10 top bombers of all time

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by Finn McCool, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. Finn McCool
    Offline

    Finn McCool Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't think that the Bristol Blenheim belongs on anyones top bomber list. That aircraft was obsolete by the time it got into service and didn't do too well in combat.

    The Tu-22 would make my list. After the B-52 it was the best Cold War bomber. Why? Because it was capable of penetrating deep into NATO airspace, sinking carriers, droping conventional bombs and suitable for the long haul missions it would have to fly. Just its exsistence and the Kitchen missles it could fire forced the USN to change their doctrine.
     
  2. sumdud
    Offline

    sumdud Senior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,842
    Likes Received:
    3
    Tu-22? The Blinder? Sure it was a good technology DEMOSTRATOR. :D but it flew like the Queen Elizabeth with rockets! It's not the only plane that is able to have done what it did. Performance was rather poor IMO. The engines are good (And radar? But really, all bombers could've been AEW planes.). All else was just Chrysler.

    The Aichi D3A and SB both are better than the Stuka, which was a chihuahua. It scared people, but fighters easily gave them lunch. The D3A could at leastfight back as a fighter. But the SBD was actually a credible dive bomber that carried a ton of bombs!

    Erm...what's so special about the Mirage IV?

    Here's my top picks, one with and the other without strike planes. (Bombers are big, bulky, commit landscaping and fly straight and far. Strike planes are related but they aren't the same sorts of plane.)
    1. Tu-160 The Russian Cadillac
    2. B-52 Serves America well. She's ugly but capable, and you don't want to see her face when she's full of bombs.
    3. Tu-95 Such versatility and actual practicality (Although it could use some powder. All the stuff sticking out here and there and landing gear makes it look 95 years old!)
    4. Lancaster. It just hit my mind. But I prefer it over the Superfortress.
    5. Ju-88 (And B-25) These are bombers, but theyhave serve well in all roles that they participated in.
    6. Condor. The WW2 S63AMG of the sky! It did everything!
    7. Tu-22M. I picked her on looks. :p
    8. IL-28. A VERY underserved bomber IMO.

    W/ Strike planes:
    Tu-160
    B-52
    Tu-95
    F-15K
    Mosquito (WW2's F-15!)
    A6 (Picked on shape and aerodynamics. Just caught my eyes the 1st time I saw it)
    Buccaneer (Almost there, never there.)
    Tu-22M
    Su-34 (Again, on looks. Seriously, a bunk bed?)

    SPECIAL CATEGORIES:
    The ugliest/most eye catching (if you will) :p :
    The Victor

    The most shameful:
    B29 It dropped DA BOMB! Jees, what's so great about that? Its capabilities was going to be met and exceeded by others anyway.
     
  3. Gollevainen
    Offline

    Gollevainen Colonel
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,553
    Likes Received:
    23
    Well Im not claiming Blendheim to be any aviation milestone. But it was our main bomber during the war years, and was used on such all the way till 1945, after wich it was still used as transporter as bombers werent allowed for us.
    Its place in my list comes from simple sentimental reasons
     
  4. Finn McCool
    Offline

    Finn McCool Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,025
    Likes Received:
    4
    In the area of strike planes, I would pick the IL-2 Sturmovik and the British Typhoon. They turned the Nazis back on both fronts.
     
  5. Jon K
    Offline

    Jon K New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quoting Planeman, here's the unabashed and, above all, CORRECT list of 10 greatest bombers of all time! :) As the numbers of actual strategic bomber designs which actually saw use was so low, I've included some tactical bombers as well if they were really important.

    What's the number one may be discussed - but this is The Definitive List! :)

    1.) Gotha G - Forced Brits to keep a significant portion of their manpower, AA and fighters to defend London. Besides, it's the coolest looking of them all in a steampunk (or should I say, petrolpunk?) kind of way

    2.) B-47: The workforce of SAC when the SAC was the truly important part of US military. B-47 was the plane which forced Soviet Union to use gargantuous amounts of money for PVO.

    3.) B-29: Served as design study for Tu-4, the most important Soviet bomber. Construction of Tu-4 forced the US to use gargantuous amounts of money for US continental air defense. Tu-4 was the most feared Soviet bomber, regardless of it's actual capabilities. B-29 also had a kind of effect in Japanese-US unpleasantness.

    4.) B-17: The plane which broke Luftwaffe's back. Not by itself, but because of it there were a load of P-51's flying to Germany destroying Luftwaffe's fighters. Also forced Germans to use a load of resources for their air defense.

    5.) Super Etendard. Exocet-carrying Super Etendards of Argentine Navy had a disproportionate effect on British Task Force operations during the Falklands War. Were used also for strategic missions during Iraq-Iran war.

    6.) F-16. Combat debut destroying Osirak, extremely important in almost all post-Cold War conflicts, still forming the backbone of many Air Forces. Most recent strategic bombing mission made just few weeks ago. It has F designation, sure, but for most of it's life it's been pounding dirt.

    7.) B-2. It has showed that even non-nuclear bombers can have strategic effect. A British politician said "Bomber will always get through", but this is the plane which actually reaches this specification.

    8.) SBD Dauntless. If sinking most of the Japanese carriers wasn't strategic, then what was?

    9.) B-25 Mitchell. Made the most important strategic bombing mission of WW II, the Doolittle raid

    10.) Fairey Swordfish - Devastated surface fleets, supply transports as well as the Italian Navy
     
    #25 Jon K, Nov 12, 2007
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2007
  6. Jon K
    Offline

    Jon K New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tu-22 has the cool factor, but hadn't Tu-16 and Tu-95 changed the USN doctrine already (Tu-95 mostly for being able in targeting CBG's for SSGN's)?
     
  7. planeman
    Offline

    planeman Senior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    9
    Taranto, Bismark. Those guys had way more guts than me. Flying a stringbag against a 'modern' battleship is a demonstration of British eccentricity :)
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Obi Wan Russell
    Offline

    Obi Wan Russell Jedi Master
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,790
    Likes Received:
    2,450
    Those swordfish crews who attacked the Bismarck facing enemy fire all the way up to the 15 inch guns blasting columns of water to put them off whilst riding in planes made of wood string and cloth makes todays A-10 pilots in their titanium 'bathtubs' seem somewhat undeserving of any bravery awards. It's all relative though. I think the whole bomber debate needs to move on from the immediate postwar concept that most xannot think beyond. The bomber as a strategic war winner is long gone and will not return, simply because there are better concepts out there. The bomber does have a role to play in the modern battle, as was demonstrated by B-52s over the 'stan. As flying weapons platforms with long endurance to loiter near if not actually over the war zone, on call by the ground forces when needed. This is a task large bombers can carry out better than fighter-bombers because of the human element. A large bomber can carry it's own relief crew for long endurance missions (surely a better solutiion than having pilots strapped into seats for more than a day popping pills to stay awake?) and if a platform such as the Nimrod MRA4 is considered, it can act as a controller for UCAVs, other air assets in theatre as well as launching cruise missiles from it's own bomb bay and underwing stations. For this reason I would advocate a larger buy of Nimrods (and have them all new build rather than use old reconditioned components such as the fuselage) and other nations could follow this concept too, using adapted airliners (which the Nimrod is) as stand off launch platforms and airborne command and control systems.
     
  9. Scratch
    Offline

    Scratch Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    1,091
    I guess you'd need quiet a large buy to make a reopening of the production line sensible. But if you want them to not only perform maritime survilliance tasks, but also "ammo truck" and C4ISR missions, maybe the need is there. But since you'll also need the money, internat. coop would surely be helpfull. The US moves ahead with the MMA and India and Australia are interested I think. Who else in Europe would be interested?
    And I think Airbus is currently quiet busy with what they already have.

    I'm also not so sure if the bomber as a strategic asset is so long gone already as you say.
    Deep penetration in modern IDAS environments and a large rear to conduct decisive actions is something the VLO fighter-bombers, UCAVs and stealth CMs only now can take over. Perhaps it was more like there wasn't the right conflict for the B-2s and B-1Bs to be decisive elemtens.
     
  10. gerboisebleue
    Offline

    gerboisebleue New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello !
    my top 10 of bombers of all time:
    By her impact in the stratégy & event of war or world tension
    1:B52
    2:B17
    3:B29
    4:Avro Lancaster
    5:B 2
    6:B 1
    7:B 47
    8:Ju 88
    9:Tu 95
    10:Avro Vulvan
     
Loading...

Share This Page