![]() |
|
|||||||
|
Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board! The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today? |
| View Poll Results: Which is the better bomber? | |||
| Tu-95 |
|
8 | 22.22% |
| B-52 |
|
24 | 66.67% |
| Neither |
|
4 | 11.11% |
| Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Patron
|
As I posted before, the B-52 has better range, speed, surface ceiling, and bomb capacity.
I also know that the T-95 costs less!! Please!!........Don't get me wrong!! I think the T-95 is a great bomber, but I think prop planes are something from the mid-20th century. I also know that both planes are older! Look!!......Some people think that price is better than performance, but I have to disagree! Look at the evolution of fighters, bombers, ect, thru the years. As a good fighter, the P-52 Mustang was a great plane, but as time pasted, countries developed better and faster fighters. Yeah! The P-52, it is cheaper to build, but it is not as good as planes that can fly faster, farther, and carry more weapons. That's just my thought. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Death, the Destroyer of Worlds...
Senior Contributor
|
Flying around in a crate crammed with turreted cannons and sighting blisters must be quaint if nothing else. Same goes for the PLA-AF's TU-16s.
__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different." |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) | |
|
Military Professional
|
Quote:
Handsome is as handsome does!
__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
|
The B-52 has dropped more bombs on more enemies, without doubt. Which means the (then) Soviets were more peace-loving?
In Vietnam 18 B-52s were lost in combat and 8 in accidents. Both types entered service in 1955 and both are still serving today. Their capabilities are fairly similar, in spite of various American sources overstating the B-52s speed, and denigrating the Bear. I don't think there is too much between the types. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) | |
|
Defense Professional
Military Professional |
Quote:
Actually, I believe the Bear saw some action with the Inidan Air Force, but I could be wrong. But what combat operations has it undertaken? My point being a lot of what the Bear may be able to do the BUFF has been doing pretty constantly since 1955. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) | |
|
Military Professional
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
|
It doesn't matter that with the not particulary successful BLACK BUCK raid the 3 types of V bomber to see service were not engaged in hot wars. They were designed for WW3, and if that lunacy had ever occured I'm sure they would have acquitted themselves well.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|