PDA

View Full Version : Top Ten Bombers in History?



ExNavyAmerican
03 Mar 07,, 12:48
In my opinion-

1. B-2 Stealth bomber
2. B-52 Stratofortress
3. B-29 Superfortress
4. B-17 Flying fortress
5. B-58 Vindicator
6. Handley Page 0/100 (an of British-built biplane-extremely effective)
7. Junkers Ju-88
8. Tupelov Tu-95
9. B-25 Mitchell
10. B-47 Stratojet

What are your thoughts?

Feel free to post your top ten choices.

zraver
03 Mar 07,, 16:33
1- Gotha G
2- Handley Page0/100
3- Ju-88
4- B-17
5- B-24
6- b-29
7- B-36
8- Lancaster
9- B-52
10- TU-95

y_raj
04 Mar 07,, 06:43
In my opinion-

1. B-2 Stealth bomber
2. B-52 Stratofortress
3. B-29 Superfortress
4. B-17 Flying fortress
5. B-58 Vindicator
6. Handley Page 0/100 (an of British-built biplane-extremely effective)
7. Junkers Ju-88
8. Tupelov Tu-95
9. B-25 Mitchell
10. B-47 Stratojet

What are your thoughts?

Feel free to post your top ten choices.

That list consists mainly of american aircrafts.
Stuka, blackjack, deserve their place in the list too
Can tornado be put here too?

SnowLeopard
04 Mar 07,, 07:19
A and B

A: Somewhere in that list should be Menachm Begin (sp?) since bombers was never singularly associated with aircraft.

B: Near as I can figure, the B-58 was only the Vindicator in the movie "Fail Safe". In reality, it was the "Hustler".
--------------------------------------------------
("I'm warning you, Harry, don't make any jokes about hijacking. The airport security is so uptight, they will arrest anyone."--wife
"All right, all right, I'll just relax and watch the inflight movie."--Harry, the husband
"What movie?"
"The Omega Man."
"Oh, not that bomb!"
"LADY, YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!"--airport security, (w, stte), Dave Berg cartoon of the lat 60's, MAD magazine)

ExNavyAmerican
04 Mar 07,, 07:46
That list consists mainly of american aircrafts.
Stuka, blackjack, deserve their place in the list too
Can tornado be put here too?

y_raj, I'm not running a popularity contest. American aircraft are generaly superior, though the Germans and British were way ahead of the U.S. with aircraft at the start of WW2 (with the exception of the B-17). But the Americans quickly caught up, and now dominate the list. The ju-88 was a medium bomber, while the ju-87 was a dive bomber, and dive bombers don't fall under this heading. The blackjack never achieved a level of greatness like the Hundley, though they were effective.

SnowLeopard, I've never seen "fail safe", though I would like to see it. B-58s have always been known to me as Vindicators, not Hustlers

Excuse any typos, please.

ExNavyAmerican
04 Mar 07,, 08:21
A revised list- (I added the Lancaster as no. 8)


1. B-2 Stealth bomber
2. B-52 Stratofortress
3. B-29 Superfortress
4. B-17 Flying fortress
5. B-58 Vindicator
6. Handley Page 0/100 (an old British-built biplane-extremely effective)
7. Junkers Ju-88
8. Lancaster
9. Tupelov Tu-95
10. B-25 Mitchell

GVChamp
04 Mar 07,, 18:01
The B-52, at least to me, is clearly the most useful and valuable bomber in the history of mankind.

glyn
04 Mar 07,, 19:53
.


y_raj, I'm not running a popularity contest. American aircraft are generaly superior, though the Germans and British were way ahead of the U.S. with aircraft at the start of WW2 (with the exception of the B-17).

There is a word that is the perfect riposte to your statement, but no moderator would permit it to be used! :mad: Suffice it to say Bilge, my fine feathered friend! :biggrin:

But the Americans quickly caught up, and now dominate the list.

They certainly populate your myopic list of Americana!:)

The ju-88 was a medium bomber, while the ju-87 was a dive bomber, and dive bombers don't fall under this heading.

Those on the receiving end of them may have disagreed with your definition.


The blackjack never achieved a level of greatness like the Hundley, though they were effective.

Hundley? Tell this old pilot about it as it is news to me.

SnowLeopard, I've never seen "fail safe", though I would like to see it. B-58s have always been known to me as Vindicators, not Hustlers

SnowLeopard is entirely correct. The Convair B-58 was never known as the Vindicator, but the Hustler. There was an aeroplane actually called the Vought SB2U Vindicator. It was a monoplane Scout/Dive Bomber used by the US Navy in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

Excuse any typos, please.

Canmoore
04 Mar 07,, 20:31
What about the F117 nighthawk?

While it technically isnt a bomber. It does carry out "bomber like" missions.

Isnt firing guided weapons at kew enemy placements, just a more mordern spin on the old bombing concept of dumping a massive amount of dumb bombs ontop key enemy placements?

sappersgt
04 Mar 07,, 21:58
There was an aeroplane actually called the Vought SB2U Vindicator. It was a monoplane Scout/Dive Bomber used by the US Navy in the late 1930s and early 1940s.


Were Vindicators ever used in combat? A contemporary of the Vindicator, the Devastator torpedo bomber although obsolescent was used at Midway with disastrous results for their crews.

glyn
04 Mar 07,, 22:33
Were Vindicators ever used in combat? A contemporary of the Vindicator, the Devastator torpedo bomber although obsolescent was used at Midway with disastrous results for their crews.

The Vindicator came in 3 models. There were 54 SB2U-1s, and 58 SB2U-2s which were similar but somewhat heavier. The final model was the SB2U-3 of which 57 were produced, and these were heavier still. Although one was tested on floats, they all served as landplanes. In 1940, models -1 & -2 were serving with VB-2 (Lexington),VB-3 (Saratoga) VB-4, VS-41 & VS-42 (Ranger) And VS-71 & VS-72 (Wasp). Most of the -3 Vindicators were issued to Marine squadrons, primarily equipping VSMB-131 and VSMB-231. These squadrons saw some action against Japanese forces in the Pacific during 1942, including the Battle of Midway, but were soon replaced by more modern types.

zraver
04 Mar 07,, 22:36
A revised list- (I added the Lancaster as no. 8)


1. B-2 Stealth bomber
2. B-52 Stratofortress
3. B-29 Superfortress
4. B-17 Flying fortress
5. B-58 Vindicator
6. Handley Page 0/100 (an old British-built biplane-extremely effective)
7. Junkers Ju-88
8. Lancaster
9. Tupelov Tu-95
10. B-25 Mitchell

B-2 might be argued as being the straw that broke the camels back with the USSR so its an iffy on the list. Other than that it really hasn't done anything besides soak up dollars.

B-58 Hustler, droppe d afew bombers in Vietnam but really never affected the world.

B-25, its a tactical bomber, it we step away from strategic and throw it open to all bombers the list changes dramatically. At least the Ju-88 was used in a strategic role to attack an enemies homeland.

The B-36 needs to be on the list, it was the manned ICBM able to reach anywhere on the globe given the US the ability to impose A-bomb diplomacy at will.

omon
05 Mar 07,, 01:23
that would be my list.
1 b2
2 tu 160
3 b1
4 b52
5 tu 22m backfire
6 tu 95
7 b17
8 Junkers Ju-88
9 Lancaster
10 pe 2

ExNavyAmerican
05 Mar 07,, 03:46
.There is a word that is the perfect riposte to your statement, but no moderator would permit it to be used! Suffice it to say Bilge, my fine feathered friend!

Than don't use it. :biggrin: But it is true: American bombers are currently superior to other bombers. Though the U.S. did lag behind Germany, and Britain at the start of WW2.


Those on the receiving end of them may have disagreed with your definition.

Of course they were bombers; hence the phrase "dive bombers'. But I was talking about light, medium, and heavy bombers. Light, and dive-bombers are similar, but the payload is different.


Hundley? Tell this old pilot about it as it is news to me.

It was an old WW1 biplane bomber. It was the best of its time. The blackjack was also a WW1 era bomber, but the Hundley was much better, and it didn't make sense to me to place them both on the list.


SnowLeopard is entirely correct. The Convair B-58 was never known as the Vindicator, but the Hustler. There was an aeroplane actually called the Vought SB2U Vindicator. It was a monoplane Scout/Dive Bomber used by the US Navy in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

You're right; he's right. :) I stand corrected. It was indeed known as the Hustler, but I have a book that calls in the Vindicator. The author's been watching too many movies! :biggrin: Regardless though; the B-58 was a very good plane. It had long mileage, a decent payload, and it was extremely fast: fighters were hard-pressed to keep up. The idiot Lyndon Johnson cancelled production.

ExNavyAmerican
05 Mar 07,, 03:59
B-2 might be argued as being the straw that broke the camels back with the USSR so its an iffy on the list. Other than that it really hasn't done anything besides soak up dollars.

B-58 Hustler, droppe d afew bombers in Vietnam but really never affected the world.

B-25, its a tactical bomber, it we step away from strategic and throw it open to all bombers the list changes dramatically. At least the Ju-88 was used in a strategic role to attack an enemies homeland.

The B-36 needs to be on the list, it was the manned ICBM able to reach anywhere on the globe given the US the ability to impose A-bomb diplomacy at will.

The B-2 is a good bomber; I didn't post bombers based on whether or not they "changed the world". If you are, than the B-36 does not deserve a place because they were replaced relatively quickly with the B-52 after only 8 years as the main bomber for the air force. Whereas the B-52 has been around since '55, and is still effective though obsolete. In contrast, the B-58 dropped more bombs than the B-36.

The B-25 were tactical bombers, but were extremely effective at what they did. They performed a tactic known as "skip bombing", and did it very well. And since it is a bomber, it can be placed on the list.

zraver
05 Mar 07,, 12:23
The B-2 is a good bomber; I didn't post bombers based on whether or not they "changed the world". If you are, than the B-36 does not deserve a place because they were replaced relatively quickly with the B-52 after only 8 years as the main bomber for the air force. Whereas the B-52 has been around since '55, and is still effective though obsolete. In contrast, the B-58 dropped more bombs than the B-36.

The B-25 were tactical bombers, but were extremely effective at what they did. They performed a tactic known as "skip bombing", and did it very well. And since it is a bomber, it can be placed on the list.

Then were is the mesquito, avenger, sturmovik, skyraider, thundercheif, Invader, A-10, Tornado, Frogfoot if any bombing ndropping plane can be considered neach judged by a seperate standard then the list is worthless.

execrable
05 Mar 07,, 13:26
A: Somewhere in that list should be Menachm Begin (sp?) since bombers was never singularly associated with aircraft.

Fabulous. Spilt my coffee laughing at that one...

ExNavyAmerican
05 Mar 07,, 14:02
Then were is the mesquito, avenger, sturmovik, skyraider, thundercheif, Invader, A-10, Tornado, Frogfoot if any bombing ndropping plane can be considered neach judged by a seperate standard then the list is worthless.

:rolleyes:

Sigh.

All those you mentioned were figher bombers or attack planes; they were not bombers. Do you understand the difference? The bombers I'm talking about are light (B-57), medium (B-25), or heavy bombers (B-52). Bombers are classifed by the letter "B"; attack planes by "A", fighters by "F", and Fighter/Attack planes by "F/A". If you can't understand the differences; I'm not going to explain them to you. If you would stop being obtuse, you could put forward a reasonable argument

glyn
05 Mar 07,, 14:06
Than don't use it. :biggrin: But it is true: American bombers are currently superior to other bombers.

There are very few bombers in service anywhere apart from the US and Russia. The US has about 20 B-2s, say 100 B-1s and a reducing number of B-52s. The finest bomber of modern times was the (incorrectly designated) F-111 series. They were retired early as a pawn in the final SALT game. I saw an Australian example last year at an air display in New Zealand, where it showed off some of its party tricks. Still an impressive machine.


Though the U.S. did lag behind Germany, and Britain at the start of WW2.

Who's start? The war began in Europe in 1939. There was then an enormous advance in design, development, production and employment among all the involved nations.



Of course they were bombers; hence the phrase "dive bombers'. But I was talking about light, medium, and heavy bombers. Light, and dive-bombers are similar, but the payload is different.

It is unclear which bombers can be included in the list. I would suggest a list covering WW1, another for the inter-war period, WW2, and the post war era.

It was an old WW1 biplane bomber. It was the best of its time.

I think you must mean the Handley Page range of bombers, starting with the 0/100, then the more numerous 0/400 and finally the V/1500.

The blackjack was also a WW1 era bomber,

Absolutely not. It is current equipment in Russia.:confused:

but the Hundley was much better,

Muahaha!:)

and it didn't make sense to me to place them both on the list.

Your list is even more surreal than you realise, sailor boy:biggrin:



You're right; he's right. :) I stand corrected. It was indeed known as the Hustler, but I have a book that calls in the Vindicator. The author's been watching too many movies! :biggrin: Regardless though; the B-58 was a very good plane. It had long mileage, a decent payload, and it was extremely fast: fighters were hard-pressed to keep up. The idiot Lyndon Johnson cancelled production.

The B-58A was a huge advance on anything that had gone before it. It was also incredibly expensive, unforgiving and full of unresolved bugs, and the USAF were glad to see the back of it. President LBJ can't be blamed for its withdrwal from service.

glyn
05 Mar 07,, 14:08
[QUOTE=ExNavyAmerican;351324] In contrast, the B-58 dropped more bombs than the B-36.



Fascinating. Do tell us more!:) Which conflicts in particular are you referring to?

SnowLeopard
05 Mar 07,, 14:15
:rolleyes:

Sigh.

All those you mentioned were figher bombers or attack planes; they were not bombers. Do you understand the difference? The bombers I'm talking about are light (B-57), medium (B-25), or heavy bombers (B-52). Bombers are classifed by the letter "B"; attack planes by "A", fighters by "F", and Fighter/Attack planes by "F/A". If you can't understand the differences; I'm not going to explain them to you. If you would stop being obtuse, you could put forward a reasonable argument

I beg to differ with at least one of them. The Mosquito was designed from the "keel up" to be a bomber. Remember, the original combat version did not carry any defensive arnament, just bombs. Hardly the stuff that fighters carry.

Further, what's in a name? Some say that the F-111 was misnamed and was hardly a fighter, but a bomber, thru and thru.

Who would build a fighter with an internal bomb bay ....... Republic would but then is it a fighter or is it a bomber?
--------------------------------------------------
("Bombing Hanoi with F-105's"--Viet Nam era joke referring to the high loss rate, (wtte))

ExNavyAmerican
05 Mar 07,, 14:21
glyn;

I was referringVietnam.

Enlighten us; why are you posting so smugly if you didn't know that?

glyn
05 Mar 07,, 14:22
[QUOTE=zraver;351258]

B-58 Hustler, droppe d afew bombers in Vietnam but really never affected the world.

It did no such thing. The only Convair delta winged aircraft to operate in Vietnam was the F-102A Delta Dagger. As they were incapable of carrying droppable ordnance they were used as occasional escorts to B-52s in the panhandle, their main role being Air Defence of south Vietnam. Their losses were 7 in combat ( 1 to Mig-21, 2 to AAA and 4 after being attacked at their base). and 8 non-combat losses in country.

ExNavyAmerican
05 Mar 07,, 14:32
SnowLeopard;

Regardless, they aren't exacly bombers in the reals sense. If you disagree with my list, then post your own.

ExNavyAmerican
05 Mar 07,, 14:33
glyn;

They did operate in Vietnam

glyn
05 Mar 07,, 14:35
:rolleyes:

Sigh.

All those you mentioned were figher bombers or attack planes; they were not bombers. Do you understand the difference? The bombers I'm talking about are light (B-57), medium (B-25), or heavy bombers (B-52). Bombers are classifed by the letter "B"; attack planes by "A", fighters by "F", and Fighter/Attack planes by "F/A". If you can't understand the differences; I'm not going to explain them to you. If you would stop being obtuse, you could put forward a reasonable argument

Sigh. You are confused my maritime friend:confused: as in your 'helpful' definitions you rate the B-57 as light, and the B-25 as medium. As the B-57 could carry a greater bomb load than the B-25 you have shot yourself in the foot.:eek: Definitions changed over time, as the capabilities of the aircraft improved. To give one example, the A-1 Skyraider could carry a greater warload than the B-17 which at one time had been classed as a heavy bomber.:)
You are calling zraver obtuse, think he is unable to understand the differences but won't explain them to him. Is this a Christian attitude, I ask myself? And finding no answer hurry on.... I wonder what I am being called:confused:

glyn
05 Mar 07,, 14:37
glyn;

They did operate in Vietnam


In which case you will furnish proof?

ExNavyAmerican
05 Mar 07,, 14:53
The B-25 was WW2 era while the B-57 was made after the B-52. Different eras. Why does the conversation always degenerate to how bad Christians are?

Since you are denying my statement that the B-58 operated in Vietnam, you should furnish the proof.

By the way, the B-52 also served in Vietnam.

Officer of Engineers
05 Mar 07,, 15:00
ENA, there is no way to prove a negative. I've just googled the squadron history of the B-58s and there is no mention of Vietnam.

SnowLeopard
05 Mar 07,, 15:25
I was going to let it go but since it has come to table, brought by others, I will present my net research.

Apparently, a small attempt was made to use the B-58 in Viet Nam in Operation Bullseye. Mounts were provided for conventional weapons and testing was done somewhere in US territory. The project was dropped, however, and one of the reasons why was if the aircraft gets shot down? There would be certain parties that would be much interested in the wreckage to say nothing of the public affairs disaster.

A book I have, VietNam Air Warfare by Robert Dorr and Chris Bishop list only one Convair aircraft in the conflict and that was the F-102.

There you go ..........
-----------------------------------------
(After their basestar has been overflown by the lights. "Adama has scientists, perhaps they have made a breakthru."--Baltar
"I hope so."--Lucifer
"You would hope that the humans have made such an advancement?"
"The only other possibility is that we have encountered a race far in advance of our own.", (w,stte), Battlestar Galactica "War of the Gods")

SnowLeopard
05 Mar 07,, 15:40
SnowLeopard;

Regardless, they aren't exacly bombers in the reals sense. If you disagree with my list, then post your own.

Now, don't take this as a criticism or an attack but ......

....... what is a bomber in the real sense? I'm curious because we have an aircraft, the Mosquito, designed as a bomber, but you are saying it isn't. So what is a bomber in the real sense?
-------------------------------------------------------
("Ah, what do you say, Munroe, hmm? What are the odds?"--Hufford
"About the same as spitting in an Air Commodore's eye from an express train, sir.", (wtte), "Mosquito Squadron")

ExNavyAmerican
05 Mar 07,, 16:06
You were right all along; there were no B-58s in Vietnam, as least, as far as I could find. I must have been thinkingthinking og B-52s which did serve. Sorry.. My bad.

The Mosquito is classed as a fighter, therefore I didn't think much of it. All I knew about it was that it was classed as a fighter. Maybe they are bombers, but, they're classed as fighters.

A bomber can be put into 4 groups: light, medium, heavy, and fighter bombers. A bomber, what I meant in this thread, a bomber that could not also be classified as a fighter.

This entire B-58 conversation came up as a result of the fact that the B-36 wasn't on my list. The B-36 was a massive airplane using WW2 technology; it wasn't that good. I'm not taliking about the "affect" on the world; I'm talking about performance, and the B-58 was one of the best medium bombers ever made. It was fast, good endurace, decent payload for a m. bomber, and it helped keep the peace because the Russkies couldn't match it.

ExNavyAmerican
05 Mar 07,, 16:09
I appreciate you bringing the B-58 facts to my attention; it's kind of hard to convince someone that something accepted as a fact was false all along.

Anyway, whether or not it served; the B-58 was a very good bomber.

glyn
05 Mar 07,, 20:48
You were right all along; there were no B-58s in Vietnam, as least, as far as I could find. I must have been thinkingthinking og B-52s which did serve. Sorry.. My bad.

The Mosquito is classed as a fighter, therefore I didn't think much of it. All I knew about it was that it was classed as a fighter. Maybe they are bombers, but, they're classed as fighters.

The Mosquito was designed as a bomber, but the most pressing need at that time was for a photo-recce machine, so the first batch went to fill that role as with the bomb-bay it was an easy conversion to make. There was a great need for a night-fighter too, so the Mark 2 machine was the NF Mk II. A need for a trainer became obvious early on due to accidents so the next mark was the unarmed T Mk 3. Only then did a bomber mark get into production as the B Mk IV. Incidentally, the Mosquito was the worlds fastest operational aircraft for the first two and a half years of service.

A bomber can be put into 4 groups: light, medium, heavy, and fighter bombers. A bomber, what I meant in this thread, a bomber that could not also be classified as a fighter.

This entire B-58 conversation came up as a result of the fact that the B-36 wasn't on my list. The B-36 was a massive airplane using WW2 technology; it wasn't that good. I'm not taliking about the "affect" on the world; I'm talking about performance, and the B-58 was one of the best medium bombers ever made. It was fast, good endurace, decent payload for a m. bomber, and it helped keep the peace because the Russkies couldn't match it.

The B-58 was not 'one of the best medium bombers ever made'. I would like to see you (or anybody else) justify that claim. The USAF couldn't wait to get rid of it.

zraver
05 Mar 07,, 23:09
The B-36 was an awesome plane that served into the 1960's. it was the first combat airplane anywhere to have inter-continental range able in the late rmodels to take off form the US, bomb the USSR and fly home. it did yoeman service as part of the standing nuclear guard for years and did not use WW2 technology alone. It wa s ahybrid that used both props and turbojets to reach speeds and altatudes modern fighters of the time could not reach. at the same time you have the TU-95 on the list which is slower, shorter legged and did even less time as a true bomber (vs martime patrol craft) on your list.

The A-10 carries a bigger payload than the B-29 and has only self defense capabilites in the air to air arena. It is as much a bomber as the B-52. the only differanc eis area of operations, not mission both drop loads of bombs onto the heads of the enemy. You can't jsut say attack bombers are excluded what if a nation didn't have the A,B,F designations? The Sudan is using SU-7's to level bomb villiages it is being used as a pur ebomber but was designed as an attack and never classified either way by an Amero-centic alphabet soup designation.

Talk about obtuse.



Snowloepard, Thank you, I was under the mistaken impresison that a few of the B-58's did make it to Vietnam.

ExNavyAmerican
06 Mar 07,, 04:04
Why are you people so conviced it was a bad plane, but you are so convinced the B-36 was a good plance.

The B-36 had some advantages, and did accoplish some things, but the B-58 did too. Below is some information about the two. Take into account that 1 is a medium bomber, and one is a heavy bomber.

B-36
Payload: 86,000 pounds of conventional or nuclear bombs
Armament: Sixteen M24 20mm cannon in eight nose, tail and fuselage turrets,
Maximum speed: 435 mph
Cruising speed: 230 mph
Range: 7500 miles
Service ceiling: 45,700 feet

B-58
payload: 19,450lbs of conventional ordnance, nuclear ordnance or tactical reconnaissance equipment.
Combat Speed: 503 mph
Max Speed: 1147 mph
Rate of climb Sea level - 17,830 feet per minute
Service Ceiling: 63,500 ft
Combat radius 5,124 miles
Guns: 1 M-61 Gatling Gun

No question about it; the B-36 was a heavier aircraft, and could inflict more damage. But if you read the development history, you'd see how close the B-36 came to being cancelled. It was a six-engine bomber that was extremely fragile. The air force, though didn't want to get totally rid of it, knew they had to find something else. The B-47 was the bridge between the 36, and the B-52. The 36 was not retired until '59, but was not used extensively at all. The Air Force was not in a hurry to get rid of the B-58; Lyndon Johnson was. It probably wouldn't have been totally useless until the B-1 bomber was built.

SnowLeopard
06 Mar 07,, 06:00
Why are you people so conviced it was a bad plane, but you are so convinced the B-36 was a good plance.

The B-36 had some advantages, and did accoplish some things, but the B-58 did too. Below is some information about the two. Take into account that 1 is a medium bomber, and one is a heavy bomber.

B-36
Payload: 86,000 pounds of conventional or nuclear bombs
Armament: Sixteen M24 20mm cannon in eight nose, tail and fuselage turrets,
Maximum speed: 435 mph
Cruising speed: 230 mph
Range: 7500 nautical miles
Service ceiling: 45,700 feet

B-58
payload: 19,450lbs of conventional ordnance, nuclear ordnance or tactical reconnaissance equipment.
Combat Speed: 503 mph
Max Speed: 1147 mph
Rate of climb Sea level - 17,830 feet per minute
Service Ceiling: 63,500 ft
Combat radius 1400 nautical miles
Guns: 1 M-61 Gatling Gun

No question about it; the B-36 was a heavier aircraft, and could inflict more damage. But if you read the development history, you'd see how close the B-36 came to being cancelled. It was a six-engine bomber that was extremely fragile. The air force, though didn't want to get totally rid of it, knew they had to find something else. The B-47 was the bridge between the 36, and the B-52. The 36 was not retired until '59, but was not used extensively at all. The Air Force was not in a hurry to get rid of the B-58; Lyndon Johnson was. It probably wouldn't have been totally useless until the B-1 bomber was built.


We-ll.........

practically everything I've seen says that the -58 was a nuclear bomber and nothing else, offensive arnaments speaking. Bullseye was the exception and that didn't go very far.

As such, it was expensive with only one mission that one hoped never came around.

Further, there were three things on the table that was eating up the money: Viet Nam, the space race, and in the Air Force's area, DynaSoar/MOL. Now, again, this is just an opinion, looking at things, but it seems at least plausible that there may have been some in the AF who were making estimated guesses about its future. A $1.5 billion program, in 1965, after all, is not cheap. MOL was cancelled, bad news for SLC-6, before the last flight of the B-58, but one shouldn't consider history in a vacuum.

Backing out of IMHO,

As far as who cancelled, that one can be up in the air. There was McNamara who was convinced that the time of the bomber was over (and while we may argue that the guy in charge of the administration is ultimately responsible, we-ll........). There was the AF general's comment about it being too small for his tail and that bombers should not be designed like fighters, ie tandem. There was an opinion that at the time, the AF realized that it wasn't going to be able to keep all its oversea bases, like Wheelus, and the -58 didn't fit into that picture.

Keep in mind as well that this was an era when combat aircraft came and went in just a few years. Further, consider the advancement of technology at the time. IMHO, it seems conceviable that some may have thought something bigger and better was just over the horizon.

Off hand, one person, one thing can't seem to be held to blame for its early demise.
-------------------------------------------
("Reconnaise reports launch, western United States, Vandenburg. (and probably out of "Slick 6")"--head controller of space station
"There are no launches scheduled for today."--Drax, (w,stte), "Moonraker")

ExNavyAmerican
06 Mar 07,, 07:56
practically everything I've seen says that the -58 was a nuclear bomber and nothing else, offensive arnaments speaking. Bullseye was the exception and that didn't go very far.

So was the B-36 a nuclear bomber. It wouldn't have been used as a conventional bomber; it was, as its name says, a peacemaker. It could carry conventional bombs, but so could the B-58. Another thing is, the B-58 Hustler was, as the B-36, an effective deterrent: it wouldn't be used as a conventional bomer either. Also, the B-29 was used as the conventional bomber well into the 50s, therefore the B-36 wasn't needed as a conventional bomber. It (the peacemaker) was usurped with the advent of the B-47, and B-52, whereas the B-58 was still the best medium bomber at its retirement. The B-58 could easily bomb 2 cities with a hope of survival, but the B-36 was too vulnerable. The B-36 could bomb indiscriminately until the invention of the Mig-1: the first military jet-fighter. The mig made the B-36, and the B-52 as a matter of fact, sitting ducks in the sky. Whereas the B-58 flew faster than most jets.


As far as who cancelled, that one can be up in the air. There was McNamara who was convinced that the time of the bomber was over (and while we may argue that the guy in charge of the administration is ultimately responsible, we-ll........). There was the AF general's comment about it being too small for his tail and that bombers should not be designed like fighters, ie tandem. There was an opinion that at the time, the AF realized that it wasn't going to be able to keep all its oversea bases, like Wheelus, and the -58 didn't fit into that picture.

The B-58 was cancelled because the atrocity that is the state department said it gave us an unfair advantage, which would broaden the chances of a nuclear war. There were some who also declared that the time of the bomber was over (funny considering it had just begun), but they were wrong unless they were content with the idea of nuking everybody.

lemontree
06 Mar 07,, 08:45
In my opinion-

1. B-2 Stealth bomber
2. B-52 Stratofortress
3. B-29 Superfortress
4. B-17 Flying fortress
5. B-58 Vindicator
6. Handley Page 0/100 (an of British-built biplane-extremely effective)
7. Junkers Ju-88
8. Tupelov Tu-95
9. B-25 Mitchell
10. B-47 Stratojet

What are your thoughts?

Feel free to post your top ten choices.
The above list is incomplete without any mention of the Vickers Wellington and Avro Lancaster.

SnowLeopard
06 Mar 07,, 08:55
I don't think the B-58 could carry conventional weapons, plain and simple. Everything points to that Bullseye was the exception and they had to specially modify that aircraft.

Why not? I don't know; we'd probably have to ask someone who worked on the aircraft for that, but three guesses, two of them in the wiring, one in its performance.

In the book I referenced earlier, there is mention that the A-1 Skyraider had carried so many different kinds of ordinance that its wings were full with the different wiring so to be able to drop those bombs. Maybe that's the thing we have here only one can't afford to have honeycomb loaded with wiring, so it is only wired for one kind of weapon: nuclear.

Second possibility: lack of communications between the aircraft systems and the ordinance not nuclear. They can't talk to each other. Maybe because one is analog and one is digital, such as was seen on the Subroc submarines that couldn't fire Tomahawk. I don't know but the basic point is that all sources that I've come across says that the offensive arnmament was nuclear, thru and thru.

Alternately, maybe its bomb delivery was too fast for accurate conventional bombing ......... but such a problem, if it existed, wouldn't make much of a difference if it was nuclear.
-----------------------------------------------
("Where do you want it, Sir?"--pilot
"Just get it in the right timezone!"--area commander, (wtte), "Doonesbury")

ExNavyAmerican
06 Mar 07,, 09:24
lemontree;

Later on I changed it, and included the Lancaster, and if you disagree: POST YOUR OWN! This is totally subective. The list is not "incomplete" in my opinion. In your opinion it is. I suggest you look up the word opinion in the dictionary; you'll find it an interesting concept. This is my later post which INCLUDED the Lancaster-

1. B-2 Stealth bomber
2. B-52 Stratofortress
3. B-29 Superfortress
4. B-17 Flying fortress
5. B-58 Vindicator
6. Handley Page 0/100 (an of British-built biplane-extremely effective)
7. Junkers Ju-88
8. Lancaster
9. Tupelov Tu-95
10. B-25 Mitchell

SnowLeopard;

The plane descrition of the B-58 says it could carry conventional weapons. In my opinion, it deserves a place on the list; obviously, you don't. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, and me to mine. I've given plety of support to back my opinion that the B-58 is, a) better than the B-36, and b) one of the top ten bombers. If you disagree, than post your own list, please. We're not goin to convince each other: it rarely happens in argument.

SnowLeopard
06 Mar 07,, 09:36
.....SnowLeopard;

The plane descrition of the B-58 says it could carry conventional weapons. In my opinion, it deserves a place on the list; obviously, you don't. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, and me to mine. I've given plety of support to back my opinion that the B-58 is, a) better than the B-36, and b) one of the top ten bombers. If you disagree, than post your own list, please. We're not goin to convince each other: it rarely happens in argument.


Where am I saying it doesn't deserve a place on the list? Where am I talking about the B-36?

I'm just saying that none of the data I've seen says it carried conventional offensive weapons.
-----------------------------------------------
("I'm a spotted owl? I'M A SPOTTED OWL????"--Daffy Duck, (wtte))

ExNavyAmerican
06 Mar 07,, 09:42
Well, one of you was talking about the B-36; I can't remember who-zraver, or glyn-I'm not sure.

I'll give the data for performace again, and I'll include the B-36's-

B-58 Hustler
1,321 mph - Mach 2.1-speed
5,124.45 miles - range
63,000 ft - ceiling
19,450lbs of conventional ordnance, nuclear ordnance or tactical reconnaissance equipment. - payload

B-36 Peacemaker-
45,200 feet-ceiling
7,500 miles-range
86,000 pounds of bombs
439 mph-speed

lemontree
06 Mar 07,, 11:06
lemontree;

Later on I changed it, and included the Lancaster,
Apologies I missed seeing that post.

and if you disagree: POST YOUR OWN! This is totally subective. The list is not "incomplete" in my opinion. In your opinion it is. I suggest you look up the word opinion in the dictionary; you'll find it an interesting concept.
You also asked as to what the others thought about your list. If you are so bloody touchy about others replying then don't ask a question and then fly off the handle.

We have a high opinion of US service personnel in WAB so don't ruin it with a display of attitude more suitable to a woman sufferring from PMS.

ExNavyAmerican
06 Mar 07,, 11:11
I try not to fly off the handle, but you're right; I shouldn't, and I'm sorry. II got angry because I've been arguing this point for a while (while easily maintaining my composure), and when you said "this list is incomplete", it would suggest that it is wrong based on your opinion; for some reason it made me angry. Whatever the reason, I shouldn't have been so rude. Sorry.

ExNavyAmerican
06 Mar 07,, 11:21
We have a high opinion of US service personnel in WAB so don't ruin it with a display of attitude more suitable to a woman sufferring from PMS.

LOL. I haven't laughed so hard in quite a while!:biggrin: Quite ammusing.

Once again, sorry. I never fly off the handle... Must have had a bad day. No excuse to turn a civilized conversation into something short of the Roman arena. :redface:

SnowLeopard
06 Mar 07,, 11:54
In no particular order:

1. B-10 (it layed the ground work for follow-on aircraft)
2. B-52 (long lasting, flying dump truck)
3. B-47 (transistion from the prop to the jet age)
4. Mosquito (where great accomplishments are possible by using older techniques)
5. B-25/A-26/B-57/Il-26 (lesser so): (different aircraft from different eras but essentially multifunctional that could span eras)
6. Me 262 (a fighter but fortunally for us, it was developed as a bomber first)
7. Mirage IV/B-58: (bombers built along fighter lines)
8. F-111 (despite being called a fighter, it's a bomber and perhaps the ultimate in meduim bombers from the Cold War)
9. V-Bombers (especially the Vulcan, can a delta wing plane be that big?)
10. (B-24)PB4Y/Fw-200 (the deadliness of a long range aircraft against shipping when there is no fighter cover)

I'm only allowed 10 types and I got to call them as I see them.
---------------------------------------------------------
("If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!"--General Buck Turgidson, (wtte), "Dr. Strangelove")

ExNavyAmerican
06 Mar 07,, 11:57
SnowLeopard;

In my humble opinion, with the exception of the Mirage, and the F-111 (I know it's essentially a bomber), I think those could all qualify, though I didn't choose all of them.

glyn
06 Mar 07,, 13:42
The plane descrition of the B-58 says it could carry conventional weapons.

I have the following official USAF manuals for the B-58 Hustler.
Flight Manual B-58A dated March 1969, 574 pages.
Performance Data Manual for B-58A, dated May 1966, 414 pages.
Partial Flight Manual, TB-58A dated May 1968, 165 pages.
I cannot find a single word about conventional bombs in any of them.
The Hustler was a delivery system for nuclear weapons only.
It looked as sexy as hell, and it was fast, but it killed a number of its crews, was tricky to fly, was a monster to maintain, had a much shorter range than you claim, and was bristling with limitations. If you can prove that it could carry conventional bombs please give the reference you are using.

zraver
06 Mar 07,, 13:52
I am the one who listed the B-36. The reason is simple following the end of WW2 until,the B-52/ICBM combo it was the only platform anywher ein the world that could deliver a nuclear bomb anywher eelse in the world. It was the manned ICBM of its day. It brought something to the table the US needed just when we needed it. The B-58 might have had a high dash speed but it it didn't crusie much faster than a B-52 carried fa rless ordnance, was dangerous to fly, and expensive. It didn't really add anythign to the arsenal.

lemontree
06 Mar 07,, 13:54
LOL. I haven't laughed so hard in quite a while!:biggrin: Quite ammusing.

Once again, sorry. I never fly off the handle... Must have had a bad day. No excuse to turn a civilized conversation into something short of the Roman arena. :redface:
Cheers no harm done.
Did a Chinese student vex you?...Teaching is quite a taxing job.

ExNavyAmerican
06 Mar 07,, 15:31
Cheers no harm done.
Did a Chinese student vex you?...Teaching is quite a taxing job.

lemontree;
Yes, as a matter of fact. Chinese students are pretty bad actually. They have no respect for westerners.


If you can prove that it could carry conventional bombs please give the reference you are using.

glyn;
www.militaryfactory.com- Actually, quite a helpful website. They may have never carried conventional weapons, but they were able.


I am the one who listed the B-36. The reason is simple following the end of WW2 until,the B-52/ICBM combo it was the only platform anywher ein the world that could deliver a nuclear bomb anywher eelse in the world. It was the manned ICBM of its day. It brought something to the table the US needed just when we needed it. The B-58 might have had a high dash speed but it it didn't crusie much faster than a B-52 carried fa rless ordnance, was dangerous to fly, and expensive. It didn't really add anythign to the arsenal.

zraver;
Agreed, the B-36 was the ICBM of the day, but it was also a sitting duck in the sky, and the Bolsheviks knew that. It was the Russians who wanted the B-58 brought to the table for disarment in one of the treaties. In my opinion, they'd only do that if they were afraid of it.
The B-58 had a range of over 5 thousand land miles, and could carry 4 20-25 megaton H-bombs to their respective targets with a good chance of coming home (unlike most bombers of the day): in my opinion, they added something to our arsenal. I never denied that the B-36 was effective, and a heavier plane; I just said that the B-58 was an overall better plane. The B-52 had mach .9, but the B-36 could only go about 450 mph. Which one are you talking about? Either was much slower than the B-58. The B-52 is a better plane than the B-58 was, but I thought we were talking about the B-36. The B-52 is better than the B-58 was, but it had a disadvantage; jet fighters could easily shoot it down because of its sheer size, and comparative slow speed. But once again, I thought we were talking about the B-36 vs the B-58.

zraver
06 Mar 07,, 16:40
the B-58 had a dash speed that was positve mach but it cruised only about 100 mph faster than the B-36 and about the same speed as the B-52. Going back to the B-36 it's cruise speed was as fast as most fighter sof the day in the USSR. Even the early Migs only had about a 100mph advantag eover it and with the USSR's huge radar gaps of the time it was very possible for a B-36 to penetrate soviet airspace undetected. The B-36 could also fight back vs the early cannon armed mig jets and late model propdriven Yaks.

glyn
06 Mar 07,, 16:55
glyn;
www.militaryfactory.com- Actually, quite a helpful website. They may have never carried conventional weapons, but they were able.

I can't get the link to open for me. Call me a fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-mud- traditionalist if you will, but I would rather accept what the official manuals say than any website, no matter how 'helpful' they may be.

BD1
06 Mar 07,, 17:27
BTW , on most pictures B-58 has this huge underbelly drop tank . I´ve read from somewhere that this was a nucl.bomb/drop tank combination. Is this true ?

RustyBattleship
06 Mar 07,, 17:44
I would list only bombers that had historical battle records. Some mentioned above may have been a great bomber, but never bombed anything except for target practice. At least one of them never had a bomb loaded on it as they were having too much trouble with the complicated landing gear that had to twist before folding and retracting.

My list:
B-17 Flying Fortress for its high profile and post-war uses as an water tanker.
B-24 Liberator as it flew more combat missions than the B-17.
B-25 Mitchell perhaps the best all-around and versatile medium bomber of all.
He-111 just for its shear numbers and reasonable toughness.
Ju-87 Stuka perhaps the best dive bomber of all for single engine bombers.
B-29 Super Fortress that took control of the air in the Pacific (and Korea)
B-52 for it's extraordinary longevity and versatility.
B-1 for its long range (thanks to air tankers), high speed and huge payload.
B-2 for its Stealth and extreme long range (again thanks to air tankers).

zraver
06 Mar 07,, 18:06
I would list only bombers that had historical battle records. Some mentioned above may have been a great bomber, but never bombed anything except for target practice. At least one of them never had a bomb loaded on it as they were having too much trouble with the complicated landing gear that had to twist before folding and retracting.

My list:
B-17 Flying Fortress for its high profile and post-war uses as an water tanker.
B-24 Liberator as it flew more combat missions than the B-17.
B-25 Mitchell perhaps the best all-around and versatile medium bomber of all.
He-111 just for its shear numbers and reasonable toughness.
Ju-87 Stuka perhaps the best dive bomber of all for single engine bombers.
B-29 Super Fortress that took control of the air in the Pacific (and Korea)
B-52 for it's extraordinary longevity and versatility.
B-1 for its long range (thanks to air tankers), high speed and huge payload.
B-2 for its Stealth and extreme long range (again thanks to air tankers).

Gotta add the Lancaster, Mosquito, Canberra/B-57, SBD Dauntless, VAL, etc etc hrmmm

Light/ Attack/ Dive/ Torpedoe

B-57/Canberra
Mosquito
Invader
Havoc/Boston
SDB Dauntless
VAL
IL-2
A-10
A-4
Stuka

Medium

B-25
Pe-2
Ju-88
He-111
B-47
Tu-16
F-15E
A-6
F-105 Thunder Chief
F-111

Heavy (11 on the list)

Gotha
Handley Page 0/100+
B-17
B-24
B-36
B-52
Lancaster
Avro Vulcan
B-1
B-2
T-160

glyn
06 Mar 07,, 18:20
BTW , on most pictures B-58 has this huge underbelly drop tank . I´ve read from somewhere that this was a nucl.bomb/drop tank combination. Is this true ?

Oh yes. You hardy ever see an in-flight picure without the massive combo underneath.

ExNavyAmerican
07 Mar 07,, 03:12
glyn;

I tend to agree with you. I would rather trust an official manual than a website. Did it specifically say that it couldn't carry conventional weapons, or did it not mention it?

RustyBattleship
07 Mar 07,, 05:25
Xraver:
I believe the question was ONLY for TEN bombers. period. Not 10 bombers per class of bombers. Even that can be broken down smaller as to carrier capable planes, land-based, propeller, jet, (where would the B-36 fit that used both propellers and jets?), etc. I like short lists. Not long ones.

Espcially my list of "Things to do" around the house. The shorter it is the better.

SnowLeopard
07 Mar 07,, 06:48
Well, to throw another rock on the table, keep in mind that speed may not be the best thing. If it was, then just go with missiles and be done with it.

One of the things about bombers, in the nuclear deterrence angle, is that they can come, go, come, go, hold off at a distance, give time for our diplomats to race for an answer, and so forth.

Having a bomber that does Mach 2/3 all the way to the target can be defeating of that capability. Having a bomber that does Mach 2/3 all the way to the target might be seen by the other guy as that the side isn't really oriented to peaceful, though tense, coexistance but rather if it comes to it, wipe out the other guy quickly.

Finally, which is better, academically speaking? To have a wing or two of Mach 2/3 bombers or 2-3X that of the slower birds? Make it more expensive for him. Make him pay more to be able to out the ICBM's, the SLBM's, and a lot more bombers.

Strategic deterrance ........ one can go nuts with thought and counterthought of it.
------------------------------------------------------
("You don't bomb the leaders. We know that, they know that; someone has to be around to turn this damn thing off!"--Captain Monroe after receiving orders to bomb the Soviet command structure, (w,stte), "By Dawn's Early Light")

ExNavyAmerican
07 Mar 07,, 08:27
Well, to throw another rock on the table, keep in mind that speed may not be the best thing. If it was, then just go with missiles and be done with it.

One of the things about bombers, in the nuclear deterrence angle, is that they can come, go, come, go, hold off at a distance, give time for our diplomats to race for an answer, and so forth.

Having a bomber that does Mach 2/3 all the way to the target can be defeating of that capability. Having a bomber that does Mach 2/3 all the way to the target might be seen by the other guy as that the side isn't really oriented to peaceful, though tense, coexistance but rather if it comes to it, wipe out the other guy quickly.

Finally, which is better, academically speaking? To have a wing or two of Mach 2/3 bombers or 2-3X that of the slower birds? Make it more expensive for him. Make him pay more to be able to out the ICBM's, the SLBM's, and a lot more bombers.

Strategic deterrance ........ one can go nuts with thought and counterthought of it.

Agreed that bombers were safer in the area of preventing a nuclear war. But missile are better for deterrence for that very reason. The reason speed was good was so that they could proceed deep into enemy territory, bomb the target, and get out without being shot down by AA, or enemy fighters.

The thing about deterrence was that we were worried that there would come a time when we would have to kill the enemy, and save ourselves: you see, deterrence was pursued so as to save us, and planet, but that doesn't mean we didn't realize there might be a time where we would have to kill them before they did the same thing to us. That is why we had fast bombers: 1) they couldn't shoot them down easily, thereby adding to the deterrence factor, and 2) they couldn't shoot them down easily, thereby providing us with an advantage.

Those two reason were why the Russians demanded that we retire the B-58.

Shipwreck
07 Mar 07,, 21:00
A: Somewhere in that list should be Menachm Begin (sp?) since bombers was never singularly associated with aircraft.

LOL :biggrin:

RustyBattleship
08 Mar 07,, 00:16
LOL :biggrin:
Didn't you mean Osama bin Laden and Yassar Arafat?

SnowLeopard
08 Mar 07,, 07:04
Didn't you mean Osama bin Laden and Yassar Arafat?

Well, it was suppose to be something of a joke and calling him a bomber is a joke because most people don't think of him as such. Goes back to a supposedly statement in history where Begin stated he wouldn't sit at the same table as a terrorist, ie, Yassar ........ and Yassar came back and noted that because of his attack against the King David Hotel, he was a terrorist, too. I think ....... I'm pulling it all from memory and not going to bother to look it up.
----------------------------------------------
("Look, you can't walk around the UN looking like a soldier."--George, Phred's tailor as he is getting suited up to become Viet Nam's UN delegate.
"Hmmmmm, Arafat does."--Phred
"Well, Yassar's a fool! If he wore a suit, he'd have a country by now.", (w,stte), "Doonesbury")

Shipwreck
08 Mar 07,, 09:03
Didn't you mean Osama bin Laden and Yassar Arafat?

Back in July 1946, Menahem Wolfovich Begin, at the time head of Irgun, ordered the bombing of King David Hotel in Jerusalem, whose southern wing was requisitioned in 1938 to house the British secretariat and military command.

Still a highly *sensitive subject* between the UK and Israel nowadays :


British anger at terror celebration
The commemoration of Israeli bombings that killing 92 people has caused offence

By Ned Parker and Stephen Farrell
The Times
July 20, 2006

The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine.

They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”

In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946.

The plaque presents as fact the Irgun’s claim that people died because the British ignored warning calls. “For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated,” it states.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”. On Monday city officials agreed to remove the language deemed offensive from the blue sign hanging on the hotel’s gates, though that had not been done shortly before it was unveiled last night.

The controversy over the plaque and the two-day celebration of the bombing, sponsored by Irgun veterans and the right-wing Menachem Begin Heritage Centre, goes to the heart of the debate over the use of political violence in the Middle East. Yesterday Mr Netanyahu argued in a speech celebrating the attack that the Irgun were governed by morals, unlike fighters from groups such as Hamas.

“It’s very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters, and between terror action and legitimate military action,” he said. “Imagine that Hamas or Hezbollah would call the military headquarters in Tel Aviv and say, ‘We have placed a bomb and we are asking you to evacuate the area’.”

But the view of the attack was very different in 1946 when The Times branded the Irgun “terrorists in disguise”. Decades later, Irgun veterans are unrepentant. Sarah Agassi, 80, remembers spying in the King David Hotel.

She and a fellow agent posed as a couple. They danced tangos and waltzes, sipped whisky and wine while they cased out the hotel.

On the day her brother and his fellow fighters posed as Arabs delivering milk and brought seven milk churns, each containing 50kg of explosives, into the building. Ms Agassi waited across the street until her brother rushed out. She said that she then made the warning call to the British command in the hotel.

Sitting in the luxurious hotel lobby, she expressed no regret. “We fought for our independence. We thought it was the right way . . . If I had to fight for Israel, I swear even now I would do anything.”

TWO VERSIONS

The original wording:

The Hotel housed the Mandate Secretariat as well as the Army Headquarters. On July 1946 (sic) Irgun fighters at the order of the Hebrew Resistance Movement planted explosives in the basement. Warning phone calls had been made urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately. For reasons known only to the British the hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded, and to the Irgun’s regret and dismay 91 persons were killed.

The amended version

. . .Warning phone calls had been made to the hotel, the Palestine Post and the French Consulate, urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately.

The hotel was not evacuated, and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded. The entire western wing was destroyed, and to the Irgun’s regret 92 persons were killed.

Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece)