Best a/c to put bombs on target

[earl1937]

  There have been many interesting comments in this forum concerning the "best" of this and "best" of aircraft used during WW2. I realize that every person who plays this game have their favorite rides and sometimes that tends to cloud judgments about the "best" aircraft for bombing. If you just consider the amount of bombs placed on target by a single aircraft, the B-29 would be the "best"! If you considered the effective bombing of a target, again, you would have to say the B-29.
However, when deciding which is the best, there are several other factors which should be considered.
Some of the estimates of cost per flight hour, again the B-29 stands out as the most costly aircraft the AAF operated in WW2. It required roughly 10 hours of maintenance for each flight hour. The B-17's maintenance was roughly 5.5 hours per flight hour. The P-47D40 was roughly 1.8 hours of maintenance for each flight hour.
How, then do we determine which is "best" at anything concerning the aircraft used in this game. Performance? That varies with the skill of the pilot! Aircraft performance specs? They sound great, but how do they measure up in the use of the aircraft?
I think when you are trying to arrive at the "best" of any aircraft, you have to take into account the most "effective" at the success of its mission. Would it be a D40 killing enemy tanks? Would it be the famous "Mustang", scoring more air to air kills than any other allied aircraft? Would it be the B-24 bombing Ploesti oil factories, or the B-17's destroying the ball bearing factories. You could almost make the case for any of these great aircraft.
I am going to vote for the SBD, which only used 2 bombs to sink a Japanese carrier, which cost it to lose 80 or so fighter aircraft and killed several hundred Japanese sailors. When you look at what it would cost to replace that carrier and all those aircraft and sailors, retrain every crewman and airman, I would have to conclude the SBD made the most effective use of its skill and equipment to destroy enemy facilities.
I would guess that the SBD would be the lowest cost per flight hour, the lowest replacement cost of aircraft and crew.

[Karnak]

The best bomber, cost efficiency wise, was the Mosquito.  Very low loss rate, small crew, not terribly expensive, long ranged, good altitude performance, very fast cruise and, once the cookie carriers were introduced, a useful carrying capacity.


That a single example of the SBD and D4Y were able to knock out a fleet carrier does not make the SBD or D4Y the most efficient overall.  You have to look at the entire operational history of the aircraft, not just its spectacular successes.

[tmetal]

as far as "best a/c to put bombs on target" I would have to give a nod to the divebomber catagory; they couldn't carry the same weight of ord as the multi-engine bombers but they could deliver what ord they did carry with an accuracy that level bombers couldn't match. Considering only the dedicated divebombers we have in game I would put the stuka at the top of the pile for its durability, range, versatility, looks, and the weight of ord it can haul; but that (as well as the rest of my post) is just my $.02

[palef]

You're biased tmetal. And probably drunk. Put the 1/24 scale Ju87B down and go and play outside.

[earl1937]

as far as "best a/c to put bombs on target" I would have to give a nod to the divebomber catagory; they couldn't carry the same weight of ord as the multi-engine bombers but they could deliver what ord they did carry with an accuracy that level bombers couldn't match. Considering only the dedicated divebombers we have in game I would put the stuka at the top of the pile for its durability, range, versatility, looks, and the weight of ord it can haul; but that (as well as the rest of my post) is just my $.02

Pretty good point! But, when you look at the damage inflected by one aircraft, considering the cost of the aircraft, operating cost and what it accomplished in one mission, I still have to go with the SBD.

[earl1937]

You're biased tmetal. And probably drunk. Put the 1/24 scale Ju87B down and go and play outside.

I haven't drunk anything in 80 years, not planning on starting now! (well, maybe a beer or two in my youth, and figured out that was a stupid way to spend my money).

[palef]

Settle down Earl, I was talking to tmetal

[Dragon]

Settle down Earl, I was talking to tmetal

He missed that because he's stoned.    



My vote goes to the P-47 for durability, load capacity and accuracy.

[earl1937]

He missed that because he's stoned.    



My vote goes to the P-47 for durability, load capacity and accuracy.

: Think I will move to Colorado! LOL Haven't tried that "stuff" yet, but Pres says no worst than cigarettes. 

[Ack-Ack]

I am going to vote for the SBD, which only used 2 bombs to sink a Japanese carrier, which cost it to lose 80 or so fighter aircraft and killed several hundred Japanese sailors. When you look at what it would cost to replace that carrier and all those aircraft and sailors, retrain every crewman and airman, I would have to conclude the SBD made the most effective use of its skill and equipment to destroy enemy facilities.
I would guess that the SBD would be the lowest cost per flight hour, the lowest replacement cost of aircraft and crew.

In real life it wasn't the SBD or other dive bombers.  The USN found out that fighters like the Hellcat and Corsair were just as, if not, more effective in the dive bombing role as dedicated dive bombers.  Hellcats and Corsairs were able to carry just as much, if not more ordnance than a dive bomber, was just as accurate and had a greater chance of survivability to and from the target than a dive bomber.  It was also more cost effective to use Hellcats and Corsairs to dive bomb than a dedicated dive bomber.  As a result, the Helldiver was the last dive bomber ordered by the USN and production was stopped almost immediately after the war ended and dive bombers were phased out in favor of fighter-bombers.

ack-ack

[tmetal]

You're biased tmetal. And probably drunk. Put the 1/24 scale Ju87B down and go and play outside.

I AM NOT BIASED!! *takes a swig of beer before going back to making airplane noises *

AK-AK has the right of it. By the end of the war, fighters were capable enough to assume the role played by dive bombers earlier in the war. That being said; I will always have a soft spot for divebombers and with the use of dive brakes, divebombers are able to deliver their bombs at a lower speed and altitude and still pull out of the dive thus increasing their average accuracy over a fighter without dive brakes flying in the jabo role. Of course this all is rendered null and void now that we have things like laser guided smart bombs that can reliably hit a target the size of a house window or chimney pipe

[Plawranc]

If you are talking the most effective aircraft at its mission factoring in the following :

Success of mission
Durability
Reliability
Service time/length
casualty rate
sorties flown
aesthetics
performance

AND payload.

Quite ironically the most successful and useful aircraft in WW2 that we have in game....

Is the C-47


However in bombing terms, I agree with Karnak. The Mosquito would trump almost all others in this category.

[earl1937]

In real life it wasn't the SBD or other dive bombers.  The USN found out that fighters like the Hellcat and Corsair were just as, if not, more effective in the dive bombing role as dedicated dive bombers.  Hellcats and Corsairs were able to carry just as much, if not more ordnance than a dive bomber, was just as accurate and had a greater chance of survivability to and from the target than a dive bomber.  It was also more cost effective to use Hellcats and Corsairs to dive bomb than a dedicated dive bomber.  As a result, the Helldiver was the last dive bomber ordered by the USN and production was stopped almost immediately after the war ended and dive bombers were phased out in favor of fighter-bombers.

ack-ack

You have raised a good point! I am just looking at how much did it cost to sink that Japanese carrier! When you look at the cost vs the damage inflected, I still go with the SBD, but you guys are raising some good points!

[bozon]

However in bombing terms, I agree with Karnak. The Mosquito would trump almost all others in this category.

There is a reason nearly all bombers post WWII minimized defensive armament (or did away with it completely) and went for speed and/or stealth instead. The did not go for wood construction because pianos were in high demand after the war.

In the MA the Mossie XVI is very under rated in the tactical bomber role. I find that a single XVI is often more efficient than a formation of medium bombers, or jabos - at least for many mission profiles (not all). The ability to chuck the bombs from a distance and turning to escape at 400+ mph without passing over the target or diving into the acks is still an AH secret. I'll dedicate a section to that in my coming AH mossie guide.

[artik]

It really depends on the target, I'll separate it to 5 categories:

1. Small moving armored target - GV
2. Big moving target - CV
3. Small soft single or multiple targets - Radar/Barracks/Fuel etc
4. Single medium hardness target - Hangar
5. Big/Medium strategic/tactical target - Town/Factory/City/Refinery


1st would be any sort of diving bomber, usually A-20 and others shine there
2nd would be diving fighter with good durability P-47, F4U, also it is possible to hit the CV with level bomber it is very hard and depends on the Carrier Group operator
3rd My favorite would be Ki-67 with 8x100kg bombs. Once I killed 7 radars in a single run over a small area blinding the defense. It is hard to intercept especially at ~18-20K where it is very fast. Another favorite but perked ride would be Ardo 234, also it has few bombs but it is virtually untouchable
4th would be Ki-67 and Ardo 234 as well. I think Mossie XVI can play well as well with its 4K cookie, however there are non-perked planes than can eventually intercept it and it would be defenseless
5th B-17, B-24 very good, B-29 excellent but costly - Lancaster is good as well but requires much better close support of fighters as it can't climb to 20K-25K easily with full bomb-load.