircraft's capabilities. I mentioned the Ju290 rather than the Messerschmitt design because a 290 prototype actually made the trip almost to US mainland.

The idea was that Ju290s could have carried either a small bombload and returned, or could have carried a much heavier bombload and ditched about half way back with the crew being picked up by U-boat.

Can't see this having been overly popular with the bomber crews themselves, plus with all the possiblities for navigational errors, and the notoriously fickle Atlantic weather my guess is that quite a few crews would not be picked up, and it does seem an extravagant waste of a big expensive plane.

I'd read about submarine launched V-2s as well, but according to Antony Beevor recently these were only even discussed as the Russians were over-running Berlin, and there was never even time to start looking into the feasibility of the project. The proposal was to use V-2s on the new ocean going Type XXIs, which with the Schnorkel could conceivably have launched them without needing to surface.

The Kreigsmarine also looked into the idea of using a disposable converted Me163 on Subs as a point defence fighter, although as far as I'm aware nothing actually came of it. Possibly they were inspired by the early successes of the Hurricats on the CAMs, (Yes I know it's more than a little OT).

I suggest we call a truce on the B-29 issue, we all agree it was an excellent plane, and on this point it's probably best to leave it. It's not that I'm entrenched in my views especially :), but I still stick by what I've said, although I can respect and understand your relative points of view on this.

[Ricky]

Ok, time to launch off in a new direction. And hopefully a controversial one.
The most important WW2 bomber?
Easy - the Junkers Ju87 Stuka.

Possibly the best known ground-attack/close-support aircraft of the time, and certainly the most effective. It quite literally paved the way for the German Army, destroying strong points, distrupting troop movements and concentrations, and in short making Blitzkrieg possible.
It also was a major player in sinkng an awful lot of ships on various convoys (mostly in the Med, but also I think around Norway).

We can also lay at the door of the Stuka the final proof that an army with effective close support from the air is an incredibly formidable opponant. Witness the Allies in the later stages of the war. Witness almost every major war since then (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars 1 & 2, even the Falklands) in which air power has been a major consideration.

[simon]

The Stuka?!? You're kidding, right?

The Stuka was tactically important as it replaced the traditional role of heavy artillery within the German Army, but it was a disaster when opposed by modern (By 1940's standards) fighters, and virtually every other army/independant (i.e. not Navy) airforce that tried using a dedicated dive bomber met with very limited success, for example the USAAF version of the Dauntless. The only reason the Ju87 remained in service past 1940/41 was that the German aviation industry single handedly failed to come up with a replacement for it.

Most important Divebomber has to be the Dauntless though, sank more tonnes of axis shipping than anything else, and probably turned the tide of the whole Pacific war at Midway.

Most important bomber overall, hmmm.... I'd vote for my all time favourite the Wimpy, which carried the RAF Strategic bomber offensive into 1943 and performed probably equally vital roles in coastal command after that, and that's ignoring it's contribution in the China-Burma-India theatre as well.

Other considerations, well a couple of well known bombers (Enola Gay and Bock's Car) were able to avoid a messy invasion that would have made D-Day look like a recconaissance in force and would have cost millions of lives with just two sorties of instant sunshine, so that definately deserves a very close runner up in my view...

Other contenders have to include the Stringbag which probably had a longer operational career than any other combat aircraft and was probably as important in the ASW role aboard the Merchant Carriers as it was in it's original Torpedo/Bomber role.

For a controversial topic you really know how to start one...

[lucycat11758]

What about the B-25. That was a great looking plane. They had a great program on the History channel the other night about this guy who was trying to locate his uncle's B25 in New Guinea. Did anyone see it?:)

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by simon

The Stuka?!? You're kidding, right?

The Stuka was tactically important as it replaced the traditional role of heavy artillery within the German Army, but it was a disaster when opposed by modern (By 1940's standards) fighters, and virtually every other army/independant (i.e. not Navy) airforce that tried using a dedicated dive bomber met with very limited success, for example the USAAF version of the Dauntless. The only reason the Ju87 remained in service past 1940/41 was that the German aviation industry single handedly failed to come up with a replacement for it.

Well, the Ju87 was definitely a bomber ... whereas other potential claimants such as the Stormovik were probably better classed as 'ground attack'.

The Stuka was very effective in Poland, in Norway, in the defeat of France, in the Balkan campaign/Greece/Crete, and in the first year of the war on Russia. It's weakness in the face of interceptors has been a factor in the fate of all ground support and bomber aircraft. Given air superiority, or better total control, aircraft can provide a valuable contribution to the conduct of military operations, this the Stuka did - in 5 major campaigns.

quote:
Most important Divebomber has to be the Dauntless though, sank more tonnes of axis shipping than anything else, and probably turned the tide of the whole Pacific war at Midway.

Yes. So how the eventual winners got there or how the eventually defeated became such a problem ...

quote:
Most important bomber overall, hmmm.... I'd vote for my all time favourite the Wimpy, which carried the RAF Strategic bomber offensive into 1943

Didn't do very well in their planned role as a deep-penetration, daylight bomber. Shot down by fighters I think. Until the end of 1942 the British bombing campaign was a social nuisance, not a military event.

Wrt 'Enola Gay' and 'Bock's Car', there is always the argument these weren't needed and that the Japanese would have surrendered if they had been informed the Emperor system would continue. (Surrender? have you read a translation of the speach terminating hostilities ...?)

[simon]

There are plenty of aircraft that didn't do well in their planned roles, the Flying Fortress was equally disasterous in its planned role as a self-defending deep penetration daylight bomber, but that doesn't mean it was a bad aircraft or a poor bomber, just that the pre-war designers had no way of being able to tell what exactly was going to happen when the war arrived. When the designs were modified and tactics adapted both became effective, and the Wimpy as mentioned contributed in every theatre that the RAF or Commonwealth airforces had a presence.

As much as the first 1,000 bomber raids are generally viewed as the point the RAF's attacks began to bite, to say that the RAF was ineffective prior to that is unfair.

Even when supported by 2:1 fighter escorts to bombers as it was in the Battle or Britain the Stuka was still slaughtered when faced by fighter interceptors, it's successes in Poland and the early months of 1940 stemmed from the surprise both attacks achieved, but also even then in France and the Low Countries the Luftwaffe actually suffered quite high loss rates, these were made up mainly because when the relevant countries surrendered the Luftwaffe POWs were returned to their units. North Africa and in the opening phases of Barbarossa, the Stuka's success was mainly due to the lack of modern opposition, when modern opposition became available the Stukas suffered again, only this time there wasn't victory and the POWs weren't released. By 1940/41 the Stuka was at best obsolescent, however it struggled on as I said before because there just wasn't a replacement for it.

Interestingly the Stuka's very success in those early campaigns doomed or at least held up most of the German bomber projects of the 1940s, since most of the specifications were re-written post May 1940 to insist that ALL luftwaffe bombers must be capable of divebombing, even the likes of the He177!

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Interestingly the Stuka's very success in those early campaigns doomed or at least held up most of the German bomber projects of the 1940s, since most of the specifications were re-written post May 1940 to insist that ALL luftwaffe bombers must be capable of divebombing, even the likes of the He177!


Well there you go then - it must be the most important bomber of the war, as it probably did more than any Allied bomber to slow production of modern German bombers!

But seriously, yes, I fully admit that Stukas should never have been used where German air superiority was total, but where such conditions existed, it was a marvel. Without it, Blitzkrieg could not have worked. Or at least would have not been quite so 'Blitz'. And even on the Russian front, later in the war, when total German air superiority was a long-distant memory, updated (well, still obsolete, but they looked nicer!) versions of the Ju87 were still soldiering on, proving very effective at destroying tanks (with bombs or the two 37mm guns) and infantry concentrations (apparently fitted with multiple downwards-firing machineguns).

Controversy is good!

;)

[Tobz]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen!

No one has been polite enough to welcome the new poster to our regular dog-fight. No Lucy - I missed it. Tell us more - did he track it down? I guess there must be a few wrecks out there awaiting rediscovery.

On the subject of History channel - does anyone remember 'Project Cancelled' - that was a series they ran a little while back?

Ahem, and to keep this post on-topic and to throw some more av-gas on the flames: When we are asking the question 'what was the greatest bomber', I guess we all ought to consider the background and theatre. Raw performance isn't the only parameter - its the impact it had as well which shapes perception. The Stuka was superb, as long as it didn't face any serious fighter opposition (same for most of the ww2 bombers with the possible exception of the Mosquito)

I'm reminded of a 'flour bombing' competition run at a local flying club (dropping flour bags onto a target in the middle of a field). There was everone flitting about in their Cessnas, Piper etc and all the old wax-whiskered RAF types were plotting bomb curves and wind direction and getting scientific. stacks of calculators and slide-rules were on display. The expectation and bets on who was going to come first came down to their perceived skill as a pilot and the performance of their plane. As it turned out, the winner was a flying a clapped out smoke belching ultralight which made about 10 miles an hour into the headwind over the target and allowed the equally scruffy pilot to casually lob his bag over the side for a bulls-eye. I guess what I'm trying to illustrate is that just because a machine has a massive impact under IDEAL circumstances best suited to its particular type of performance, doesn't necessarily mean that it qualifies as a 'suberb' combat plane. Theatre specific aircraft MAY be war winners however... but does that mean they qualify as 'the best' in mechanical, engineering or aviation terms? I think this thread really illustrates both that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that your national perspective also swings your bias. Maybe we'd be on easier ground if we had a thread entitled 'the worst fighter/bomber'??? Any takers?

My vote would be for the Helldiver for bomber and early (interceptor) Typhoon for fighter (and off we go again! [}:)] )

[Ricky]

Worst bomber would definately have to be almost anything designed by the French before c.1935.
And the Typhoon was great - if you didn't mind your tail section falling off...

Hmmm, maybe you should start up a new thread.

But anyway, Yes, in terms of overall performance, the Stuka does suffer. Specifically in terms of range. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but I think that it could just about reach London from France. Compared to some of the later light bombers (and especially to some of the contemporary Japanese and American aircraft in the Pacific theatre) it had a relitively tiny range - although not much was needed over European Battlefields. When it moved up to anti-shipping (Russia & Malta-bound convoys) it did become a small inconvenience. There was a long-range version (Ju87R) but this used drop-tanks, which obviously restricted bombload.
However, it was designed for the European Battlefield, to operate under relatively good fighter protection, and it excelled in its role.

I'm actually getting quite obsessed about defending an aircraft that I don't actually think all that highly of - oh, the price of playing devil's advocate...

[lucycat11758]

Thank you for welcoming me gentlemen. So as far as the B-25 program on the History channel: This guy was trying to locate his uncle's B-25 which crashed on New Guinea. It took him 3 years, over that time he located the wreck of another B-25 and found dog tags belonging to a soldier who was declared MIA for years. This man was the only brother in a family of six sisters. When they were told that their brother's wreck was found it was so great, very emotional! (Maybe because I'ma girl) They finally had a funeral for their brother with military honors of course. It was very touching. Anyway the guy finally found his uncle's plane. Smashed into the side of a mountain, I don't know how they even found it!! Well, the guy took the propellar and part of the fuselage and left the rest as a memorial. They only recognized it because of the tail section and the radio call numbers on the side. Don't you think that so cool. I would love to go out and look for wreckage and try to restore it. Are you guys pilots? I'm just starting to take lessons but I've been interested in military aviation for more than 15 years. Do you guys ever get togther at airshows or anything?

[simon]

Worst bomber, hmmm... I reckon the Heinkel He177 Greif. A truly marvellous piece of aeronautical engineering (If you turned a blind eye to the engines bursting into flames without warning), a complete failure as a divebomber (One of the more idiotic instructions to come out of the RLM), a confused mix of handheld and barbette defensive weapons, and judging by the cutaway drawings, virtually impossible to shoot at without hitting a fuel tank somewhere!

Runners up for Worst bomber... well, I'd agree with Ricky, virtually anything French, but also the Douglas TBD Devastator, not really bad just so obsolete by the start of the war it's hard to consider it as anything other than a deathtrap.

Worst fighter... Probably the Ki67 Hiryu, a Japanese bomber that was to be used against the B-29 Superfortresses. Given a 75mm gun that was handloaded and virtually impossible to aim, and incapable of matching speeds with or even climbing to the same height as the B-29s there was probably not a more pointless fighter employed by any nation in the whole war.

Runners up for worst fighter... the Breda Ba88 Lynx (But a damn good decoy!), and the Me163 (The two operational units actually suffered more losses than kills inflicted!).

[Corsarius]

Hi, I'm looking for the "best bomber" thread. Can anyone tell me where to find it? [:p]

[simon]

Picky, picky, picky...

[Corsarius]

Fine, I'll go for the AR234, in any guise (especially the C variant), as it was a breath of the future: smaller, high speed bombers with limited or no defensive armament.

As has been pointed out earlier, the massive defensive armament was largely psychological, mostly ineffective against cannon and rocket-armed fighters, and added significantly to drag.

In fact, for all their sophistication, the first real "Schnellbomber" could be described as the DH-88 mosquito, and not any German type.

However, the Arado product is likely the finest airborne example of this from WWII, although there were some interesting flying wing bomber projects. I'm sure that details of these may have found their way into those wonderful "v" bombers of England.

*sighs and mourns the loss of the glorious v-bombers while the ugly old B-52 and Tu-190 soldier on*

[simon]

Well Corsarius, I'm slightly disappointed in you, a Bomber thread that you dragged back on track and you didn't even mention the Woomera! ;)

[Corsarius]

Didn't I.... ulp!

OK, following in the footsteps of the CA-15, and paralleling it slightly, the CA-11 Woomera bomber ended the war as one of the finest medium bombers designed, and certainly the best torpedo bomber.

Unfortunately, once it had been developed, there wasn't a lot of Japanese shipping left, and it's role had been already taken by good aircraft already in use, such as the B-25 (nearly ubiquitous, isn't it? Eastern front, Western front, Pacific.... what was that about a great bomber?)

Anyway, without copy-pasting, which I think is illegal anyhow, the best 'history' site I found was the following:

http://www.dropbears.com/av/KFXart/articles/woomera.htm

Enjoy, and wonder what 'might have been'!

I love that plane, but I still feel that the 'schnellbomber' concept is the one that really came through in the end. After all, apart from prestige reasons, does ANYONE operate large, target-like multi-engine heavys anymore? The role has been eclipsed by fast, supersonic aircraft that can strike with accuracy and deliver a worthy bombload at the same time. Examples include the F111, Tornado IDS, Su-24, B1b. The Arado bomber and the Mosquito, being unarmed pinpoint bombers WERE the future, as I understand not too many were shot down during missions at all. In fact, the Mosquito was nearly considered 'unkillable' by the Germans, and this is with a heavy bombload on board!

[simon]

Just to egg the debate on a little bit, but I remain slightly unconvinced by the whole "Schnellbomber" thing, if you look to most of the modern examples I think they're far nearer Fighter Bombers myself. The best modern "bombers" are the likes of the Tornado GR1, F-15E Strike Eagle, FA-18, Su27, etc.

The B1B and B52 don't really function as bombers as such, more sort of huge, very mobile artillery.

To take the Mosquito, the most numerous wartime version of this wasn't actually the unarmed MkIV, but the fighter-bomber MkVI.

My own view is that WWII was the triumph of the Fighter-Bomber, not the Schnellbomber, and if you consider the likes of later Meteors, the Vampire, P-80 Shootingstar and certainly MiG-15 and Sabre, even the Ar234 would not have remained immune to interception for long, the B-29 and B-50 on the other hand at least stood a fighting chance over Korea, especially at night or when escorted, and by then the last thing they could have been considered was "Schnell".

[Corsarius]

Crud. I posted a big post here and it disappeared. So here is the less-gramatically-correct and more arrogant version as I don't have time to type it up properly.

OK, for starters, should the war have dragged on in some way, we would be seeing the Sabre and Mig-15 flying, certainly. They would be called the Me-262 and the Ta-153 respectively.

Secondly, with the advent of ground launched heat or radar-seeking missiles (which I think were at least in prototype form before the end for Germany) really spelled the end for the heavy bomber. Unescorted and without suitable electronic warfare, they are helpless. Please refer to Tom Clancy's 'red storm rising' for an example of what happens to unescorted B-52 bombers.

Given the same example, F-111 aircraft and even F-4 defence-suppression bombers got in and away clean. Thus, my argument here is that the 'schnellbomber' is alive and well. The F-111, while it retains an 'f' in the title, is certainly no fighter. It does not have any real capacity to do so. A Hawker Nimrod can carry sidewinder missiles, but isn't a fighter, and neither is an Aardvark.

As for the Ar-234 being unarmed? I understand that at least some of the production models had both forward and rear-firing cannon for self-defence. Thus making them 'fighter bombers', I suppose. They added to, rather than took away from, conventional bombers. I mean, would the RAF mount a 1000 bomber raid of only mosquitos? no! These days, a B1b, or a Tu160, or a Tu22M would be used as a heavy bomber, but even these show signs of being scaled-up versions of the small, fast, attack bomber, the 'schnellbomber' that is well and truly alive and well, and whose progenitor is the ar-234.

Especially that lovely 'c' model.

[wtr27513]

Tubarao.....of course. B-24 Liberator, my Dad's plane. Crew R27 491BG 852BS:D

[Corsarius]

What the heck is a 'Tubarao'? My best web searches indicate that to be a nice place in South America to go diving, or a Brazilian steelworks. Some more info would be nice.

I like the B-24 as well, certainly over the B-17, but the -17 was much better suited to European theatre, whereas the -24 was much the superior bomber for the Pacific. Didn't it get turned into a specialist long-range ocean patrol... the 'privateer' or something?

[simon]

That's certainly my understanding as well, the Privateer was externally distinguishable from the Liberator by teardrop type observation blisters on the fuselage waist positions, similar in appearance to those on the Catalina, and having a large single fin rather than the Liberator's twin fin arrangement. Don't know what if anything the change of tail achieved, but it's helpful for recognition.

As for your earlier posts, I'm still unconvinced by the Schnell bomber. Some Ar234s had twin fixed rear facing Mg151/20s, but not all, and Sabre and MiG-15 aside I stand by what I said, Vampires, later Meteors and P-80s would have really made a mess off them, the Ar234 would be extremely vulnerable. A P-80 with a bombload however would not, so triumph again for the Fighter-Bomber.

The B1B and it's Soviet counterparts, like the B-52 is largely relegated to the role of Flying Artillery when there is any chance it might encounter enemy fighters, and against any sort of SAM or fighter defence the B1B would be just as vulnerable as a B-52 (See Vietnam for what happens to Escorted B-52s, and for that matter Schnellbombers!). Really though the ICBM did as much to kill off the concept of Heavy Strategic Bombers as anything else. For bombing when you expect enemy resistance you call in a fighter-bomber, or at the very least a bomber version of a fighter. The F-15E, Tornado, F14, etc, all fighters or at the very least multi-role warplanes. In most countries the F-111 is nearing the end of it's service life.

However, I digress slightly and I get the feeling that you and I are looking at different sides of the same coin, but as this has been an interesting debate, I suggest we agree to differ.

P.S. By the Hawker Nimrod do you mean the little Carrier Bi-plane of the 30's? Wouldn't like to see the wreckage of that after it's launched a Sidewinder, not that it'd be likely to get airbourne with the avionics needed to fire one!

[wtr27513]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

What the heck is a 'Tubarao'? My best web searches indicate that to be a nice place in South America to go diving, or a Brazilian steelworks. Some more info would be nice.

I like the B-24 as well, certainly over the B-17, but the -17 was much better suited to European theatre, whereas the -24 was much the superior bomber for the Pacific. Didn't it get turned into a specialist long-range ocean patrol... the 'privateer' or something?

It's a B-24 Liberator. Send me your email address and I'll send you a picture. My email address is wtrz34@comcast.net.

[Corsarius]

[quote]Originally posted by simon[quote]
As for your earlier posts, I'm still unconvinced by the Schnell bomber. Some Ar234s had twin fixed rear facing Mg151/20s, but not all, and Sabre and MiG-15 aside I stand by what I said, Vampires, later Meteors and P-80s would have really made a mess off them, the Ar234 would be extremely vulnerable. A P-80 with a bombload however would not, so triumph again for the Fighter-Bomber.

So would you suggest the Me-262 sturmvogel a better progenitor as it was a more true fighter-bomber?

The B1B and it's Soviet counterparts, like the B-52 is largely relegated to the role of Flying Artillery when there is any chance it might encounter enemy fighters, and against any sort of SAM or fighter defence the B1B would be just as vulnerable as a B-52 (See Vietnam for what happens to Escorted B-52s, and for that matter Schnellbombers!).

OK, but what about the success of early F111A models in Vietnam, or the success of the other 'scnellbomber', the Canberra that was used by the RAAF in said conflict?

Really though the ICBM did as much to kill off the concept of Heavy Strategic Bombers as anything else.

Agreed :(

For bombing when you expect enemy resistance you call in a fighter-bomber, or at the very least a bomber version of a fighter. The F-15E, Tornado, F14, etc, all fighters or at the very least multi-role warplanes. In most countries the F-111 is nearing the end of it's service life.

Uh, the US has retired their F-111s, the UK never bought their F-111Ks due to a wonderful new aircraft in development called the TSR-2... oh well. The only country operating the F-111 is Australia, who will be retiring them pending arrival of the F-35, NOT an aircraft that is really suited for Australia, but politics plays a big role in aircraft acquisition in the South Pacific.

However, I digress slightly and I get the feeling that you and I are looking at different sides of the same coin, but as this has been an interesting debate, I suggest we agree to differ.

OK. I disagree to agree.. no, wait.. I, uh...

P.S. By the Hawker Nimrod do you mean the little Carrier Bi-plane of the 30's? Wouldn't like to see the wreckage of that after it's launched a Sidewinder, not that it'd be likely to get airbourne with the avionics needed to fire one!

Now THAT would be something to see... I wonder where it would carry it? Between the wheels perhaps with a crutch to fire it below the propeller arc? lol.

No, I meant the ASW aircraft based on the De Havilland Comet.

As for photos of the Liberator, why don't you post them here? I'm sure that others here, such as Simon or GregP are just as good at recognition and classification as I, and all of us would be interested in checking it out!

[simon]

"So would you suggest the Me-262 sturmvogel a better progenitor as it was a more true fighter-bomber?"

OK, yes, I would. I'd say it has more in common with the likes of the Tornado or F15E than any of the true Schnell Bombers.

[Ricky]

Just to be picky - by the time of its use in Vietnam, the Canberra (wonderful, wonderful plane) was no longer a schnell bomber. In fact, if memory serves, the Americans complained that it was too slow.

[Intruder]

That Mosquito "light" bomber carried almost the payload of a
B-17 "heavy" and far more then the Ju-88 "best medium" mentioned here. The Ju-88 was a great design and the one aircraft that perhaps matched the Mossie for versatility, but now where close in performance level.

quote:Originally posted by simon

Best Light, the De Havilland Mosquito.

[simon]

Yeah I know about the Mossie's excellent bombload, but it's still my understanding that it was classed as a "light", although to be honest appart from a sort of arbitrary system of whatever the onlookers think it should be, I've never been able to find a solid definition of what constitutes a "Light", "Medium" or "Heavy" bomber.

As planes got bigger and bombloads got heavier I understand that the definitions were somewhat fluid (Example, the He111H may have been a "Heavy" by 1940's standards, but compared to Allied bombers could only really be considered a "Medium" by 1945), but I've never really found out what at all the definitions were based on!

[Corsarius]

number of engines, I think, but don't quote me on that.

[wtr27513]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

number of engines, I think, but don't quote me on that.

Corsariusm
Would you (if you don't mind doing so) please send me your email address? I need help with something.
Thanks,
Barbie
wtrz34@comcast.net

[Corsarius]

Email on it's way to you Barbie.

[simon]

Not sure about the engines thing, example:

Mosquito (2 engines), generally regarded as "Light".
Heinkel He111 (2 engines), generally regarded as "Medium" or "Heavy" (Early on).

So here you have a 2 engined Mosquito being a light where a 2 engined Heinkel Helll is at one point a Heavy. A SM.79 Sparviero must be a Medium-and-a-half, or even a Heavy-Plus. I guess a Lancaster or Superfort would be a Super-Heavy, and I hate to think what that would make the 10 engine B-36 Peacemaker!!!

I think it must be related to physical size rather than bomb-load or engines, although maybe crew numbers play a part.

A little project for myself there perhaps, check the relative sizes or Light, Medium and Heavy bombers! (Maybe when I get time!!!)

[Corsarius]

The thing about Rules-of-thumb is that everyone has a different sized thumb. I never said it was infallible, just a general observation.

[Ricky]

Maybe light/heavy/medium is worked out by overall aircraft weight...

[?]

[wtr27513]

If you guys ever figure out what heavy, medium and light is as in referring to the bomber will you please let me know?
Thanks,
Barbie[:I]

[simon]

If I ever get anything definitive I'll let you know! I think because so much changed so quickly the definitions tended to be a bit fluid as well. Didn't mean to seem like I was singling you out there Corsarius, I'd initially assumed it was based on engines as well, but I'm starting to move towards the opinion that it was purely arbitrary, and it was up to the airforce or manufacturer to decide what they thought the plane was.

I've even read a reference to a plane (I think it was the Ki67 Hiryu, but it was definitely Japanese Army), that described it as: "Classed as a Heavy bomber (Actually a Medium)", so this tends to support that view.

It does leave it a bit open to interpretation, but antoher good rule of thumb is if in doubt pick three books, look at the definitions and go with the majority. Some there is no doubt, Lancaster, B-24 Liberator, B-17, etc, are all clearly heavies, but others, Heinkel He111, Wellington, etc. occupy something of a grey area since their class seemed to change down as bigger types became available, and most light bombers at the start carried less bombload than late war fighter-bombers!

Thanks for the responses so far though! :)

[Corsarius]

Supporting your argument, Simon:

The 'Betty' was considered by the Japanese as a heavy bomber, but anyone else considered it to be a 'medium'

The Heinkel He 177 (don't we all love to pay out on that poor plane? I still like it, you know) is a bit of a mystery.. some sources claim it to be 'medium' (based, I assume, on number of propellers) and others a 'heavy' (once again, based on number of engines (4) or bombload, 6000kg).

It's a real puzzle, and not an easily answered one. How about simply 'size of aircraft?' The BIG bombers were obviously heavys, the small ones the 'light', and the ones in the middle 'medium' (of course this would correlate to weight of aircraft, also.

[simon]

Surprisingly it doesn't entirely, plus you're still back to flexible definitions, a Wellington in 1939 would be a Heavy, as it was probably the largest bomber in service with the RAF, however comparing that to the Lancaster and Halifax of 1945 it could only be considered a Medium.

Also the "Heavy" Greif had a bombload around equal of the "Medium" Manchester.

I'm not deliberately picking holes and being argumentative here (For once!), but it is something that's intrigued me, and I can't really find a definitive way of picking up a performance chart and a three view of an unknown aircraft and being able to say "Plane "X" is clearly a Heavy" without any doubt at all.

I guess the key to coming up with anything sensible is the whole concept of a flexible system depending on the time of service, and a healthy dose of common-sense regarding rogue entries. For example if you attempted to define anything by wing-span, the Stirling would probably upset that system.

[Corsarius]

Ow. My brain hurts.

Hey Simon, can you send me an email? I got something to show you re Barbie's B-24.

[simon]

Can't at the moment. If you're still on-line either e-mail me: Simon.ross@bbrail.com, alternatively I can try you from home later.

[Corsarius]

Can't access my email from work anyway. I'll send to you in a couple of hours. GregP, can you do similar?

[simon]

You've got me all intrigued now...

[wtr27513]

[:0]
I'm all intrigued too.....I didn't know I had a B-24! .....and there's so much I wanted to know about one. Just joking, I know what he's talking about and I do appreciate how he's trying to help me locate some more information.
Barbie [^]

[simon]

Well if it's any help, and I've said as much in an email to Corsarius, it looks to me like a B-24G or H (Apparently the only differences between the two were the manufacturers, the G was built by Consolidated, the H was subcontracted to Douglas or Ford), the forward turret was slightly different from that of the slightly later and numerically more significant J or the even later M, although as I said to Corsarius the possibility cannot be discounted that the original turret was damaged and replaced with an earlier model's by squadron mechanics.

Going by the pictures you sent to Corsarius the only thing I can really say with 100% certainty is that it is NOT a B-24D or E, or obviously an RAF Liberator MkI, but that's just going by the nose arrangement.

Although I'm sure Corsarius will pass on my comments, please don't hesitate to contact me through simon.ross@bbrail.com if you think I might be able to help with anything else. ;)

[Corsarius]

Yep, going by the turret I surmised it was a 'G' variant. I do recall that some variants may have had different turrets and hull gunnery positions, which is why I would have liked a full shot.

Otherwise I'd tentatively label it a 'G'. Without having a serial number and digging around air force records I think this is the best we can do.

[Corsarius]

I think we've all missed a REALLY excellent bomber here, people. One that even made it to squadron service and, from what I've been able to uncover, was very nearly as advanced as the B-29, but was in service much earlier.

The aircraft I describe is Italian, of all things. The Piaggio P108B. The finest and most advanced of all axis bombers (bar jet bombers) during the war. I'm only doing some peliminary research here, but I think the allies should be VERY glad this aircraft didn't make it into mass production, as I could see this in the same vein as the mighty B-29

And this from the people who bought us the 'tankette', the 6.5 carcano rifle, and commandos with half a dead chicken stuck on the side of their helmets (sorry Taglia!)

Trust me and check it out. This plane is awesome (and beautiful!)

[simon]

Nice, yes, as advanced as the B-29, no way.

There was no pressurisation, no barbette aiming system, the weapons were all hand held (which had a major negative effect on the effective fire), the P.108 was far slower and held it's speed to a far lower altitude, its ceiling was in any case lower, and it's bombload less than contemporary US Mediums, much less than the B.29, in fact about half that of a Lancaster.

The best description I've read of the P.108 is that it was the only 4 engine bomber to enter service with the Italian Air Force, and was not even remotely in the same league as Allied 4 engine heavies.

Most advanced of the Axis bombers, again I'd say a big nope, for all its faults the He177 Greif was that.

(P.S. It was the South Africans who invented the Commando concept, against the British in the Boer War!)

[Corsarius]

Well, I still like it, and you contradicted yourself there, too.

You said that all guns were manually aimed, then said that the barbettes were not. Unless there was some poor schmuck riding inside the two engine nacelles to operate the remote barbettes.

And I know the Boers had commandos, but did they have a dead chook stuck on the side of their heads?

[simon]

I understood that with the exception of a single 12.7mm Breda SAFAT in the Nose turret there were no Barbettes, and the remainder of the guns were hand operated pintel mounted 12.7mm Bredas, so no contradiction there, unless I'm wrong about the weapons which is entirely possible. What I was saying about the P.108 was that unlike the B-29 it didn't have remote barbettes.

The information I have says that the P.108 carried a total of 8 12.7mm Breda SAFAT Heavy Machine Guns, and up to 7,716lbs of bombs. Compare this to it's contemporaries, the B-17F (8,000lbs of bombs and 6 Turretted HMGs and 5 Hand-held HMGs) and the Lancaster (14,000lbs of bombs and 8 turretted MGs), plus it is slower than either, and that's why I think the P.108 ranks as possibly the worst of the war's 4 engine Heavies. The only thing it has on its side is looks!

Just thinking about it, didn't the Me323 have a couple of blokes sitting in little turrets on the wings?

In summary, even if the P.108 had made mass production I can't see it laying waste to whole cities in the same way as the might B-29, although if it had been available a year earlier and deployed on forward bases in Russia it may have been able to hit those nice safe factories sitting over the Urals... Another nice little "What if...?" to ponder on.

Apologees, I misread your Commando comment, you're indeed correct, although in all fairness the Scottish did go into battle wearing skirts! (Oh yeah, sorry, they're called kilts, well that make's it all right then...) ;)

[Corsarius]

Umm, The P108 had remote barbettes containing twin machineguns in the outer engine nacelles, similar to the (Australian) Woomera dive/torpedo bomber.

Try this website for armament and brief history (or TGplanes which has a pretty good one, too!)
http://www.regiamarina.net/arsenals/planes_it/heavy_bombers/heavy_us.htm

You will notice the quote "Particular attention was dedicated to the defensive armament with six 12,7 mm machine guns, four of which were mounted in two electrically controlled turrets set on the back of the engines and remotely controlled by the gunners; a solution which was decidedly avant-garde for the period"

This was in addition to the 12.7mm and 2x7.7mm that were also added there.

[simon]

Interesting.

Well I checked TGplanes, my own books, Gregp's database, other sites (Including an Italian one), and they can offer nothing more than "8 x 12.7mm HMGs". I can’t help wondering why the author of the Regiamarina.net article does not consider the other HMG and the 7.7mm guns a part of the defensive armament.

None of the other accounts I've read make any mention of the remote barbette weapons (Except one which gave the Regiamarina.net site as its source!). If they were there they would have been pretty advanced in concept so I would have expected them to be widely mentioned, but as I say repeatedly, I have been wrong before and may well be wrong in this case.

On other pictures I had identified what I assumed to be defensive gun positions in the nose turret, lower nose, ventral both fore and aft, each waist and dorsal position, which allowing for a twin gun set-up in one position (I assumed the Dorsal) would make for 8 guns. These could of course be the sighting positions for the barbettes, and would be interesting if true.

I’d suggest that the barbette weapons may have been present on the original prototypes, but deleted for simplicity on the production bombers (A similar thing happened to the Convair B-32 Dominator), however this is really just speculation. All things being equal though I’m going to have to go all sceptical: No other sources mention these advanced barbettes, so with the discrepancy in the armament as well I’d say it is not unfair to assume that they weren’t there.

The reason I’d say this is that if I were writing even a one paragraph summary of an aircraft like this, anything that remarkable would not be something I’d leave out, so I can’t understand why almost everyone else has.

Anyone else got any information to offer?

Even assuming I'm wrong about the barbettes (The Vickers Windsor had them as well BTW ;)), this still doesn't put it anywhere near the league of the B-29, if nothing else on the performance issue, and it's still distinctly behind every other long range 4 engine bomber I can think of (Except the French Farman Heavies).

[Corsarius]

Even in the photo Taglia has it definitely shows the barbettes on the external engines. All photos I have seen of this aircraft have the barbettes. It's one of the reasons I was banging on about the whole 'most advanced' thing.

[simon]

I can't get Taglia's picture blown up at the moment so I can't comment on that, but on the other pictures I have seen I can't see any barbettes. Also Taglia's statistics on the weapons differs slightly from that in the source, and like I say, no other source mentions these highly advanced barbettes. They could be there but I'm playing the sceptic because a) I've never heard of them before, since and can't find out anything else about them anywhere else and b) I just enjoy being argumentative! ;) Nothing personal, like...

Like I say as well, most advanced Axis Bomber, probably not... The Greif had Barbettes, range, superior weaponary and greater bombload. Even the Me210, although a failure in itself, was originally styled as a light-bomber and also featured defensive barbettes. The Me210 flew with an Eprobungskommando during autumn 1940.

[GregP]

OK, time to dispel some popularly held beliefs.

Suppose we look only at bomb load. The top 10 are:
Bomber Bomb Load Production
1) Douglas B-19; 16,330 kg bombs; 1 built
2) Boeing B-29; 9,075 kg bombs; 6,895 built
3) Boeing B-39; 9,072 kg bombs; 1 built
4) Consolidated B-32; 9,072 kg bombs, 48 built
5) Handley Page Halifax; 6,577 kg bombs; 6,176 built
6) Avro Lancaster; 6,350 kg bombs; 7,366 built
7) Short Sterling; 6,350 kg bombs; 2,370 built
8) Consolidated B-24 Liberator; 5,806 kg bombs; 18,000 built
9) Boeing B-15; 5,433 kg bombs; 1 built
10) Yermolaev YER-2; 5,000 kg bombs; 320 built

OK, discount the planes with less than several hundred built, and we still have:
1) B-29
2) Halifax
3) Lancaster
4) Sterling
5) Liberator

The Halifax carried more bomb load than the Lancaster.

Let's look at JUST THESE AIRCRAFT sorted by range:
1) Boeing B-29; 5,230 km
2) Avro Lancaster; 4,072 km
3) Consolidated B-24D; 3,701 km
4) Short Sterling; 3,235 km
5) Halifax; 1,658 km

The Halifax takes a back seat here, but the first three could fly alomst the same missions, with the B-29 clearly in the lead.

OK, let's look just at SPEED for THESE AIRCRAFT alone:

1) B-29; 576 kph
2) Consolidated B-24D; 488 kph
3) Lancaster; 465 kph
4) Halifax; 454 kph
5) Short Sterling; 435 kph

The B-29 is alone again, with the Lancaster in second. The next two are about even, and the Sterling is noticeably slower.

So, what do we have?

The B-29 easily wins in all three categories. Over 2,500 kg more bombs than the Lancaster, 90 kph faster than the B-24D (111 kph faster than the Lancaster), and almost 1,200 km longer range than the Lancaster.


This short list of 5 is, of course, only the heavyweights. They carry the most bombs. They are NOT the fasters nor the longest range planes, but they haul the most ordnance to the target.

The B-29 clearly wins and is WAY ahead of whatever is in second place. A very close second was the Soviet Tu-4, a copy of the B-29, but it was post-WWII and did not count.

What other categories do you want to evaluate? As far as a heavy bomber goes, payload, range, and speed are the most important ... followed by defensive armament.

1) Liberator; 11 x 12.7 mm MG
2) B-29; 10 or 11 x 12.7 mm MG
3) Lancaster; 8 x 7.7 mm MG
4) Sterling; 8 x 7.7 mm MG
5) Halifax; 8 x 7.7 mm MG

So, the B-29 is equal to or just slightly less well defended than the B-24D, and they are both WAY better than the British bombers.

So, the B-29 is WAY in the lead.

The B-24D hauls about 550 less kg bombs than the Lancaster, and has 300 km lass range, but is faster and a lot better armed. Personally, I'd give the nod to the B-24D for second, followd by the Lancaster in third, followed by the Halifax, and the Sterling last ... assuming the Halifax could GET to the target, that is. The range difference is significant.

How can you pick anything but the B-29?

Easy. Specify the European theater.

Throw in the Boeing B-17G.

Speed is 462 kph; bomb load is 2,722 kg; range is 5,080 km; and the armament is 13 x 12.7 mm MG.

The B-17Gis better armed and has longer range than the Lancaster by over 1,000 km. But, it gets to the target with about 43% of the Lancaster's bomb load, and goes the same speed. So, if you have three times as many B-17s as Lancasters, you are ahead.

There were 12,725 B-17s built and 7,366 Lancasters ... so you'd be ahead with the Lancasters if we look at the figures only. The defensive armament of the B-17G made it much more survivable in daylight than the Lancaster, so I am not surprised that the British elected to use Lancasters mostly ay night once they figured it out.

Which is better? I say the Lancaster, based on superior payload, about equal speed, and SUFFICIENT range. But I would kick the Brits in the butt and tell them to put some decent defensive armament into the Lancaster!

Bottom line:

Best Bomber of the war: B-29

Best ETO Bomber: Lancaster

Why did we use the B-29 only in the PTO? Can't say, but it is a safe bet that if the Japanese had been beaten first, the Germans would have been introduced to the B-29 quickly afterwards.

My guess is that the B-29 was the bomber with the range to do the job in the PTO, and no other bomber HAD the range.

[simon]

Sorry but I would disagree slightly on the issue of daylight/night bombing.

What made the US Daylight bombing offensives sustainable was not the proliferation of guns on the individual aircraft, nor even the combat box tactics used to maximise defensive fire. 'Twas a fighter that made US raids sustainable, and that was the much discussed Mustang.

Even the mighty B-17, bristling with guns though it was, could not defend itself well enough. True, even deep penetration raids like the famed combined Schweinfurt/Regensburg Operations didn't suffer the extremely heavy losses of the early British raids, but even then at 60 aircraft out of a formation of around 300 shot down and many more written off on landing or more accurately crashing at their home bases, even the US could not sustain those losses for long.

I still understand that the reason the US stuck with daylight bombing in the early stages was that their crews were not trained and the aircraft not equipped for night flying and bombing so they stuck with day bombing, and after a while long range escorts became available so escorted deep penetration raids became an option.

This is not intended as a slight on the US, and to deter a potential argument from brewing up, I still maintain that the USAAF and RAF complimented each other very well. One was trained and equipped to attack at night, the other was trained and equipped to attack by day, considering the lack of communication pre-1939 it seems very fortuitous that the two airforces developed such complimentary and differing tactics.

BTW I have the production figures for the B-32 as slightly different from your own. A total of 75 built as bombers, around 40 (Not sure exactly on the latter but I can check) built as TB-32 bomber/navigation trainers, and only 15 operational before VJ Day, which flew 2 combat missions from Okinawa before the cessation of hostilities.

[GregP]

No fight from me. I agree with your conclusions. The USAAF was not trained in night bombing, and probably didn't equip theeir bombers for it.

Which brings up the question: What special night equipment did the British have?

I have a pilot's license, and I don't need anything more at night than I do in instrument conditions. Did you yhave a special "night bombsite?"

The USAAF crews operated in VFR weather and in IFR weather. Night isn't much different from IFR. So if the USAAF bombers were equipped for IFR weather, then they were equipped for night, too ... unless I am missing something.

Care to elaborate? No argument, just fishing for the "night" part. It could well be training, I don't know.

From personal eqpreience, I wouldn't want to land at a strange diels at night that I had never flown into before. It is different, but not insurmountable.

[simon]

My understanding was that it was all down to the choice of bombsight. In clear skies and by day when you could see the target, the US Norden had no equal, however by night or when the target was obscured the British bombsight (Which if it had a name I don't know what it is) was better, since it only required an approximate area to aim at.

The Norden required an actual aiming point. No aiming point and you were reduced to more or less dropping bombs blindly.

I know much gets discussed about the British tactics of area bombing, but I maintain that this was not down to the inability of the crews to find and hit the targets, since British bombers, even Lancasters operated escorted by day in the lead up to Overlord hitting French infrastructure, achieving accuracy equal to the USAAF. The area bombing tactic was dictated by decisions and assumptions of RAF high command and specifically Sir Arthur Harris.

The training of US crews could have been fairly easily remedied, Curtiss Le May's 4th Bombardment wing at the time of the 1st Schweinfurt/Regensburg Op were able to take off in zero visability due to their training in blind flying. In any case landing and taking off would not have been too much of an issue since most deep penetration night raids involved taking off at twilight and landing at dusk.

However to re-equip all their lead bombers with RAF type bombsights would have required a massive effort and expenditure, and associated re-training of the Bombardiers, plus an acknoweldgement that all the pre-war doctrine about high altitude high accuracy bombing attacks were wrong, which would have been politically inacceptable. So they largely stuck to raiding German positions in France, Holland and Belgium until long range escorts became available.

The British by contrast were able to achieve everything they wanted under the cover of darkness (Until Radar night-fighters redressed the balance), and following the Blitz and Coventry, had little qualms over attacking civilians, I believe prior to the Blitz Hitler said something along the lines of "If they attack our cities, then we will wipe theirs out", well this really happened in reverse, and by the 1,000 bomber raids the RAF became capable of wiping out German cities with almost casual ease.

So the reason I believe was a combination of politics, equipment and expense.

[GregP]

Nice post!

Of all the people in the world you couldn't trust, I'd say Adolph Hitler was right up there in the number 1 slot.

I'm not surprised he bombed British cities first. He was also the one who declared unrestricted submarine warfare first and the one who established death camps first.

The average German knew by 1942 or earlier that they had made a huge mistake in electing Hitler, but they couldn't DO anything about it. The war was on, the Nazis were in power, and they had disarmed the population and controlled the food supply. Even if you were German, you either supported the Nazis (or pretended to do so) or you didn't eat. So Hitler had his shot at world domination, and found out that he wasn't quite as unstoppable as his staff surmised after he had started a milti-front war and enraged the population of almost every nation on the planet.

Oops, didn't really mean to start a NEW THREAD ... so, that's all!

[Corsarius]

Blast it all, GregP!

I wouldn't have trusted ANY of the WWII leaders! Churchill, for example, expected Singapore to fall, and Australia to take the brunt of it. The Engish washed their hands of us at that point. Now, I can understand his reasoning for it (England WAS under seige at the time) but it's still a hard thing to look at.

For the bombing of cities, I'll have to check out my files, so I may be wrong, but I understood that it started as an error of navigation on the German side, and once the bombs went down from the leaders, everyone just aimed at that point, leading to Coventry. Allied retaliation was pretty brutal as well. I'd like to make a very strong point that I have NEVER agreed with strategic bombing, and I believe that it never really acheived all that much, or not as much as well-placed precision bombing. The efforts of Barnes Wallis and 617 squadron (after the dambusters raid) bear my arguments out.

Declaring unrestricted submarine warfare? Sure, I'd do that were I in his position. A submarine's best defence is stealth. By surfacing and saying 'excuse me, we're about to sink your ship now if you don't mind.. oh, you're a neutral carrying Ball Bearings to England. Sorry, we'll be on our way' is utter bollocks. It's a reminder that war at least attempted to be gentlemanly once, and didn't really belong in the 20th century. This sort of thinking led to Trench Warfare on the ground. ("The greatest weapon of war in the modern era remains the cavalry charge" - General Haig, 1920). You're trying to stop someone hitting you. Anything going in or out of their ports is on it's way to Davy Jones' Locker. Period.

Concentration camps, I believe, were not a German invention as many assume, but a British one (sorry for giving so much stick to the poor old poms here, but you buggers DID just take OUR world cup :P ). The British instituted concentration camps during the Boer war.

And as for 'enraging the population', I dunno GregP. The axis was made up of more nations than just Germany, Italy, Japan, and many of those hung on to the bitter end. There was also enough neutrals in Africa and South America that supported Germany clandestinely. I'd agree, though, that by 1942 everyone realised they had backed a losing horse, but I try to remain impartial of the propaganda we all get spoon-fed at school and look at the facts (this can be difficult sometimes). History, after all, is written by the victors. I can no longer say that Germany's motives for going to war were all bad, the same as I can no longer say the way that Germany was handled after WWI and during the Weimar republic by the allies was good. There were many factors to consider, including the rise of communism. In my historical calender, the 'cold war' starts about 1920-ish with the final collapse of the White Armies. Hitler, staunchly anti-communist, offered a strong Europe in which communism would be pushed back, thus was allowed to build his military etc. Of course things went a bit pear-shaped as Germany also had a little animosity with other countries too. The French surrender was signed in the same railway carriage that the Germans were forced to sign in on 11/11/1918.

Basically, though, I have always felt that the 'unconditional surrender' motives of the Allies left no room for diplomatic manoevering that may have spared tens of thousands of lives (soldiers, but most importantly civilians killed in bombing). A smaller, weaker Germany joined with the Allies after, say, a successful bomb plot, or Amnesty that arrested Hitler, may have been a powerful ally and could have changed the face of the world for good, even moreso than it's total destruction.

Ahh, it goes back to good old 'what if'.

[simon]

I'm not sure Churchill did expect Singapore to fall, I always understood that the view in Britain was that Fortress Singapore was impregnable, and that backed up with HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse it could hold out against a Japanese attack more or less indefinitely. This has to be considered against a backdrop that most books I've read point to the conclusion that the British commanders in Singapore were sending misleading reports about the garisson's defences back to London, regarded the Jungle as impassable (A bit like the Ardennes was reckoned to be in 1940!), and thought the Japanese military consisted of obsolete British designed warships, weak midget soldiers and an ineffectual airforce of bamboo kites. By the time Singapore's true predicament became clear, it was too late to send reinforcements anyway.

To put this into context I don't think Britain really had much choice, although I'm not entirely convinced Australia was written off by Whitehall, just that with trying to build up the night bomber offensive, fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and North Africa, and facing what still seemed the probability that the Soviets could be beaten in summer 1942, there was precious little to spare for the China-Burma-India and Pacific theatres, especially as the US was really only just tooling up for an actual war rather than a Lend-Lease one (No offence meant!).

Pin-point attacks like you describe Corsarius are still strategic bombing providing the target is a Strategic one, ie an armaments factory is the most obvious example, I think what you mean is area bombing, specifically terror attacks against populations like the Condor Legion did to Guernica and Bomber Command did to Hamburg (Among others).

The problem really comes down to pre-war strategy, and no-one then really knew what an airforce was capable of doing. The US never went in for area bombing because their funding was entirely at the discretion of Congress, and no-one who wanted to be re-elected was going to advocate terror-bombing of women and children, so the US developed fairly precise bomb-aiming instruments, and practiced over the relatively clear skies of Arizona.

The European airforces, faced with frequently inclement weather had to adopt a different approach. The view taken was that the quickest way to end a war would be to induce the civilian population to revolt by making their existance unbearable. This would be achieved by terrorising them into demanding an end to the war by regular area bombing. The Luftwaffe attempted this first during WWII, navigation errors and retaliations aside, by launching attacks against the workers of London's East End, known as the Blitz.

What the pre-war planners did not appreciate was that far from weakening civilian resolve this merely strengthened it, and what I have never understood is why when there was the first hand experience of the Blitz, Bomber Command tried to use the same tactic against the German Civilian populace. The only assumption I can make is that they percieved that the German Civilians were psychologically weaker than the British and would crack where the British didn't, although this to me makes no sense!

You are also confusing concentration camps with the Extermination Camps. Yes, the British invented concentration camps, but the horrendous conditions and deaths in concentration camps were largely down to a indifference to the fates of the inmates, in many ways Concentration Camps can be viewed as just extremely brutal prisons.

The Extermination Camps were a different matter altogether. The sole purpose of the Extermination Camps and what sets them appart from the Japanese treatment of POWS, Concentration Camps and the Soviet Gulags, was that their sole purpose was to kill people. As many as possible as quickly as possible. There would be no release, no pardon, if you were sent to an extermination camp you went there to die, the only factor was time.

I do agree about the unconditional surrender issue, although it is interesting to note that Churchill never trusted Stalin and in the final phases of WWII ordered a study into what would happen if the Western Allies, backed by what was left of the Whermacht and Luftwaffe launched a pre-emptive strike against the Red Army.

Even the most optimistic result was that the Allies would be destroyed. Perhaps long term the Unconditional Surrender was for the best, without that we may have had an Iron Curtain that extended to Madrid, Rome, London and Belfast. The whole of Europe under the Red Star...

Anyway, you wop us at cricket with monotonous regularity, let us at least have one moment of glory! :D

[simon]

GregP,

I’ve been looking through one of your earlier posts and your figures for the ranges of the bombers are whilst not incorrect, unrepresentative. The British bombers are quoted at range with full bomb load, whilst the US bombers are unladen.

Figures should be:

B-29 With a 10,000lb bomb load (Half load): 5,230 km.
B-24 With a “typical” 5,000lb bomb load (Less than half load): 3,540 km.
Lancaster, full bomb load: 2,675 km.
Halifax MkIII, full bomb load: 2,030 km.
B-17, full bomb load: 1,760 km.
Halifax MkI: 1,577 km.
Stirling: 950 km.

So you can see far from having a range over 1,000km more than a Lancaster, the B-17 actually has an effective range of 900km less, and the most common Halifax can carry it’s bomb load further.

I haven’t been able to find figures for fully loaded B-29s and B-24s, although I cannot imagine that in the either case a full bomb load would make the range any less than a Lancaster’s.

Why choose the fully loaded ranges? Well to me these are far more meaningful as they represent how far a bomber can travel and still do it’s job. True the range could be extended (As above for the B-24 and B-29) by carrying a smaller load, but for a representative comparison this seems reasonably fair.

The defensive armament is too difficult to judge since with the exception of the B-29 the US bombers carried a mix of turret and manual guns, the latter were almost completely ineffective as defensive weapons (Gunners typically would only actually score around 1% of the victories they claimed), whereas the RAF guns were almost all turret mounted. Even then though I’d give the US bombers the edge.

So best ETO bomber based on the available data would have to be Lancaster followed by Halifax MkIII as this has the greater range, which as you point out is significant.

Incidentally, I asked the same the question about the B-29 so I’ll repeat the answer I was given, it was all in the name of standardisation. If you think about it though, the B-29 would not have been available to European units till about summer 1944, by which point the Allies were on the continent and ex-Luftwaffe bases in France were shortly going to become available, so the range was not a great bonus for the 8th AAF. In the Pacific however the range would prove all important. Why in any case with Germany on the ropes and playing for time would you take out of service B-17 and B-24 Groups to retrain them on a different aircraft when everyone was really expecting to have to invade Japan in 1946? The fact was that by summer 1944 the B-17s and B-24s were doing the job well enough, so there was no reason to change them.

[simon]

Corsarius,

I stand corrected and am wrong about the Piaggio Pi.108. I've been able to check the picture of the Pi.108 and have been able to see what I assume are the barbettes on the outer engine nacelles.

Still am slightly confused over the discrepencies of the armament in the other sources though, and why no other sources mention the barbettes though.

As much as I agree with you over not trusting the WWII leaders though, you have to agree that Hitler and Stalin are generally far less trustworthy than Roosevelt or Churchill. If I were in a room with all four, I know who I'd rather have my back to!

[Corsarius]

I'd probably have my back to Uncle Joe. This is likely because when we entered the room he would already be behind me with a Tokarev jammed between my shoulder blades.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by simon


I do agree about the unconditional surrender issue, although it is interesting to note that Churchill never trusted Stalin and in the final phases of WWII ordered a study into what would happen if the Western Allies, backed by what was left of the Whermacht and Luftwaffe launched a pre-emptive strike against the Red Army.

Even the most optimistic result was that the Allies would be destroyed. Perhaps long term the Unconditional Surrender was for the best, without that we may have had an Iron Curtain that extended to Madrid, Rome, London and Belfast. The whole of Europe under the Red Star...

:D


Did this study know about the atom bomb and did Stalin know the US had used its last (for the time being)on Nagasaki?

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by simon

The Windsor could have been an exceptional aircraft, and the Warwick could have been one of the truly outstanding bombers of the war, if development delays hadn't postponed to the point the new 4 enginned types took over.

As for the Windsor, a combination of the Avro Lincoln, the "Jet-age" and the end of the war meant there was just no requirement for it.

The Warwick at least had a useful career as an Anti-submarine and Air-Sea Rescue plane, and apparently proved popular with its crews.



True, the Windsor would have had a hell of a speed especially with Clyde engines but would the Windsor and Warwick have even seen the light of day if the Wellington factories could make stressed skin aircraft rather than geodetic structure aircraft. From what I've read this was a major problem - the time it would have taken for the factories making geodetic to switch to stressed skin would have been unacceptable and so the Windsor and Warwick were continued to give the factories something to do.

I've also read the geodetic structure played hell with the rear mounted engine guns due to flexing.

[Ricky]

As far as I know, Stalin was in great fear of the Nuclear bomb, and it was this that really kept him on good behaviour.

In reality, of course, it is unlikely that it would have.
Admittedly, the delivery of the weapon would not have been much of a problem - the Russian airforce being so dedicatedly tactical, it lacked an interceptor that could effectively tackle the Superfortress - but would it have made a difference?
Yes, the Russian love of creating huge industrial complexes would have meant that serious blows to its industrial base were eminently possible. But, given the equipment and numbers they had on the ground at the time, any resulting shortages would not have had much effect before the Channel was reached. The big danger to the USSR would probably have been their Eastern Front, which of course had the immense American armies of the Pacific just over the horizon. Along with the USAAF's entire Superfortress fleet. And only the Trans-Siberian railway for re-supply

Mind you, Russia had pumped an awful lot of troops into the theatre to grab as much from the Japanese as they could before the war ended, so it would have been a stiff fight...

[PMN1]

Where would the North American XB-28 have fitted into the US bomber programm.

It was capapble of carrying 4,000lb bombs so that would put it in the medium category but was pressuried and capable of reaching around 30,000ft so that would put it in with the havy bomber operating heights.

[simon]

"Stalin was in great fear of the Nuclear bomb, and it was this that really kept him on good behaviour"

I guess that depends which side of the Iron Curtain you were on... ;)

"Did this study know about the atom bomb and did Stalin know the US had used its last (for the time being)on Nagasaki?"

I don't believe so, I think it was based on entirely conventional means, plus there probably would be the concern on the part of the planning staff that the reaction an unconventional attack might be an unconventional retaliation, and with all those nasty chemicals and scientists the Soviets now had in East Germany they would probably have preferred a conventional defeat to any sort of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical victory.

I think the study was actually commissioned before the Atomic bombs were dropped, so the officers concerned probably were not aware of the existence of the bombs in any case

I believe the main differences between the most optimistic and pessimistic views was the speed at which the Allied armies would be over-ran!

[Corsarius]

bio-warfare... ewwww.

One of the sites I looked at regarding the I-400 boats and their seiran bombers stated that the Japanese had something nasty cooked up to drop on continental US, which apparrently worked (using rats and bugs of some description) but didn't use it as they thought it would simply prolong the war and make the americans fight harder (both choices likely), so they changed the profile of the mission to the Panama Canal attack.

[Cheddar Cheese]

ah, my favourite bomber is the italian piaggio P.108 [8D] they only made 163 of them, and mussolinis son was killed in one of them :D it was also the most heavily armoured bomber until the b-29, some 4 years later. had the germans showed more interest in it, it could have been the heavy bomber they were looking for. with a 7,714lb payload and 2175 miles range it was far superior to even the b-17. still not as great as most of the british bombers, but this could have been one of the most sigificant bombers of the war had production contiued :)

[Ricky]

An interesting 'what if' there...

Didn't the Piaggio have 'barbette' turrets mounted above the wings on the fairings behind the inner engines?

[Kain]

Well, my first post so I'll keep it simple...

There's a few bombers on my favorite list:

Wellington, B25, Lancaster, B17 and B29 but I've always had a soft spot for the B26... There's also the Liberator... Hmmm. Choices...

[simon]

All excellent choices, thought of trying Corsarius's Fantasy Airforce thread? I think it goes by the name of "Ultimate List" or similar. :)

[Corsarius]

Hi, Sorry I've not been around for a while

My thread was called 'an ultimate competition', I'll bump it back up if you like

Also, re the Piaggio: Didn't we do this one to death already? I love this plane a LOT, and Simon and I just don't agree on the turrets. I say they exist, he says they might but probably dont (wasn't it in this very thread you said that, Simon?).

Anyway, I'd love to see more people posting their 'fantasy airforce' in my ultimate competition thread, who knows what sort of combinations we'll have once we pit them against one another?

[Ricky]

You have discussed the P.108 before -
to those that doubt the barbettes (Simon, this means you) check:

http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/wwii/p_108b-d.gif
(this one simply shows a 3-view)

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/f5avipatches/p108%20page.html
(this one shows a colour pic of the plane in flight, with a rather obvious barbette on the wing)

[simon]

Posted - December 09 2003 : 2:13:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corsarius,

I stand corrected and am wrong about the Piaggio Pi.108. I've been able to check the picture of the Pi.108 and have been able to see what I assume are the barbettes on the outer engine nacelles.

Still am slightly confused over the discrepencies of the armament in the other sources though, and why no other sources mention the barbettes though.

In all fairness guys I did concede this one a while back, like I said at the time, most sources do not even mention the barbettes which seems strange (The Regia Marina one was the only one to specifically mention them!), and on most pictures they are just not visable due to the angle of the shot. What I could identify were what I assumed were around eight gunnery positions, so again lept to the assumption that the defensive armament was basically conventional, my mistake [:I].

I said then and still do, that if this armament was so innovative and potent then I don't understand why no-one else seems to mention it, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, it clearly does, but it does not get great coverage for such a wonderful system. There is also discrepencies between the various accounts over exactly how many guns the Pi108 had, but I guess this is to be expected when discussing a fairly obscure type 60 years after it flew.

Part of an explanantion is the age old adage that history is written by the winners, the winners didn't fly the P.108 so they didn't write about it.

At the risk of starting another argument again I am not overly convinced by the statement that it was the most heavily armoured bomber until the B-29 although I haven't seen any details of the armouring on the Pi.108 so can't say for absolute certain, however again, I have been wrong before, probably will be again, so if anyone knows different by all means correct me, I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong!

Friends again Corsarious? ;):D

[Ricky]

quote:I stand corrected and am wrong about the Piaggio Pi.108. I've been able to check the picture of the Pi.108 and have been able to see what I assume are the barbettes on the outer engine nacelles.

Still am slightly confused over the discrepencies of the armament in the other sources though, and why no other sources mention the barbettes though.


Ooops, sorry Simon.
I had a read-through of the posts concerning the P.108, but obviously missed that one!
[B)]

Having read the websites, I don't think it even had a heavier armament than the B17, having only 8 machine guns of 12.7mm caliber (roughly .5in).
Interestingly, though, the second site posted in my thread above claims that a ship-busting version with a 102mm gun in the nose was produced in prototype form, as a candidate there for the 'Heavy Artillery' thread?

[Corsarius]

Sorry Simon, I didn't mean to hit a sore spot. Friends, always! (or at least often, anyway)[8D]!

The first time I saw the P.108 was about 14 years ago in a large colour book with 3-view pictures of bombers of the axis. I was intrigued then by the nacelle-mounted gun turrets, and still am. It's one of the reasons I love the Woomera as well.

Yes, the more I look into and read about the P.108 the a) more ambiguous I find it and b) more concerned I am that the axis never really took up with such a truly sterling aircraft. Probably for our benefit.

[simon]

Friends of course, Corsarius!

No Sore point I just don't wish to be accused of being completely intractable as despite my admittedly argumentative and arrogant streak I am not above admitting when I am wrong. I will no doubt continue to debate almost any point against almost any one, but this is purely in the interest of a free flow of information I assure you!

If the P.108 was available 12-24 months earlier it could have proved a decisive Axis weapon, however it wasn't and I'm afraid that the relative obscurity of the type and the Regia Aeronautica as a whole will condemn it to the dustbin of history as an albeit impressive what if...?

[Romantic Technofreak]

I am not the biggest friend of the P.108. It has less performance than the Halifax, and with stronger engines - they were unreliable though. Looking at the three-stepped nose, the aerodynamical "preference" of the P.108 is no wonder. I also had preferred a rear gun station and dorsal turrets for the purpose of shooting rather than just looking out.

I think further developping the Piaggio P.50 would have been the better choose. See this link for it:

http://www.aerei-italiani.net/SchedeT/aereop50I.htm

With 4 x 730 hp this airplane runs 435 kph! If the Isotta-Fraschini inlines had to be given up, German Jumo 211s could have been used instead. So, getting 4 x 1410 hp (I think I don´t have to repeat my calculation method), the performance is estimatedly 542 kph, a very good value for 1941/42! With its tandem engines, it also copuld have been an appropriate comrade of the Messerschmitt Me 261 variation I considered in my new "Scourges of the Seas Part I" thread for to hunt Allied shipping over the Atlantic.

But, the P.108 IS a great airplane. To underline that, I would like to show you some real fine pictures. I am not ashamed if they are taken from models, if they give a real good impression about the airplane.

P.108 as a whole:

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/photos/ibes_p108_01.jpg

Position of the nacelle turret behinde the outside engine:

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/photos/ibes_p108_04.jpg

In flight. Nacelle turret can be detected:

http://www.grandesguerras.com.br/armas/imgs/354_3_1056678709.jpg

Another very good model:

http://www.airmodel.de/gallery/lomo2/images/Piakit1.jpg

The picture is taken from this site, that contains some more very good views:

http://www.airmodel.de/gallery/lomo2/lomo2.htm

The camouflage scheme is so perfect that on the thumbnail version of the picture I posted above the nacelle turret is nearly impossible to find!

Last but not least I don´t want to hide this one from you:
P.108 con tutto il personale (in volo e a terra)....
http://digilander.libero.it/avantisavoiait/P108_propaganda.JPG

[Notta Brit]

For a Heavy bomber I would say the B-17, because although it didn't have the biggest bombload, it could take a lot of punishing, unlike the Lancaster. For a medium bomber it is either the Ju-88 or the B-25 Mitchell, because they were both long-lasting. For a small bomber there is a tie between the IL-2 Sturmovik and the Ju-87 Stuka. They both were very effective at what they did, and they were strong as well. There's yer answer.:D

[Notta Brit]

[They didn't use the B-29 because although the superfortress could carry a bigger bombload, the B-17 could take more of a beating. Those things would fly home withh half a tail, but a Lancaster or other plane would be in a burning heap on the ground.

[simon]

Please see the RAF vs US heavy bombers thread for where this very subject has been done to death already! :D

I cannot agree with you on the Superfortress, for a start look at the Korean war and the beatings these took from the 37mm cannon of the MiG15 and still made it home. The reason the Superfortress was not used is that by the time it would have been available in numbers all it would have achieved really would have been taking operational experienced squadrons out of service to be retrained, and anyway once bases in France became available the greater range of the Superfortress was no huge advantage. Nope they war far better employed against Japan who everyone was expecting to have to invade in Summer 1946 anyway.

As for B-17s flying with half their tails missing, so did Lancasters, Halifaxes, Wellingtons, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, A-26s, etc... (Plus have you actually looked at a B-29s tail, seen it anywhere before...?).

The Lancaster could take a lot of punishment, ditto the Halifax, B-24, B-29, Stirling and B-17, the B-17 could possibly take more damage, but I'm still not entirely convinced that this is as great as was reckoned, in any case my argument over the firepower issue is equally valid.

No Medium or Heavy Bomber carried enough guns or was strong enough to fly unescorted daylight operations where they would encounter enemy interceptors, this is no more or less true of the B-17 than any other aircraft type.

Anyway I am in danger of straying into repetition, so I will end here, like I say, have a read of the UK vs US Heavy Bombers Thread.

I will also say again as I have said earlier in this thread, I personally do not like the "Who had the Best Air Force, RAF or USAAF" arguments that occasionally crop up on boards like this, the simple (And in my opinion truthfull) answer is neither. Each was optimised for a different kind of war, and both were good in their chosen roles. We were very lucky that we found in each other Allies whose forces complimented each other so well.

[Notta Brit]

I live near Dayton, Ohio and have been to the USAF museum there twice, so I have seen most american planes, includong the puny MIG-15 and monster B-29. I agree with you on the RAF vs. USAF arguments.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Notta Brit

I live near Dayton, Ohio and have been to the USAF museum there twice, so I have seen most american planes, includong the puny MIG-15 and monster B-29. I agree with you on the RAF vs. USAF arguments.


I'm not entirely certain as to how american the MiG-15 fighter is. German? Maybe. Russian/Soviet? Definitely. American? hmmm.... unless you're a really wierd conspiracy theorist, not likely.

[simon]

The MiG-15 may have been puny compared to the B-29, however it's NS-37 cannon was more than up to the task of downing them with a good burst of fire. The Bf109, Fw190 and for that matter the Roumanian IAR-80 were all equally puny compared to the Liberator and Flying Fortress and was equally capable of downing them, see the Schweinfurt/Regensburg raids (60 losses out of a combined formation of 376 planes), and the equally disasterous Ploesti Raids.

I can't help wondering at the relevance of your comment about the MiG-15, remember it's not the size that counts... :D

[simon]

Oh and before anyone accuses me of sour grapes against the US heavies GregP ;), yes the even more disasterous early attempts at low level daylight bombing with Lancasters, by equally "Puny" German Fighters...

[Notta Brit]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

quote:Originally posted by Notta Brit

I live near Dayton, Ohio and have been to the USAF museum there twice, so I have seen most american planes, includong the puny MIG-15 and monster B-29. I agree with you on the RAF vs. USAF arguments.


I'm not entirely certain as to how american the MiG-15 fighter is. German? Maybe. Russian/Soviet? Definitely. American? hmmm.... unless you're a really wierd conspiracy theorist, not likely.

They have them there. mainly because of the American input in Korea. It was a captured MIG.

[Notta Brit]

VERY FUNNY.[xx(]

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by Notta Brit

For a Heavy bomber I would say the B-17, because although it didn't have the biggest bombload, it could take a lot of punishing, unlike the Lancaster.


The Lancaster was an immensely strong aircraft, which could survive battle damage extremely well, in my opinion as well as any other four-engined bomber of the war.

"Yet its structure was immensely robust, enabling it to withstand the severe aerodynamic stress of a dive, loop, or roll, besides extensive battle damage." - Royal Air Force Bombers of World War Two, by Philip J.R. Moyes.

"The Lanc was fantastically strong. If there was one quarter of one left by the German defences, that quarter would fly home." - Lancaster Bomber by D.B. Tubbs.

"Lancs frequently came home after having survived seemingly fatal battle damage, as was the case with another 100 Squadron Lanc, Mk.I ED749 "J-Jig" (Flt Sgt F. Wadge) following a sortie against Stuttgart on 20/21 February 1944. On the homeward journey the Lanc collided with a German night fighter and seemed so unlikely to stay in the air that Wadge gave the crew orders to bail out. However, after diving more than 3,000ft, control was regained and Wadge flew "J-Jig" safely back to an airfield in southern England minus 6ft of wing and with part of the fighter still embedded in the bomber." - Avro Lancaster B.I, by Philip J.R. Moyes.

"It possessed great strength, and its durability, particularly under fire, became legendary and there are many ex-crew members alive today who owe their existence to the ability of the Lancaster to take almost unbelievable punishment from guns and fighters, and return home, sometimes on only two engines. There are instances when the last few miles were flown on one engine." - The Avro Lancaster I, by Brian Goulding and M. Garbett.

Lancaster at War, by Goulding and Garbett, has a section called "Battle Damage" on pages 107-109, that contains photos of Lancasters that came home after suffering severe battle damage, including one that returned from Stuttgart with a large chunk of the left wing missing.

I could probably quote a dozen more sources, but they would all say the same thing - that the Lancaster was immensely strong, and had an unbelievable ability to survive battle damage.

[Notta Brit]

whoa, slow down.[B)]

[simon]

"...I have seen most american planes, includong the puny MIG-15 and monster B-29..."

I think the point Corsarius was trying to make is that you cannot count the MiG-15 as an American plane, regardless of who flew it, captured it or fought it. To be correct the sentence would need seriously rewording, as it stands it implies that you consider the MiG-15 to be an American aircraft.

[Corsarius]

Simon seems to have an almost intuitive knack for understanding what I am trying to say, and then rewording it into proper Engish for everyone to enjoy. Thank you once again, Simon.

Notta Brit, you have to forgive my sometimes rather oddball sense of humour.[}:)]

[simon]

And all in a service I provide for free! :D

[meister]

Concerning the Italien Bomber P.108.
This Aircraft could have helped the Germans on the Russian front even in small numbers. It was able to reach targets that were out of range for German bombers. It was not a "Reichdream" It was available, an assembly process existed and with an extra effort its production numbers could have been increased, while being employed it could have been re-engined without much loss of operational availability. Its defensive armarment was very good for Russian airspace. This is a huge lost opertunity for the German bomber force, that even today is not fully appreciated.

[Romantic Technofreak]

Sorry, Helmut, about the P.108 I don´t agree with you. I often heared the argument "if Germny only had a four-engined bomber", but people who say that neglect that the success of the Allied four-engined bombers not only based on their speed, ceiling, bomb capacity and sturdiness, but also on their number, the tactic of the combat box and, later the cover by long-range escort fighters.
The P.108 could have filled a temporary gap, but what would you have bombed in Russia? Remember what Robert said about the Battle of Britain:

quote:The Luftwaffe also erred in selecting targets. The Supermarine factories at Woolston and Itchen, near Southampton on the South coast, were an inviting target for the Luftwaffe. At the start of the BoB, they were the only factories in Britain producing Spitfires. Yet the factories weren't bombed until September 26, by which time the shadow factory at Castle Bromwich was up and running, and despite the destruction of the two Southampton factories, Spitfire production carried on with only a small blip. The Luftwaffe also ignored the Rolls-Royce factory at Derby, the only factory, at that time, producing Merlin engines

The tank factory at Gorky? Was bombed by He111s, but with little success. The Il-2 production at Kuibyshev? If you get the vast industrial areas of the Urals under your wings, as a German you surely don´t know which factory produces war-releveant goods and which doesn´t. You can destroy some more or less arbitrary targets, but with little overall success. And areas east of central Siberia are out of range even for the P.108.

Strategic bombing would not have been the solution for the Eastern theater. Mobile warfare with more and better tanks, usable armoured assault airplanes, a "leader" who doesn´t meddle in every single action and the situation may have looked differently!

[simon]

I have to agree with Romantic Technofreak here.

If the P.108 was available in numbers around Winter 1941/42 and if it could have operated it possibly could have been enough if used correctly to turn the Barbarossa campaign before the Battle of Moscow was lost. However that's a whole lot of "Ifs" and the plain fact is it couldn't have been available that early in any case.

Any later and the likelihood is that any that were available would have squandered trying to bail out Paulos at Stalingrad.

Besides, the armament may have been good, but it wouldn't have stopped it being shot down, the B-17 had better armament and even the Combat Box wasn't enough to stop them being shot down.

[B-24WillowRun]

This topic has fallen off the topic, some, but my favorate bomber, as the name says is the B-24!! Range bombs, survivability, and survice flexibility. [8D] The Halifax would follow close behind.

But the P.1008 was a great plane if the German's would have given the Italians a little help. Better then the B-17 and posible the Lancaster. It could have won the east and the Med.

My favorate Medium would be the Wellington and the B-25. Both for the same reasons.

As for the question of Stalin knowing of the Atomic bomb, yes he had spies every where and knew of the tests and results almost the same time as Truman and Rosevelt. I am not sure if he knew that the last bomb for a little while was used in Nagasaki, but that would not have stopped him, if he wanted to do anything.

[simon]

There's nothing I love more than a sweeping statement. My favourite of all has to be along the lines of "Plane X could have won the war!", and then there's nothing to actually back up why anyone thinks this is the case.

How could the P.108 have won the East and the Med, assuming that there were enough to do both simultaneously?

In part one, we deal with how it probably couldn't have changed the war in the East...

Firstly much is made of it's fantastic range, but we have debated the relative merits of a bomber's range on another thread, suffice to say that once it was loaded with bombs and bullets this would have dropped significantly.

So let's now leap to the assumption that the range would still have been sufficient to carry a meaningful bombload to the factories, say around 4x1,000 pounders or 2x2,000 pounders each (Roughly 500Kg and 1,000Kg respectively, bombs any smaller are pointless since operational experience showed this was the minimum size required to hit and hurt heavy industry). OK, theres one point in its favour, unless you have to go for area bombing at night in which case the smaller number of bombs is a distinct disadvantage.

Service entry. Ah, now this is where the whole thing starts to fall down. The service entry for the P108 was June 1942 (Ignore "First flight", this is the date that counts, when units actually became operational). Accepting that this couldn't/wouldn't have been sped up much this puts the combat debut past the point most historians accept that Barbarossa was lost, the failure to defeat the Soviets at the Battle of Moscow, Winter 1941/42.

It's armament was quite good, but it still falls behind that of the B-17, which couldn't defend itself unescorted in daylight, so why would the P.108 be any different? OK, Soviet fighter aircraft of this period were more low-level dogfighters that interceptors, but the Soviets had lend-lease Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-40s, etc, these could have caught and destroyed the P108 with relative ease.

So let's now assume that the P.108 units have had their "Schweinfurt" over the Urals (A couple of daylight deep penetration raids with losses around 15-20% of the formations involved), and with the Soviet counter offensives they're losing their forward bases.

So now you have to either switch to night attacks, in which case you're really stabbing in the dark trying to hit factories you have little or no intelligence on under black-out conditions where you have little chance of successfully navigating to the target and back.

Or you can sit around and hope that Messerschmitt will design a "Mustang-109" so that you can be escorted to the targets and back with and stand a reasonable chance of hitting them with the few bombs you carry during daylight, oh and this has to happen before the Red Army push the Whermacht back beyond the range of the P108 and its Escort fighter.

My guess is that if the P108 could be made available a year earlier, and if it was backed up by a "Mustang-109" in Mustang like numbers, and if it was available in B-17 like numbers, and if it was supported by Ultra type intelligence, then yes it could have proved decisive. But that's one hell of a lot of changes in our alternative history, and none that I can see any real way of altering.

Better than the B-17 and Lancaster? I personally don't think so, I'm open to persuasion, but on practically every criteria I can think of that counts it isn't.

So over to you, fans of the P.108. I have conceded arguments before and am far from infallable, if anyone thinks I am wrong and can persuade me otherwise, go ahead.

Sorry about the sarcasm at the start, I'll be better behaved in future! :D

[B-24WillowRun]

Ok fisrt point yes the P.108 has its short commings as all aircraft. The B-17 stuck around because it was good, but it was outdated. The B-24 was to replace it, but it bombed the way for the B-29 only a few years latter.

AS for the P.108 one it killed Musollinis son, and that made the project that much harder to get going. My major IF is that the German's could have taken a hard long look at it in 1940 and adoped it. They also had there own 4 engine bomber programs that if the Furrer, would have listened to the Militery then the Urals could have been bombed. But Hittler wanted Dive Bombers!! Even the He-177 had that insane request for it.

Now your Mustang 109, that too was in the works, and could have been ready, even a jet posible, but like most projects it was derailed by Hitler. I am a beleaver that bombers need escorts and never thought they should have been left a lone anyway. I think that the RAF showed that in 1939 and 1940, but the USAAF disregarded it. So with all that the Germans could have had the resoces to make a difference.

Yes we are deeling with a lot of what ifs and that can makes things very hard. But Germany had a lot of recorse and I think if Hitler would have stayed out of the Militery, or waited to fight Russia after England things could have been different. The Germen aircraft were very good and I do not know why they did not create a replacement for the Me-109.

This has been long and rambling, but the point is the German's and Italians missed a good oprotunity. Now Our talks continue.[:p]

[simon]

Actually I was always of the understanding that it wasn't the Fuhrer specifically but the military as a whole that were against four engine bombers. The logic they used was that the resources taken to manufacture two four engine bombers could manufacture five twin engine bombers, so you end up with a much bigger air force.

Plus the German military circa 1940 saw the Luftwaffe as the flying artillery of the army rather than a truly independant arm, infact Britain and the US were among the few nations to actually benefit from independant airforces.

The major proponent of Strategic bombers within the German military was killed in a plane crash whilst a four engine He111 he was pushing for was appearing on the drawing boards, after that interest dropped off and the project was never really resurrected.

The nearest thing to a Mustang-109 that might have been ready by the time of the failure of Barbarossa that I'm aware of was the planned carrier 109s for the KMS Graf Zeppelin. I cannot imagine any Jet fighter of that era having anything like enough range to operate as an escort fighter.

The problem is as I seem to say a lot Hindsight is always 20/20. We know that the German military would have benefitted from a strategic bomber in 1940, however this was not apparent at the time, and why should it be? The Luftwaffe in 1941 was still a terrifying foe, with only really the Battle of Britain to mar a basically unbroken string of impressive victories. Why change a winning formula?

As to waiting till after Britain (I am English, but as the Welsh, Scots and Irish will point out to you with real venom if you say that, there's more to Britain than just England!), a lot hinges there on the success or failure of Seelowe, or the ability to convince Britain to sue for peace. Perhaps another thread there...

I remain unconvinced by the arguments for the P.108. The differences between any German strategic air offensive over the Urals and the combined Allied Strategic bombing offensive are huge. Perhaps the most crucial would have been that the US and British were operating from secure air bases that were never really directly threatened except for the odd night intruder sortie.

The Luftwaffe were in a position where the fighting on the ground was fierce and fluid. They would have had about 9 months maximum before being pushed back out of effective range. Now bear in mind that the similar task over Germany took the combined efforts of the US, Britain (and the Soviet Union drawing a huge amount of the Luftwaffe East), three years plus what Bomber Command had achieved up till that point.

I'd say the chances of the P.108 achieving anything decisive in that amount of time are minimal.

[B-24WillowRun]

WEll Said. WE sit and talk of what its, and if armies and nations could have or would have been able to do this or that. I think it is the vavorate passtime of humans.:D

I agree the Germany did use the airplane as aireal artilery, but if [Again I use it] they would have looked at the P.108 and took it into development would it have been ready to use over England? That might have been able to get at the RAF bases in Scotland, flying from say Norway. They could have been under escourt. But again that is a Big What IF! [V]

But I read a post asking if the Germans had ever looked at the Lancaster development as a base for a four engine bomber. What are your thoughts?

Thanks for the line about the 4 engine He-111. Do you know of any other information on that?

[simon]

Pretty much the entire of the UK could be hit by the German bombers that were available during the Battle of Britain, including the ship yards at Belfast, so from that point of view the P.108 would have made no difference to the Luftwaffe's capabilities, even if it had been available that early.

The problem was twofold. Firstly there was a lack of intelligence about the targets (Witness the failure to attack the Supermarine Spitfire factory at Southhampton despite it being within Stuka range, and the frequent attack on Bomber/Coastal Command stations during the Adlertag phase), this is why one of the pre-requisites I gave for the P.108 being an actual war winner was ULTRA type intelligence. Without that once again you'd be left basically trying to carpet bomb every field in Scotland by night on the off chance that one of them is going to be an airfield!

Secondly there was a lack of an effective long range escort fighter. The only one with the range to be used from Norway was the Bf110, possibly the Me210 which was just entering service trials about then. This was tried with a formation of He111s escorted by Bf110s. The result was the slaughter of the bombers. P.108s wouldn't have been any different.

So again without an effective long range escort fighter (Don't mention drop tanks for Bf109s, they would only add about 25 miles to their combat radius!), you have to either limit operations to those under the cover of Bf109s, which means London, or operate by night, in which case you're largely restricted to attempts at area bombing.

So without the miltary intelligence to use the bombers correctly or a long range single engine single seat fighter escort you have a replay of the Battle of Britain as was. Even if you have the Escort fighter (Which is still as yet unidentified!), the odds are all this will be for nothing as you bomb airfields full of Hampdens and Whitleys by mistake!

As for the Lancaster development, the Germans did follow that line, however it was much later and the results never saw service with the Luftwaffe, althought it was used postwar by the French. The He277 (I think) was a four engine - four airscrew development of the He177 which could be thought of as roughly paralleling the Manchester-Lancaster development.

The problems for Germany would always be fundamentally that the Luftwaffe was primarily a Tactical Air Force not a Strategic one, that Military Intelligence behind enemy lines was always going to be seriously lacking making choosing targets for bombing missions extremely difficult, and that they were never likely to have the numbers of Bombers to successfully carry out a Strategic air offensive against either Britain or the Soviet Union. Oh and timing, even the likes of the P.108 could only ever have been too little, too late.

Everything I've spelt out above applies equally to the Soviet Union circa Winter-Spring 1941/2, except that the Luftwaffe bases in France Summer 1940 weren't really directly threatened by the British.

As for the four engine He111, there is a picture somewhere on this forum of what it may have looked like, I'll have a look around and see if I can find it.

[B-24WillowRun]

Thanks for the time taken to enlighten me. This discussion is one that is carried out over the web in other places. I try to think about it and why Germany did not try to develope longer range aircraft or at the time a more stratigic air arm. But well that said I understand what you have said.

The P.108 dose interest me greatly, as it seemed to be headed in the right diection. But In the end the Germans did not have any safe areas to maintain the airfields into 1944 and on. But well we should keep on talking. I think we have taken over the thread, but then that is fine :) I hope we can talk more. I also like to talk anything with the B-24 and B-25.

I recently was reading about the ME-264 that was developed in the early 1940s but production priority was to other aircraft and then the only prototypes were bombed and overrun. Well I hope we can keep writting, I do like the chatting.

[simon]

Here you go:

http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=277

Just follow the link and you should find what has been tentatively named the He111/4m!

[B-24WillowRun]

Thanks Simon. I read that thread before, but I am not shore how it would fly. What are your thoughts on that?

Do you have a bobmer that you liked the best? Or better said one you favor at this time?;)

[simon]

My favourite, rather than the one I think is the best, is the Wellington, I've always liked the stubby, robust and tough bomber that carried Bomber Command through till the first 1,000 bomber raids.

Overall I'd say best is just too easy, B-29 Best Heavy, A-26 Best Medium.

Specify ETO Heavy, and things get a little more complicated.... :D

Just my 2 pennys worth.

[B-24WillowRun]

Simon, to be a little more picky is to be good. We should probable look at the different theatures that the bomber was in. Also the A-26 was more an attack platform then a bomber, though it had a nice bomb load.

That said I tell myself think B-25 the do all airframe [:p]

[simon]

Bumped, because it's relevant to the Multi-role discussion... :D

[Skufr]

Favourite heavy : B-24 Liberator

Favourite medium : B-26 Marauder. Also counts as best medium in my opinion ( counting the A-26 Invader as a multi-role aircraft rather than a medium bomber ).

[Kutscha]

For those that would like to see a model of the Willow Run B-24 plant, visit the EAA Museum in Oshgosh Wisc. It is massive, full size that is.

[azrael]

How about the Tupulev Tu2 as a contestant for medium bomber? Fast at 550 kph (certainly faster than the Ju88, another one of my favourites), good bombload at about 2000kg, decent range at 2500km. Another candidate would be the Marauder, sure it was not as flexible as the Mitchell, harder for inexperienced pilots to fly and needed longer runways. But overall it was by far superior to the Mitchell in almost every category.

[azrael]

In response to the P108 bomber, even IF Germany had decided to adopt a fleet of heavy bombers and IF they had chosen the P108, how would they have been able to produce them in any viable numbers? The German aircraft industry was hard-pressed to build enough fighters and tactical bombers (both of which were desperately needed).

[Lightning]

Hi All,

My "favorite" WWII bomber is the B-17. My choice for "best" WWII bomber is the B-29. (No, simon, not the P-38.)

Regards,
Lightning

[seppalar]

Hey guys, I like the PZL p37 quite a bit. With lower power than the Hampden it was about 20mph faster and carried about 40% more bombs. It was really efficient. Perhpas we might think of it as Poland's Piaggio 108 (for unrealized poterntial). Just think what a thousand p.37's flying at night from Poland could have done to Berlin!

Another really good plane you've all overlooked is the LeO 451. This was a fast, well armed bomber which was actually made in fairly large numbers. If Britain and France had a little backbone in 1939-1940 they could have been very effective strategic bombers over western Germany. Their bombload was about 4400lbs for a flight well into Germany.

I also like the Piaggio 108B. I wonder what it might have been like with a copy of the big Soviet 1475hp Diesel engine (Charomsev?). With diesels there might have been enough fuel for the Axis to use them. Just think about a strategic ranged bomber carying three Fritz-X type bombs (non-AP of course!)

Of course the Axis didn't have the aluminum to make a lot of heavy bombers until the US and UK started donating scrap metal in a big way after 1943.

[Mark J]

Favourite Bomber?

Mossie'

Fast, long range with bombload, economical with crew, fuel and construction materials.

My "if" for this thread, hundreds of Mosquitos doing daylight pinpoint raids on industrial and tactical targets, saving thousands of aircrew and countless thousands of civilian lives.

The forrunner to todays long range fighter bombers

I realise this topic is probably about the "heavies" but the Mosquito demonstrated that fast, long ranged bombers operating during daylight or at night, could achieve a similer result to those heavies.

If I had to choose a 4 engined machine then it would be the Lancaster as long as it had an escort during the day

[Corsarius]

http://www.dp9.com/fusion/KitPages/4807.htm

I found this interesting. Anyone else aware of this? (sorry, I was looking for info on the AR-234C)

In general I find the AR-234C to be my favourite bomber, the 'way of the future'. After all, these days very few countries operate large, heavy, bombers (Russia, Ukraine, China and the USA are all I can think of). Most bombing strikes are done with precision from small, fast, attack aircraft (F-35, Jaguar, Mirage 2000 etc). The AR-234C was undoubtably my favourite in this category. Follow that up with the Mosquito, then the Lancaster equipped with Tallboy or Grand Slam weapons.

Then there are the detractors who would say I already have a 'favourite bomber' in the Me-163 as it is already a flying bomb... well.... Thbhbhbhbhbhbhbhb (can't blow raspberries on the screen) to you!:D

[azrael]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Favourite Bomber?

Mossie'

Fast, long range with bombload, economical with crew, fuel and construction materials.

My "if" for this thread, hundreds of Mosquitos doing daylight pinpoint raids on industrial and tactical targets, saving thousands of aircrew and countless thousands of civilian lives.

The forrunner to todays long range fighter bombers

I realise this topic is probably about the "heavies" but the Mosquito demonstrated that fast, long ranged bombers operating during daylight or at night, could achieve a similer result to those heavies.

MarkJ, this has been proposed quite often, even by a study done by the RAF itself during the war but never happened, and with good reason. The Mossie, while impressive in the relatively small number of surgical strikes performed by it, could not be produced in large enough numbers to do what you are suggesting. Its very strength, economically speaking, the construction from wood using previously untapped labour, also precluded effective mass-production. The Commonwealth was building them as fast as they could, they would have been unable to make more. No, shifting production away from the heavies to build more Mossies would not have been possible either, if that is what you are thinking for that very same weakness. It was simply more feasible to use the few Mossie bomber versions as pathfinders and let the heavies drop the main load of bombs than to use them as the main bomber.

Also, those precision strikes had to be made at low level and during daylight. They worked BECAUSE they were so rare. Even if Bomber Command had the numbers of Mossies to do what you suggest, the Germans would have been far more succesfull at intercepting them once they shifted their focus to that area. If you do not believe me, there are precedents during WWII. The RAF was hard-pressed at first to intercept the German FW-190F fighter-bombers flying low-level raids against southern England. They did however adapt, building the Spitfire IX and the Typhoon to counter that threat and were successful. What makes you think that hundreds of Mossies, penetrating far deeper into Germany than the FWs did into England, would have fared any better?

[azrael]

My choice of favourite bomber is quite boring, the Lancaster. Excellent range, huge bombload, sturdy and robust as well as flexible (could carry any bomb Bomber Command could think up). Sure it had disadvantages, less performant at high altitude than the B-17 (bad drawback) and less defensive armament than either of the American heavies (less of a problem as defensive armament was of mostly psychological value, both against the attacker and for the bomber crews themselves), not very good at formation flight (another one of those seemingly important but in fact non-essential qualities, the B-24 had the same problem and did great anyways). As far as I am concerned, a bomber has to carry as many bombs as possible over the best range possible. Any bomber could be intercepted, the axiom of "the bomber always gets through" was proven to be a fatal mistake in WWII, and none of them stood a chance against fighters unescorted anyways. As such, the Lanc excelled in the areas that count for a heavy bomber. The B-29 was better of course, in all respects, but came late in the war and was bloody expensive. Sure, it was the best heavy, but the Lanc gets my vote for fave.

[Mark J]

It was about a decade, not long, for the world to graduate from wood and canvas biplanes to stressed skin metal monoplanes.
Certainly, the aviation industry rapidly expanded and went with the new technology but did the woodworking industry dry up with the change in construction methods? Perhaps, by the time of war, the industry was totally consumed with mass production of metal aircraft, with no "spare" workforce available for the return to a more "traditional" form of construction?
I'll admit, the Mosquito airframe required large molds for the plywood/balsa sandwich but apart from that, I can't see why a production increase couldn't have been achieved.
Wasn't the Hellcat, well over 10.000, built in one factory in just 3 years?
Azrael, could you enlighten me on the shortfalls of Mosquito production please:)
cheers

[Mark J]

We must be crossing keyboards:)

The Lancaster gets my vote as well and for the same reasons.

The hit and run FW 190's didn't really press on with their campaign because it wasn't enforced by their high command ( as far as I know ).
Had they done so then surely, they to would have adapted to the better interceptors with improved tactics?
Mosquitos, faced with a better informed and more frequent interceptor over Germany would have also adapted with their tactics plus the allies had an edge in their electronic warfare which would have been put to good use in helping keep the fighters at bay. Of course, I havn't touched on the idea of the mosquitos being escorted to and from by P-38's, P-51's on long hauls and Spitfire's and P-47's a little closer in.
cheers

[Mark J]

Please forgive my ignorance.........

How does one attach photos etc to these posts?

sorry to be a bother...... :)

cheers

[azrael]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

It was about a decade, not long, for the world to graduate from wood and canvas biplanes to stressed skin metal monoplanes.
Certainly, the aviation industry rapidly expanded and went with the new technology but did the woodworking industry dry up with the change in construction methods? Perhaps, by the time of war, the industry was totally consumed with mass production of metal aircraft, with no "spare" workforce available for the return to a more "traditional" form of construction?

During WWI and the 20s, before the victory march of metal airplanes, wood and canvas was the main material of contruction, you are right there. But look at the numbers of planes produced during either of those periods, they are neglectible compared to the efforts made in WWII.
quote:
Certainly, the aviation industry rapidly expanded and went with the new technology but did the woodworking industry dry up with the change in construction methods?

There are some inherent problems with wood and mass-production. Wood is by its very nature (pun intended) less homogenous than metal, it cannot be cast or forged, greater care has to be taken when attempting any sort of cutting, quality control is complicated (material flaws from uneven growth etc). All of these factors make wood a less effective raw material for mass-production, where less skill-laboured and more automatization is asked for.

quote:Perhaps, by the time of war, the industry was totally consumed with mass production of metal aircraft, with no "spare" workforce available for the return to a more "traditional" form of construction?

Quite the opposite really, the Mossie was build from wood to mobilize previously untapped workforce in the furniture and similar industries as well as to save on strategic materials. Wood is simply not as good a material for airplanes as metal is. It is heavier for the same strength for starters. It is more vulnerable to the elements, etc.

I hope that this answers your question?

[azrael]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Please forgive my ignorance.........

How does one attach photos etc to these posts?

sorry to be a bother...... :)

cheers

There is a button on the editing screen for that purpose. Short of that, frame the URL in [ img ] [ /img ] tags (sans spaces).

[Kutscha]

quote:The RAF was hard-pressed at first to intercept the German FW-190F fighter-bombers flying low-level raids against southern England. They did however adapt, building the Spitfire IX and the Typhoon to counter that threat

I don't know how you can say that. The Spit IX was not built to counter the Fw over England but to give the RAF a better a/c for use over France where the Mk V was having troubles. The Typhoon originated in the spec F.18/37 for a second generation fighter long before the Fw appeared.

Did you mean to say 'using' instead of 'building'?

10.(Jabo )/J.G. 26 and 10.(Jabo )/J.G. 2 used Fw190A-4/5 a/c (the /U3 designation). (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/oob.htm, http://www.ww2.dk/)

[azrael]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

quote:The RAF was hard-pressed at first to intercept the German FW-190F fighter-bombers flying low-level raids against southern England. They did however adapt, building the Spitfire IX and the Typhoon to counter that threat

I don't know how you can say that. The Spit IX was not built to counter the Fw over England but to give the RAF a better a/c for use over France where the Mk V was having troubles. The Typhoon originated in the spec F.18/37 for a second generation fighter long before the Fw appeared.

Did you mean to say 'using' instead of 'building'?

10.(Jabo )/J.G. 26 and 10.(Jabo )/J.G. 2 used Fw190A-4/5 a/c (the /U3 designation). (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/oob.htm, http://www.ww2.dk/)


I stand corrected, they were not build but used for that purpose, although the Typhoon was pressed into service without sufficient debugging for the expressed purpose of countering that annoying threat.

[Kutscha]

The first 190 jabo claim was on 17 Oct 1942 by P/O Thomas of #486 who claimed 'Schwarz 14' of 10(Jabo)./JG26, WNr 2403, flown by Fw K Niesel, 9 mi south of Hastings. The next jabo claim was on 19 Dec 1942. Several Ju88, Do217 and Me210 had been claimed near Le Treport previously. Typhoons were operational with #56 from Sept 1941.

The first loss of a Typhoon, R7592, from #56 was on Nov 1 1941, though not due to enemy action. Typhoons had been flying missions over enemy territory several months before the Fw and Me109 'hit and run' attacks.

[azrael]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

The first 190 jabo claim was on 17 Oct 1942 by P/O Thomas of #486 who claimed 'Schwarz 14' of 10(Jabo)./JG26, WNr 2403, flown by Fw K Niesel, 9 mi south of Hastings. The next jabo claim was on 19 Dec 1942. Several Ju88, Do217 and Me210 had been claimed near Le Treport previously. Typhoons were operational with #56 from Sept 1941.

The first loss of a Typhoon, R7592, from #56 was on Nov 1 1941, though not due to enemy action. Typhoons had been flying missions over enemy territory several months before the Fw and Me109 'hit and run' attacks.

here is a quote from http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Hawker%20Typhoon concerning that:
quote: By this time the Spitfire V's were meeting Focke-Wulf Fw 190's in combat and getting rather beat up, so the Typhoon was rushed into squadron service to counter the new German plane. Sadly this proved to be a disaster. A structural weakness in the tail meant that it tended to break off when pulling out of dives, the Fw's favourite escape. Once again there was talk of killing the design.

[Kutscha]

Instead of using the net, with its numerous inaccuracies, why don't you go buy some books that are specifically on the Typhoon and Tempest.

Here are the ISBN for 2:

0-946627-19-3
0-85368-878-8

Actually, more Typhoons were lost to 'engine fires' than to structural failure(s/f). The second book list the losses of Typhoons over 18 pages.

The first s/f was on 29 July 1942, the 16th loss, by which time 4 had been lost to e/f(engine fire). By the end of 1942, 15 more had been lost to e/f while only 3 had been because of s/f.

[panzerjager88]

the strutural weakness in the typhoon is WAY over-emphasized but it WAS a problem (more in testing and prototyping than in service by a good margin though IIRC)

the fact remains the airframe was not "matured" sufficiently

[azrael]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

Instead of using the net, with its numerous inaccuracies, why don't you go buy some books that are specifically on the Typhoon and Tempest.

Here are the ISBN for 2:

0-946627-19-3
0-85368-878-8

Actually, more Typhoons were lost to 'engine fires' than to structural failure(s/f). The second book list the losses of Typhoons over 18 pages.

The first s/f was on 29 July 1942, the 16th loss, by which time 4 had been lost to e/f(engine fire). By the end of 1942, 15 more had been lost to e/f while only 3 had been because of s/f.

I have read the same in the book by Daniel J. March about the aircraft of the RAF and FAA. Engine-fire, structural failure, who cares? A plane that gets almost cancelled twice and is only kept around because it was able to counter the FW190 IS a concession to the perceived threat posed by the Focke-Wulf I would say. You may disagree but so far you have not contradicted that fact.

As to the net and books, BOTH can be horribly inaccurate. You yourself love to point that out in your charming and modest way. The net has one advantage though, you can post an URL and people can have a look at it immediately without having to order a book and waiting for it to arrive in the mail. Also, there is very reliable info on the net, I should know, since I am a scientist myself and do most, if not all, of my preliminary research on the net before I hit the hardcopies. Try to keep a slightly more open mind, Kutscha, and try to see the advantages of 21st century tech.

[Kutscha]

Pardon me while I fall out of my chair laughing so hard. Reliable aviation info on the net? :D:D:D Should I mention Polly, again?

You have been suckered in by it since your believed that structural failure was the mean bugaboo of the Typhoon. Only after I pointed out the number of e/f did you do the politician 2 step and mod your 'story'. [:0]

Now since you are so smart, tell me why the Spirfire was not cancelled since it to experienced engine problems and structural failures early in it life. Structural failures followed the Spit its entire life. But then azrael you would not know this since you only get info by using 21st century technoligy. While you are using that 21st century technoligy check on the P-51B. Nice early life it had.

Why don't you do a loss list for the Spit I and see how many were lost to accident and to e/a.

Did you know that the 190 was almost cancelled and only kept around to combat the Spit Vs.



Your net quote has some errors in it. :) I will let you use your 21st century technoligy to find out what the errors are.

To help you along most 'tip and run' raids were at low altitude. The Typhoons flying around 200' since the jabos were hard to spot if flying higher; so check the facts on the first structural loss if you can using 21st century technoligy.

You keep using that 21st century technoligy exclusively azrael but I will rather use specialized books, not general books which tend to be just as inaccurate and error filled as the 21st century technoligy.

[azrael]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

Pardon me while I fall out of my chair laughing so hard. Reliable aviation info on the net? :D:D:D Should I mention Polly, again?

Well, Kutscha, you are on the net and you are spreading information, are you not? Does that make anything you are saying unreliable as well?

quote:
You have been suckered in by it since your believed that structural failure was the mean bugaboo of the Typhoon. Only after I pointed out the number of e/f did you do the politician 2 step and mod your 'story'. [:0]

You are quite mistaken, I never said anything about the structural problems of the Typhoon, just that it was not sufficiently debugged. The quote I posted did mention s/f, yes, but the main point was the threat of the FW 190s and it being the reason for the continued service of the Typhoon. I guess it is too much to ask of you to actually read a post before replying.

Concerning the remainders of your post, not really interested in addressing your usual ramblings, as they are quite irrelevant to the problem at hand. Namely, why was the Typhoon kept around despite its unreliability and less than sterling performance at high altitude. Let us get back to that. Can you give me any proof that it was not the threat of the FW190? Or that the Typhoon was not almost cancelled and/or recalled because of its problems? If not, you have no point to make except for nitpicking and showing off.

Denying the advantages of the internet is your good right and noone is forcing you to use it. However, categorically claiming that all information available on the net is wrong and useless and discrediting any source available through the net based on your dislike of the medium is just silly. Sure, it is not flawless, but then again, neither are printed media as your charming assessment of Green's book proved. Taking your approach I wopuld be forced to say that all books are crap since you yourself could give an example of one book being wrong.

:D

[Ricky]

Gentlemen, please!
Generally, the web is a bit rubbish on the subject of anything historical. We were severely warned of this when I was at Uni.
It is different for science-related websites - science is *generally* right or wrong. History has more greys.
Essentially it is much harder to check the validity of any information given on the web, unless the author is consciencious enough to list and reference his sources properly.

It is useful to have as a 'here is info', but with the proviso that 'said information may be wrong'.
Yes, this is true of books also, but usually to a lesser extent, and it tends to be easier to know which are correct & which are not.

So, my favourite bomber is probably the Wimpey, or possibly the Blenhiem. Just because, really.;)

[Lightning]

Hi All,

As with all sources of information, the Web has both good and bad points. It is, however, a marvelous tool. It's up to the user to evaluate the reliability of a site based on his feel for the subject matter, the sponsor of the site, and good old common sense.

Personally I think azrael usually cites some pretty good sources. Is he always right? Who is?

Regards,
Lightning