What is Digg?119 Comments
- martynda, on 10/20/2007, -1/+17How about that it's just cool to see big-ass planes that are amazingly engineered?
- glucoseboy, on 10/19/2007, -0/+15B52 in service till 2045? They went into service in 1955, so a 90-year design life? Wow, that's absolutely amazing for any piece of machinery.
From Wikipedia:
The USAF continues to rely on the B-52 because it remains an effective economical heavy bomber, particularly in the type of missions that have been conducted since the end of the Cold War, mainly against nations that have limited air defense capabilities. The B-52's capacity to "loiter" for extended periods over (or even well outside) the battlefield, while delivering precision standoff and direct fire munitions, has been a valuable asset in conflicts such as Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
The speed and stealth of the B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit have only been useful until enemy air defenses were destroyed, a task that has been swiftly achieved in recent conflicts. The B-52 boasts the highest mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers operated by the USAF. Whereas the B-1 averages a 53% ready rate,[62] and the B-2 achieved a 26%, the B-52 averages 80%.[62 - reuscel, on 10/19/2007, -8/+21Wow. Just think of all the freedom we could spread with these.
- hydroplane, on 10/19/2007, -1/+13B-17 #1 in my book for destroying the Nazis.
- sensoukami, on 10/19/2007, -0/+12I've always thought the B-17 was an awesome looking plane...
- hokie47, on 10/19/2007, -1/+11I am anti-war, but I am also pro military and feel that we should keep our military strong by wisely investing in improvements and manpower.
Get out of Iraq not dismantle our military. There is a difference. - tehpwnrate, on 10/19/2007, -2/+12You forgot to mention the 150 *****-tons of stealth flying wing badassery,
- fadeout, on 10/18/2007, -6/+16No stuka?
- baalzebub, on 10/18/2007, -0/+9my favorite is the B 17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9UfNaTcDpM - vault, on 10/19/2007, -9/+17Stealth bomber should've been #1, but dugg anyway.
- AMCer, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7Are you high? $2.2B is not much for having a virtually un-detectable bomber. The lack of aircraft losses along with it's ability to go deep and knock ***** out is worth that! The psychological affect on the enemy of not knowing if/when they are going to die in a bomb run is gravy!
As ugly as I think it is, the B2 is the best bomber yet. - cmiz, on 10/18/2007, -1/+8I'm surprised it didn't have the B-1B Lancer on there. It's more advanced than the B-52, but more realistic/utilitarian than the B-2
- Liembo, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6No B-36 Peacemaker, either? "Six turning and four burning!"
- adml_shake, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6I saw a show about the B-52 on the History Channel a while back, and the coolest thing about it I thought was that they interviewed a pilot who's father had piloted that same plane when he was in the Air Force.
- D3IM0S, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6The thought of a B-52 unleashing 70,000lbs of bombs each makes me shudder. Additionally, some respect needs to be given to an aircraft design that will be 95 years old when it's finally taken out of service!
- DeskFlyer, on 10/18/2007, -1/+7Nice list, though I would have included the B-25 Mitchell.
- Genady, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8Those are both Tactical Fighters, not Bombers.
- inactive, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6the B-52 is right to be at #1, but the B-29 should have been at #2
- sUGArDawg, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5Hell yeah, the BUFF rules. Current crewmember here
- wickedbuddha, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5I agree, and the B-52 is the only true all-weather bomber.
- allan17, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5The only reason it costs so much is because there were not many of them ordered. Had there been tons of them made like previous bombers, the price wodld have been much lower.
It works this way for all aircraft. - Argus2m, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5B-24 should have make the list. It closed the mid Atlantic gap and had as much of a role in WWII as the B-17.
- adml_shake, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5You are dugg down for your lack of star was knowledge.
- dagnabbit, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5What?
- sUGArDawg, on 10/18/2007, -3/+7It's not as capable (capacity/weapons), nor as reliable as the B-52
- moskaudancer, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4You don't have to be "pro-war" to appreciate excellent engineering abilities.
- tremor_tj, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4You're thinking of the B-25.
- dwright99, on 10/19/2007, -2/+6Or how about most here are full of *****.
- tmbrwolf19, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4Millennium Falcon = Cargo Ship
The correct answers were: Y-Wing, B-Wing, or Tie Bomber - sUGArDawg, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3"more advanced" doesn't equal better bomber. The B-52 has more diverse weapon capacity, and a much better ready-rate
- codehkr77, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3 I love the B-1
- digghasnoethics, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3Where was the Tu-22M Backfire?
Lose a fortress for that easy. - wickedbuddha, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I was a crew chief on a B-52 and had friends that were on the B-1, they said it was always breaking down.
- glucoseboy, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2yeah, people forget the Liberator and how it was used early in the war.
- inactive, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I concur. What?
- MrARPA, on 11/07/2007, -1/+3Good to see the Mosquito there, I was expecting it to be very US-centric.
- cmiz, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Under 'Armament', wikipedia lists the B-1 payload at 75,000 lbs and the B-52 payload at 60,000 lbs, is this correct? If so, I guess the B-1 can actually carry more ordnance than the B-52. I've never actually had any experience flying either or anything like that... I've just heard a lot about the B-1 and had always heard that it was rather impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52 - scrumdiddly, on 10/19/2007, -1/+3Uh, and the Vulcan appears where? I agree with the first two choices but the Vulcan, or one of the other V bombers should be #3. We had such great designs back then.
- inactive, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3god damn mongolians!
- nimski, on 10/22/2007, -2/+4And no IL-2 either. Seems more like a theoretical list, rather than a 'most effective bombers in history' list.
- ReligionOfPeace, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Ditto. It'd probably tie with the JU-88, though, in fairness. For versatility, no one's beaten the Mitchell. I imagine that many people don't know the various taskings that the B-25 was given.
Granted, the first few models weren't so impressive. But that's true of any plane in long production. I think anyone who could see one do a strafing run supplemented with that frigging 76mm cannon would be surprised. - Genady, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2They dissed the BONE man! No one disses the BONE! BOW BEFORE THE BONE!
- moskaudancer, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I'm glad it wasn't; I'm a Yank, but would have been disappointed not to see the Lancaster.
- BabyWookie, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2IL-2... what the Germans referred to as the "Black Death". My grandpa flew one of those and killed 17 German tanks. Got a direct hit from a 39mm flack once. Had 5 shrapnel pieces in him, but landed safely.
- dwright99, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3How I played computer war games and learned to love the bomber.
- acdcfanbill, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Dugg for Heavy Metal.
- AMCer, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2My bad! I meant Stratojet was 'eh', not the Stratofortress... The B-52 kicks ass!
- sensoukami, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2The B-1 doesn't have the B-52s service history and longevity, plus there wasn't that many of them. It's more of a footnote than a Top 10...
- CaymanCarpediem, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Digg also has a heavy science, math, physics, engineering crowd presense. So while we can applaud these aircraft as the amazing marvels of engineering they were/are you can applaud them for all the people they have killed. See win/win.
I actually am also pro-gun rights, but against murdering people with guns. Does that hurt your head trying to figure out? Yeah, I'm just a riddle ;-) -
Show 51 - 100 of 112 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is