Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on September 03, 2010, 11:22:29 PM
-
With the addition of the Mosquito B.Mk XVI we have the best British bomber of WWII. Even those who disagree with my assessment that the best British bomber was the Mosquito B.Mk XVI will almost certainly select the Lancaster Mk III as what they think the best British bomber was, and we have that too. We also have a candidate for both the best German bomber, Ar234B, and the best Japanese bomber, Ki-67, in the game as well. These are what I think are the most capable bombers, by nationality, of WWII are.
American:
B-29A Superfortress
Also ran:
A-26 Intruder
British:
Mosquito B.Mk XVI
Also ran:
Halifax B.Mk VI
Lancaster B.Mk III
German:
Ar234B
Also ran:
Ju188A
Do217E
*(I don't consider the He177 a contender due to its extremely poor reliability, though it may very well be wonderful in AH2)
Italian:
Cant Z.1007
Also ran:
SM.79-II
*(I don't consider the P.108 a contender simply because it saw such light service)
Japanese:
B7A2
Also ran:
H8K2
Ki-67
P1Y1
Russian:
Tu-2
Also ran:
Pe-8
*(the Pe-2 was clearly more important than the Tu-2, but it is also clearly inferior)
-
I take it were talking just performance, not actual impact on the airwar?
-
I take it were talking just performance, not actual impact on the airwar?
Correct. My choices for impact on the war would be totally different. That is why I said "most capable" and not "most important". :P
-
Ah yes, a "this is better than that" discussion. Truth is, there is no such thing as "best" in most cases. While the Mossi B Mk XVI is fast and had few losses, they carried 1/5th the bomb load of the Lancaster. If the enemy was void over a certain bit airspace then the Lancaster was best for the job of leveling enemy relestate. If the enemy had a formidable defensive fighter screen then the Mossi B Mk XVI would be better ot get in, drop ord in a precise manner, and get out with minimal losses.
On paper and in the opinion of most WWII enthusiast, the Panzer Vx "Panther" was the best tank of the war. It was fast, had a more than powerful enough gun, and was armored well enough to stand up to the big boys at long ranges. However, the early Panthers had a nasty habit of breaking down due to faulty transmissions. I, like many others believe (with hindsight) that Germany would have better off upgrading the tried and true Panzer Mk IV, StuG, and Hetzer and not wasting all the resources on the Tiger, Panther, and other such "super" tanks.
Etc, etc. :)
Fun topic, though. :aok
-
Actually, the Mossie was better than the Lancaster no matter the enemy activity. It carried more than a quarter of the Lancaster's load, not a fifth, and did so on fewer man hours and less fuel per pound of bombs. It would have been more effective to build mass numbers of Mosquitos rather than fewer Lancasters.
-
Yeah, nothing that was aggressively unreliable would qualify as one of the most capable bombers.
-
Actually, the Mossie was better than the Lancaster no matter the enemy activity. It carried more than a quarter of the Lancaster's load, not a fifth, and did so on fewer man hours and less fuel per pound of bombs. It would have been more effective to build mass numbers of Mosquitos rather than fewer Lancasters.
Not to slice hairs, but the typical bomb load was 6/500lb bombs. Not the 4k "cookie" and 2/500lb bombs. I've read the comparison reports of manpower in building and maintenance, the ordnance delivered, damage obtained, the loss ratios, etc, etc. But in the end, there are far more variables than the comparisons on paper can display.
-
German:
Ar234B
Also ran:
Ju188A
Do217E
*(I don't consider the He177 a contender due to its extremely poor reliability, though it may very well be wonderful in AH2)
Italian:
Cant Z.1007
Also ran:
SM.79-II
*(I don't consider the P.108 a contender simply because it saw such light service)
I dont Think the Ar234 should count as their best bomber since i would assume that it probably saw light service as well....not to mention it is the only jet powered bomber on the whole list. Which means THE GERMANS NEED A NEW BOMBER.....
great topic tho look forwarding to following this discussion.
-
I dont Think the Ar234 should count as their best bomber since i would assume that it probably saw light service as well....not to mention it is the only jet powered bomber on the whole list. Which means THE GERMANS NEED A NEW BOMBER.....
great topic tho look forwarding to following this discussion.
Its not by service length but by performance
-
Its not by service length but by performance
then why did he exclude one of the Italian planes due to seeing limited use....i thought you said it was done by performance....not service length...o wait you are wrong never mind....
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
but thats not performance....which you previously said the list was based on so dont be a moron and stop contradicting your self...not to mention this statement is unclear....tho english might not be your primary language. Next time you might want to avoid contradicting your self. If you are going by performance how many were made dosent matter right....o wait you arent going by just performance....
the ar 234 dosent belong on that list, obviously a jet bomber is going to be better in an era of prop planes...
When you are comparing things, there will be outliers.
-
The Ar234 saw service in squadron strength. The P.108 did not, in fact it saw extremely little service compared to the Ar234. The slight trickle of P.108s wasn't enough for me to include it, however, if you like, simply place it at the top of the list for best Italian bomber.
The Ar234's competition is the Ju188, Do217 and He177. The He177 was a disaster and can be entirely eliminated from competition simply for its attempt to bring back WWI Gotha mission abort rates.
-
See Rule #4
-
but thats not performance....which you previously said the list was based on so dont be a moron and stop contradicting your self...not to mention this statement is unclear....tho english might not be your primary language.
Lol, this sentence is just riddled with spelling and grammatical errors :lol. Not to mention its a run-on sentence. Make sure you have good spelling, grammar, and sentence structure before you say someone is unclear, possibly because English is their second language.
-
Why exclude the B-17 and B-24 from the US list of most capable bombers? Or the Betty from the Japanese list?
ack-ack
-
Why exclude the B-17 and B-24 from the US list of most capable bombers? Or the Betty from the Japanese list?
ack-ack
B-17 and B-24 you could make a valid argument for, I don't think they are as good as the B-29, but you could argue it.
The G4M is clearly inferior to the H8K2, P1Y1, Ki-67 and B7A.
-
B-38 isent on your list,it is a very capable bomber
-
The Greif is historically lamented for its early stability and engine problems, but the fact is that by the A-5 model these problems were ironed out and the He 177 had proved itself to be the most technically advanced bomber of the Luftwaffe. The RAF were impressed by the postwar tests on the He 177 A-5 and the single long-range He 177 A-7 they captured. Another very advanced bomber, the B-29, also had a reputation for catching fire, and also took two years to have its problems ironed out, after which it became one of the most successful bombers of aviation history. Unlike the B-29 the He 177 never got the chance to show its full potential due to the misfortunes of war.
He 177 A-1
First production series, 130 built. Stability problems. Engine problems.
He 177 A-3
Second production series, 170 built. Sixteenth and subsequent aircraft powered by DB 610 A/B engines. Engine problems. Structural problems.
He 177 A-5
Main production series, 826 built. Strengthened wing, shortened undercarriage oleo legs, increase in maximum external bomb load.
Those 300 A-1's and A-3's are largely responsible for the Greif's unfavorable reputation.
-
He177A-5s still had horrible reliability, far worse than the troublesome B-29A, they just weren't having 33-50% of aircraft on a mission abort due to mechanical failures.
-
I would say the P1Y2 was the most capable japanese bomber of the war, good speed, and 3000lbs of bombs, which is quite good for a japanese bomber
-
The Ar234 saw service in squadron strength. The P.108 did not, in fact it saw extremely little service compared to the Ar234. The slight trickle of P.108s wasn't enough for me to include it, however, if you like, simply place it at the top of the list for best Italian bomber.
The Ar234's competition is the Ju188, Do217 and He177. The He177 was a disaster and can be entirely eliminated from competition simply for its attempt to bring back WWI Gotha mission abort rates.
o so now you are going by the aces high standards of inclusion...
-
Lol, this sentence is just riddled with spelling and grammatical errors :lol. Not to mention its a run-on sentence. Make sure you have good spelling, grammar, and sentence structure before you say someone is unclear, possibly because English is their second language.
again typical idiot response with nothing to do with anything on topic...but im glad you can come in and fix my spelling and grammar errors for people who might not be smart enough to figure it out anyways...the only reason i mentioned that English might be their second language was because instead of making fun of someone for spelling or grammar i just assume that they arent native English speakers instead of being critical of something so irrelevant....are you so dense that you cant figure it out when someone has a typo...you cant make connections and figure it out???
honestly most people capable of thinking critically can figure this stuff out...You see while im on my laptop on the forums playing the game on my desktop i have higher priorities than to make sure that i use perfect spelling and grammar....its not like im writing a term paper or something.
-
He177A-5s still had horrible reliability, far worse than the troublesome B-29A, they just weren't having 33-50% of aircraft on a mission abort due to mechanical failures.
Nor did the He 177A-5, but I'm sure you have documentation that says otherwise, or?
-
As for the reliability of the B-29...
On the night of June 14-15 1944, 92 B-29's took off from India to strike at the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata on Kyushu - a vital target that turned out a quarter of Japan's rolled steel.
92 bombers left India.
79 reached the staging bases in China.
75 took off from the bases.
68 left China, the others aborted after take-off.
47 reached the target at Yawata.
Meanwhile, half a world away, the He 177A-5 had been in production for 7 months, and was enjoying a fair bit of success on the eastern front, being almost impervious to enemy interception.
-
Actually, the Mossie was better than the Lancaster no matter the enemy activity. It carried more than a quarter of the Lancaster's load, not a fifth, and did so on fewer man hours and less fuel per pound of bombs. It would have been more effective to build mass numbers of Mosquitos rather than fewer Lancasters.
I tend to agree on the Mossie horde point. Not only would 4 Mossies carry the same load as 1 Lancaster but there would also be 3/4 payload remaining for the loss of one plane compared to 100% loss of payload for the loss of one lancaster.
Double the costs for engines if using 4 Mossies, but large savings in material and weapons/ammo over building a lancaster.
-
again typical idiot response with nothing to do with anything on topic...but im glad you can come in and fix my spelling and grammar errors for people who might not be smart enough to figure it out anyways...the only reason i mentioned that English might be their second language was because instead of making fun of someone for spelling or grammar i just assume that they arent native English speakers instead of being critical of something so irrelevant....are you so dense that you cant figure it out when someone has a typo...you cant make connections and figure it out???
honestly most people capable of thinking critically can figure this stuff out...You see while im on my laptop on the forums playing the game on my desktop i have higher priorities than to make sure that i use perfect spelling and grammar....its not like im writing a term paper or something.
Miles, you fail to understand that you can't say someone is unclear because english might not be their primairy language while leaving giant, spelling and grammatical errors in your post without sounding like an arse (and you do).
-
As for the reliability of the B-29...
On the night of June 14-15 1944, 92 B-29's took off from India to strike at the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata on Kyushu - a vital target that turned out a quarter of Japan's rolled steel.
92 bombers left India.
79 reached the staging bases in China.
75 took off from the bases.
68 left China, the others aborted after take-off.
47 reached the target at Yawata.
Meanwhile, half a world away, the He 177A-5 had been in production for 7 months, and was enjoying a fair bit of success on the eastern front, being almost impervious to enemy interception.
Nice comparison. :rolleyes: How about comparing the first deployment of the B-29 to the first deployment of the He-177.
Maybe you could tell us about the 13 He-177s that tried to participate in a Steinbock mission in Feb 1944. Then there was I./KG40 that had to be withdrawn back to Germany after 2 weeks of operations due to low serviceability.
-
Nice comparison. :rolleyes: How about comparing the first deployment of the B-29 to the first deployment of the He-177.
Nah, that would reveal his argument as bankrupt.
-
I thought the A-26 was named " Invader" , I do know the Intruder was the A-6A/E. :salute
-
Nice comparison. :rolleyes: How about comparing the first deployment of the B-29 to the first deployment of the He-177.
Maybe you could tell us about the 13 He-177s that tried to participate in a Steinbock mission in Feb 1944. Then there was I./KG40 that had to be withdrawn back to Germany after 2 weeks of operations due to low serviceability.
Easy. In I./KG100 reports these aircrafts appear as A-3 not A-5. The 14 177s that took part in Steinbock had only arrived from the factory a week earlier and the aircraft weren't even flown in yet. In contrast the B-29s started arriving in India in early April 1944, and flew their first combat sorties on June 5. It would still be nearly a year before the B-29 was operated with any sort of reliability, and the engine fire problem would not be fully cured until the aircraft was re-engined with the more powerful Pratt & Whitney R-4360 in the B-29D/B-50 program, which arrived too late for World War II. By the end of the war about a thousand B-29s had been produced, 414 of those were lost: 74 to enemy fighters, 52 from AAA, and 267 from non-combat related causes.
Unlike the B-29 which suffered catastrophic wing failures due to engine fire, the He 177 was a relatively safe aircraft... Even the early models. Of the 105 A-0 and A-1 that entered service, only 38 were lost to all causes after an average of one and a half year of service. The aircraft design was sound, but the Luftwaffe's inability to service and use in an effective manner this complex aircraft caused most of the difficulties. Here's a quote from 'Heinkel 177, 277, 274' by Manfred Griehel and Joachim Dressel, ISBN 1 85310 364 0, containing a German wartime report on the He 177 which perfectly summarizes how the LW failed to exploit the qualities of this advanced aircraft.
In May 1944 Major Schubert of the Luftwaffengeneralstab and Reichsmarschall Goring's Adjutancy was finally appointed to establish the principal reasons for the delays experienced in re- equipping Luftwaffe bomber units with the He 177. Nothing needs to be added to his report:
Most of the aircrew of units selected for re- equipment with the He 177 were operationally 'tired-out' and relatively few were from front-line units. The necessary personnel consisted primarily of Young, often inexperienced aircrews, and for reasons of capacity their conversion training at operational training and replacement Gruppen could only be completed in relatively few cases. Most of the young pilots had only nine to 12 months of practical flying experience prior to being transferred to such a complicated aircraft as the He 177.
Apart from that, the new operational crews had been trained on the Ju 88, and most had hardly any training in the art of night-flying. The necessary conversion training meant the compulsory withdrawal of operational He 177s for use as trainers, which in turn led to an overload of work for the technical personnel due to the numerous instances of damage suffered by these aircraft as a result of the training activities.
Matters were made all the more difficult by the fact that some of the ground personnel had not been pre-instructed on the He 177. In addition, the vast majority of the technical personnel arrived at their He 177-equipped bomber Gruppen several months after the units had first received their re- equipment orders. By spring 1944, some units were still short of about 50 per cent of engine fitters. Some of the other personnel first set eyes on the He 177 upon arrival at their assigned unit's airfield, their instruction and training on the Heinkel bomber having to start there and then.
The supply of aircraft servicing tools and appliances also did not keep up with deliveries of He 177s. Thus, for instance, the wing attachment cranes needed to facilitate powerplant changes arrived several months after the delivery of the aircraft themselves, and even then they were too few in number. For IV/KG 1 there was no specialised engine-changing equipment at all, and for this reason the unit had to suspend all training activities in mid-April 1944.
The 'engine circulation' (service units - repair depots - service units) also did not flow as it should have done at first, because of a lack of transportation. Neither the supply of new engines nor the return of DB 606/610s in need of repair functioned properly, least of all the supply of exchange powerplants to individual airfields. It wasn't until April 1944 that these shortcomings were effectively overcome, but they were never fully eradicated.
According to Major Schubert, the time expenditure required for the maintenance and servicing of the He 177 was incomparable with that of any other operational aircraft in service with the Luftwaffe. The jacking-up operation to change the main undercarriage tyres alone (which had to done at least twice as frequently as on other aircraft types) lasted some 2fi hours using the prescribed mechanical spindle blocks. Yet by early summer 1944 far too few of these 12-ton spindle blocks recommended by the manufacturer were available to He 177-equipped units.
The layout of the powerplants too did not exactly help attempts to carry out the necessary servicing work. Because of the inaccessibility of the coupled engines their dismounting took considerably longer than similar work on, for example, the Ju 88 or He 111. Due to the low training level of the technicians, a 25-hour control check on the He 177 usually took two, sometimes even three days.
Criticism was also made of the airfields selected to receive the He 177. Apart from Aalborg in Denmark, all of the others were already completely overcrowded, and lacked the potential for dispersal, camouflage and suitable protection of their aircraft against bomb splinters and shrapnel. For this reason low-level attacks by Allied aircraft caused great losses amongst the He 177s parked out in the open from 1944 onwards, especially as the airfields were now constantly within the range of both fighters and bombers. To make matters worse, this vulnerability to attack had a knock-on effect on He 177 training activities, which sometimes had to be reduced by up to per cent because enemy aircraft were on their way and air raid warnings came into force.
No consideration had been given to the fact that the technically complex He 177 required sufficient hangar space for maintenance and repair purposes, especially during the winter months. The delays caused by this shortcoming alone may well have been responsible for the postponement of He 177 operations by some six months to a year.
-
Double post.
-
B-17 and B-24 you could make a valid argument for, I don't think they are as good as the B-29, but you could argue it.
The G4M is clearly inferior to the H8K2, P1Y1, Ki-67 and B7A.
i could be wrong, but i read somewhere that the B29's couldn't hit squat in the Pacific before they started firebombing. ive read about large B29 raids resulting in minimal damage to the enemy. i think that the B24's and B17's had a far larger impact (nuclear bombs aside)
-
I thought the A-26 was named " Invader" , I do know the Intruder was the A-6A/E. :salute
You are quite right and I got the two names conflated. Thanks for the correction.
i could be wrong, but i read somewhere that the B29's couldn't hit squat in the Pacific before they started firebombing. ive read about large B29 raids resulting in minimal damage to the enemy. i think that the B24's and B17's had a far larger impact (nuclear bombs aside)
That is true, but it had nothing to do with the B-29 and everything to do with the jet stream over Japan. B-17s, B-24s, Lancasters or Mosquitoes would have had the same problem, had they been able to reach Japan to find out.
-
If there had only been ~1000 B-29s produced how did the USAAF 20th AF have on hand 1056 in Aug 1945 after loosing 414? There was still another 1775 in the USA.
LOL, you want to compare B-29 operations at the end of a 10,000mi supply line to the a 100mi supply line for the He-177. :eek:
-
i could be wrong, but i read somewhere that the B29's couldn't hit squat in the Pacific before they started firebombing. ive read about large B29 raids resulting in minimal damage to the enemy. i think that the B24's and B17's had a far larger impact (nuclear bombs aside)
It was an issue all bombers faced over Japan due to the Jet Stream, that's why the bombing altitudes dropped lower.
ack-ack
-
It was an issue all bombers faced over Japan due to the Jet Stream, that's why the bombing altitudes dropped lower.
ack-ack
thanx for the clarification :aok now that you mention it, i do remember reading about that too
-
it was the same jet stream that helped japan bomb continental US (or attempt to) with balloons
-
If there had only been ~1000 B-29s produced how did the USAAF 20th AF have on hand 1056 in Aug 1945 after loosing 414? There was still another 1775 in the USA.
LOL, you want to compare B-29 operations at the end of a 10,000mi supply line to the a 100mi supply line for the He-177. :eek:
Germans never thought about supply lines, why should he? :D
-
Because it's irrelevant as this thread is about the aircraft's performance under ideal conditions, not historical or impact on the war effort. When given the proper maintenance the He 177 was every bit as reliable (or unreliable as the case may be) as the B-29, yet the He 177 is not considered reliable enough for consideration by Karnak while the B-29 is. As you say the "Germans never thought about supply lines", and my quote from 'Heinkel 177, 277, 274' perfectly illustrates that.
-
Actually, I was talking about historically, not how it would be in AH.
The single biggest problem I have with the idea of adding the He177A-5 in AH is that it would be so vastly better than the real one.
-
Why would it be better in AH than in real life when it worked? When properly maintained the He 177 did actually work... most of the time. Much like the B-29. That the Germans never managed to properly support this aircraft in the field (unlike the USAAF) is irrelevant for MA use, and for scenarios the number of available He 177s per sqd can simply be reduced to reflect those that were unserviceable or had to abort after T/O. I see no valid reason why this aircraft shouldn't be added to the game.
-
I agree with Karnak on this one. IIRC, the 262 had some reliability issues as did the 163, yet they are both included in the game. Reliablity shouldn't be a factor for exclusion unnless a ridiculous number like 60-70% or more of the planes were unable to opperate because of malfunctions.
-
Then we need to remove the entire late-1944 and 1945 Luftwaffe plane set, to say nothing of the late war Japanese planes. They were all well below 50% serviceability due to supply problems. More than 1,200 Me 262s were produced, but they never managed to get more than 50 or so in the air at any one time. I categorically reject the notion that a lack of maintenance and supply should be a factor in aircraft selection.
-
No no, not because of supply issues, and lack of parts to service a plane with, but because of random failures. If the 262 didn't have more than 50 working at any one time because of random failures with the plane, and not because of lack of parts or fuel, then I'd say don't add it, except they already did.
-
No no, not because of supply issues, and lack of parts to service a plane with, but because of random failures. If the 262 didn't have more than 50 working at any one time because of random failures with the plane, and not because of lack of parts or fuel, then I'd say don't add it, except they already did.
Well then you'd never get your vaunted B-29. More B-29s were lost due mechanical malfunctions than to enemy fire of any type.
ack-ack
-
Nemesis, did you read the quote I posted? Then we need to include the He 177 since most of its problems were maintenance and supply related, not "random failures". The He 177 crews loved the plane, and compared to the rest of the Luftwaffe bomber force it only suffered a less than 10% loss ratio rather than 60-70% on the western front.
-
C'mon, how can you not want this plane in the game?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GnDfmdgNt4
:)
-
I've decided the B-29 would be detrimental to game play. Enough hanger porkers on already, we don't need to give them a hand.
And I'm saying we shouldn't get it only if 60-70% of aircraft were put out of action because of random failures, not because of logistical problems.
-
The He177 was a disaster and can be entirely eliminated from competition simply for its attempt to bring back WWI Gotha mission abort rates.
It was a disaster up to 1944 when the A-5 was introduced, this version was completely 'debugged'
wrt engine fires. I have a relative who worked as a He 177 mechanic, he says pilot confidence
in the aircraft was still low due to its history. By 1944 the Germans did not have much use for
it anyway, apart from some anti-shipping missions from Norway and a few special missions
with KG 200.