"Bombers of All Time" Topic

Don't like the short list.
Still, interesting article.

"Bombers are the essence of strategic airpower. While fighters have often been important to air forces, it was the promise of the heavy bomber than won and kept independence for the United States Air Force and the Royal Air Force. At different points in time, air forces in the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and Italy have treated bomber design and construction as a virtually all-consuming obsession, setting fighter and attack aviation aside.

However, even the best bombers are effective over only limited timespans. The unlucky state-of-the-art bombers of the early 1930s met disaster when put into service against the pursuit aircraft of the late 1930s. The B-29s that ruled the skies over Japan in 1945 were cut to pieces above North Korea in 1950. The B-36 Peacemaker, obsolete before it was even built, left service in a decade. Most of the early Cold War bombers were expensive failures, eventually to be superseded by ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

States procure bombers, like all weapons, to serve strategic purposes. This list employs the following metrics of evaluation:

· Did the bomber serve the strategic purpose envisioned by its developers?

· Was the bomber a sufficiently flexible platform to perform other missions, and to persist in service?

· How did the bomber compare with its contemporaries in terms of price, capability, and effectiveness?

And with that, the five best bombers of all time…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

While I agree with most of them, I think the B17 and B24 should get at least honorable mention. They were the workhorses of the American daylight bombing campaign in Europe and the B24 was a workhorse in the Pacific.

Of course I may be prejudiced since my dad was a top turret gunner and flight engineer in an 8th Air Force B17.

Jim

The A-6 Intruder

the miniature B-52 that can be based on an aircraft carrier.

Hey look another stupid arbitrary list.

The A-6 Intruder

the miniature B-52 that can be based on an aircraft carrier

Actually that would be:

Douglas A-3 Skyraider:

North American A-5 Vigilante:

Strange list. He doesn't even mention the Russian Ilya Muromets when talking of WW1 types.

Why the Lancaster again? Payload? It flew at night and thus did not have to be as heavily armed or armored. Why not choose the B-29 on that basis. Particularly after they flew them at night over Japan and stripped off everything but the tail gun. And it's pretty hard in WW2 terms to beat the payload of an atomic bomb!

Then they pick two light/medium bombers, which (surprise!) were very versatile. Which is sort of the hallmark of any plane in the category that had a decent power plant. Is there an actual WW2 two-engine bomber that was a world beater in the category as a BOMBER when it entered service?

It's not like the Nazis ever built real strategic bombers, so either you need to ignore them entirely or go with the Ju88.

I honestly would have gone with the B29 over the Lancaster, and probably the Tu95 over the B52.

Is there an actual WW2 two-engine bomber that was a world beater in the category as a BOMBER when it entered service?

PBY Catalina? B25 Mitchell? A26 Invader?

Lion, taking off your Star Spangled Banner shades for just a pico-second, the B29 was from a later design generation than the Lancaster, BUT, using bland numbers, and ignoring important aspects like reliability, ease of maintenance, crew training times, and the like, the older Lancaster ended up, with a max bomb-load of 22,000Ibs, that being a single, 'Grand Slam' Bomb, while the Atomic device carried by the B29, was up to 20,000Lbs, the max payload of the B29.
' And it's pretty hard in WW2 terms to beat the payload of an atomic bomb!' Just did, my son, see above.

I do agree about the Ju88, just for its versatility, As to the Catalina, Mitchell, and Invader, all good aircraft, the catalina, I reckon being a great aircraft, but world-beating bombers? Na, sorry mate, load of 'ole tut.

John

Annnnnnnd, I also think the iconic B17 should be on the list, in fact, I cannot think of a single reason why it shouldn't.

John

22000lbs of Grand Slam is mighty impressive.

It's also about 1000x less explosive force than what was dropped on Nagasaki.

Though I suppose a Lanc could probably have carried an early nuke.

I suppose I could add the Mosquito to the list of possible twin-engined WORLD-BEATERS, since the Mossie was designed as a light bomber.

If a plane fulfills it's role with out combat then the Peacemaker is a shoe-in.

That said, most wargamers think only in terms of combat histories.

Strategic bombing (Lanc', B-17. B-24,) differs radically from interdiction (B-25, B-26, He-11, Ju-88, Whitley, Hampden, Wellington, Betty, Tu-2,) or attack (A-26, Ju-87.)

Design for mission (CAS, Interdiction, etc.,) and era (WW1, early WW2, Late WW2, post WW2, etc.) should decide parameters for these kind of overly simplistic lists.

From Wikipedia: (Caveats galore) "The World War II-era medium bomber was generally considered to be any level bomber design that delivered about 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) of ordnance over ranges of about 1,500 to 2,000 mi (2,400 to 3,200 km)… Typical heavy bombers were those with a nominal load of 8,000 pounds (3,600 kg) or more… and light bombers carried up to 2,000 lb (907 kg)…"

Lancaster bombed primarily at night, B-17/B-24 in daylight – Apples and Oranges – and a nice 24/7 pairing for Nazi bashing IMO.

I gotta go with the B-58 Hustler (is that the right name?). A truly unique design and a specific mission. As ahead of its time as the SR-71.