B-17G Cutaway

• May 5, 2004

• #141

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

It's good picture though, don't you think?

 

• May 5, 2004

• #142

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

not really, it doesn't show the ful scale of the B-36.............

 

• May 5, 2004

• #143

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

I'll try and get one next to a B-29.

 

• May 8, 2004

• #144

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

there is somewhere, it's in the Big bombers topic...........

 

• May 10, 2004

• #145

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

I know, I posted it...

 

• May 11, 2004

• #146

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

fiar doos........

and do you think the B-36 would have got shot down by the germans if they had taken brittian and had to bomb from america........

 

• May 11, 2004

• #147

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

It would have been a situation similar to the unescorted raids of 1943 since no fighter was going to make that distance (although tests were done using a B-36 to tow or carry a fighter under the fuselage). The B-36 had some pretty awesome firepower and more accurate sights. I'm not claiming that the B-36 was invulnerable, but it did have a better chance than a B-17 on its own.

 

• May 11, 2004

• #148

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

I heard of tests of B-29s carrying a Mustang under each wing for escorts...

Now that's some crazy idea.

 

• May 11, 2004

• #149

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

I've never heard of that. Would have been interesting. I've got a book with a pic of a B-36 carrying an F-84 Thunderstreak under it's fuselage though.

 

• May 12, 2004

• #150

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

remeber it would take one hell of allot of shots to bring one down..............

 

• May 12, 2004

• #151

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

Yeah, it would have been immensely tough. But the 30mm shells the Germans used in their interceptors were terribly lethal.

 

• May 12, 2004

• #152

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

It depends where you hit it, if those 30mm punish the wing roots the wing could just fall off.

 

• May 12, 2004

• #153

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

Or a fuel tank.

 

• May 12, 2004

• #154

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

but this thinh was huge, it would be prettu tough, and it had something like 20 cannon with better sights, it would be bloody tough

 

• May 12, 2004

• #155

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Being bigger is a bigger target. And if you have a Me-262 coming at you at high speed your slow firing cannon isn't going to do much because the Swallow will be bloody hard to hit.

 

• May 12, 2004

• #156

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

but even if you did hit a fuel tank, it had a range of 10,000 miles, it's not gonna miss a bit of fuel...............

 

• May 12, 2004

• #157

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

I was talking about the Fuel tank exploding.

The B-36 carried 16 20mm cannons. Now, over Korea, B-29s with .50cal mg took their toll on MiG-15s (one actually became a MiG Ace shooting down 5). It seems reasonable that the B-36 would have shot down alot of Me-262s.

 

• May 12, 2004

• #158

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

.50 cals are a lot faster firing than 20mms. The cannon would have been hard pressed to get a hit. Losing fuel would have taken its toll on even a plane as big as that, and yes exploding would have been quite bad.

The B-29s in Korea was made obselete the Mig-15s ripped them apart.

 

• May 12, 2004

• #159

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

I know that but I was discussing their defensive argument. If the B-29 could shoot down MiG-15s, then the B-36 would have been capable of shooting down Me-262s. The lower rate of fire means few hits, but the greater power of the 20mm shell compensates for that.

 

• May 12, 2004

• #160

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Not really since it was hard enough hitting fighters with machine guns, let alone cannons. If you can't hit it, you don't do damage.