PDA

View Full Version : OT Top Ten Bombers on the Military Ch.



wayno7777
10-14-2005, 09:27 PM
#6 B-47 Just watched film of a B-47 rolling. Never knew it could.... btw Lancaster #5....
Mossie #4.... (still on) #3 B-29.... #2 B-2

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:47 PM
top 3?

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:48 PM
why do i have the distint impression, that atleast 1 of the top3 will have 50cals...

wayno7777
10-14-2005, 09:59 PM
Here's their list....
#1 B-52
#2 B-2
#3 B-29
#4 Mossie
#5 Lancaster
#6 B-47
#7 Tu-16
#8 Ju-88
#9 Handley/Page 0/400
#10 B-17

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 10:11 PM
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-16.htm

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 10:13 PM
Handley/Page 0/400
http://home.earthlink.net/~scottbeth/Redbaron/planes/handley.htm

wayno7777
10-14-2005, 10:22 PM
Thx for the links, Ping....

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 10:49 PM
np
was the ones i didnt know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

pretty good list really

gx-warspite
10-15-2005, 12:07 AM
Should be B-24 instead of B-29, F-117 instead of B-2, A-20 instead of B-47.

woofiedog
10-15-2005, 02:09 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Sounds like it was a Great program. I'll have to check into this station.

Ruy Horta
10-15-2005, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Should be B-24 instead of B-29, F-117 instead of B-2, A-20 instead of B-47.

Although I do find most of the types expected, I get the distinct feeling its too contemporary minded and doesn't focus enough on a/c which set standards.

And although the Mossie (or Ju 88 or Tu 16) might be seen as the supreme example of the fast multi-purpose a/c, similar to the later Canberra and Martin B-57, I would be pushed to call it revolutionary.

Most a/c in the list were simply good a/c and as such many more deserve a place on similar arguments (Tu-2, Pe-2), and their subsequent placement depending more on subjective reasoning than anything else.

The B-29 and B-47 were indeed a/c which set new standards for bombers, in a similar way as the original B-17 or earlier 0/400.

It is too early to say if the B-2 has set a new standard, it is too contemporary; it may end up as a dead end development like the B-58 or B-36.

This top ten is too shallow if performance and achievement are paramount, versus impact on design and operation.

The F-105 might have a stronger claim than the B-1, the Stirling over the Lancaster etc. Where in all this should we place the Junkers J.1 or the Gotha?

IMHO pioneering outweighs tonnage dropped... however this is also a piece of subjective reasoning.

Aaron_GT
10-15-2005, 09:14 AM
And although the Mossie (or Ju 88 or Tu 16) might be seen as the supreme example of the fast multi-purpose a/c, similar to the later Canberra and Martin B-57, I would be pushed to call it revolutionary.

The concept of the bomber which was had no defensive armament and relied on speed alone was revolutionary. In general this principle has been followed extensively post WW2 (with some exceptions, of course).

p1ngu666
10-15-2005, 09:21 AM
indeed, i cant think of another bomber before the mossie with that in mind.
there where those with guns which hoped to outrun the enemy, pretty much any prewar bomber

Bremspropeller
10-15-2005, 09:57 AM
#8 Ju-88

#10 B-17


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

wayno7777
10-15-2005, 10:26 AM
I came in on the show in the middle. Apparently they have a formula that they apply. I caught the end of their top 10 tanks list also. IIRC the T-34 came in first....

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-15-2005, 12:46 PM
Funny... There was a similar prog on a few weeks ago, 'Greatest Machines' or something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif AnyWhoo, in that the Mossie wasn't mentioned and the first three were; 3rd Lanc, 2nd B-17 and 1st B-52... The reason given for the Lanc being placed 3rd was because it didn't have a belly gun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Xiolablu3
10-15-2005, 04:11 PM
The b52 truly is a fantastic plane. A real workhorse.

Aaron_GT
10-15-2005, 06:55 PM
The reason given for the Lanc being placed 3rd was because it didn't have a belly gun

Well, it was designed with one, but it was deleted to save weight, H2S went where the gun went anyway, and it was basically impossible to see a dark night fighter against a dark landscape from the belly gun most of the time, but a few people put 20mm cannon in the position.

p1ngu666
10-15-2005, 07:20 PM
yep
plus dont forget, lanc only had maybe 4 50cals max, most had none

mossie had no 50cals ever, obivously that makes it a rather heathen and cr4p plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Opiate364
10-16-2005, 03:55 AM
I just don't see how they can compare a B-2 to a B-17, or for that matter a JU-88. You're talking about apples and oranges here people. How can you compare aircraft that don't even have the same mission? A B-2 was designed to carry nukes, or perform a deep strike into enemy territory without being detected. Then you have the B-17, which was mass produced and loaded with as many "dumb" bombs as it could carry.

Now if you're talking about lengevity of an airframe, I'd have to go with the B-52. That plane was designed in the 50's and will fly for at least 25 more years.

J_Weaver
10-16-2005, 10:05 AM
That show sucked. I was able to watch about 5min of it and that was it. A lot of the judging was done with a "wiggish" view IMO. Come on, the B-17 as #10. Well yea, if you compare it to the B-52 or B-2. But You'd be hard pressed to find a bomber that has had a bigger efect on the world than the B-17. Although the Lanc, B24, and B29 should be ranked right up there with the B-17. (Maybe even the B-52.)

p1ngu666
10-16-2005, 10:56 AM
mossie had the biggest effect on future bomber designs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif