Best overall bomber ww2

[B-17engineer]

No offense to anyone, but the calibre of the german guns isn't 7.9mm by 57mm, its 7.92mm by 57mm, and agian, no offense to anyone.

No offense should be taken, just correcting someone.

 

[Vincenzo]

No offense to anyone, but the calibre of the german guns isn't 7.9mm by 57mm, its 7.92mm by 57mm, and agian, no offense to anyone.

if you love the precison the 7.92 it's only a name the calibre it's over 8 mm, 8.2

 

[NZTyphoon]

if you love the precison the 7.92 it's only a name the calibre it's over 8 mm, 8.2

And the source or sources for this is?

 

[riacrato]

It's true:

 

[parsifal]

Dont worry guys, I was the one who said 7.9 mm. If I was aggravated by the correction I would not hesitate to speak up. I knew the 7.9 eas actually 7.92 (but didnt know it was actually 8.2). I actually appreciate the correction, but am concentrating on getting the HYe-177 capabilities right rather than worry about the details

 

[Shortround6]

That's OK, 30-06 are really .308 and .303s are really .311-.313 and there are plenty more

As long as we understand what is meant.

 

[NZTyphoon]

It's true:

Interesting; at first I wondered if this had anything to do with the 8mm Schwartzlose, but the Schwartzlose had a shorter cartridge case (50mm cf 57 mm). An interesting diversion...8)

 

[Kurfürst]

I have to disagree with you therfore...there were major differences between the A-1 and A-5....in terms of mission specs, equipment and ordinance carried

I have the Chant book you are using as a source, but I am using the German primary docs instead. These show there were no major changes between the variants, the A-1 is listed with the same bombload possibilities as the A-3, and what secondary sources show for the A-5.

The confusion about range possibly stems from the rather complicated fuel/bomb arrangements in the 177. Basically, the type could be operated as a long range, medium range or short range bomber.

In the latter, all three bomb bays were used for carrying bombs, in the former, one or two forward bomb bays were used to store fuel tanks. Actually the fuselage fuel tanks were right above the bomb bay, and they simply replaced the forward ones with larger fuel tanks, that also occupied the first two bomb bays. But this was present possibility the same way on the A-1 as it was on the A-5.. basically the engines have changed (DB 606 to DB 610 on the A-3) and the defensive armament (MG 151s on some A-3 subtypes and all A-5s). Its possible of course that A-5s were more often configured for long range in practice, given that the type was used extensively as an anti shipping platform.

The German datasheet from June 1942 gives the following:

 

[parsifal]

Okay, what you are saying does make sense, although I was unaware of the A-1 (or the A-3) ever being used for anti-shipping strikes. Maybe the A-1 was attritioned off before the type started to be used for anti-shipping duties

 

[wilscor41]

What debate?
The B-29 could haul a greater bombload further, faster and higher
It could also absorb more damage


...and take that ridiculous shirt off

Colin this is Jack from usa, if your last name is Campbell Oi!
If not my apologies

 

[Colin1]

Colin this is Jack from the USA, if your last name is Campbell Oi!
If not my apologies

Hi Jack
no apology required but spookily close! The lad who sat behind me at secondary school (11 - 16yrs) was called Colin Campbell!