Bomb and Bomb-Bay Sizes

For B-17 internal loads, see page 410 of Erection and Maintenance Instructions for Army Model B-17G / British Model Fortress II Airplanes (AN 01-20EG-2 dated 25 August 1944). That page shows for various bomb types the maximum number of stations on the bomb racks which could simultaneously carry that bomb type. The main loads of interest:

24 x 100-lb AN-M30 GP
24 x 100-lb AN-M47 incendiary
24 x 120-lb AN-M1A1/M2A1 fragmentation clusters
16 x 250-lb AN-M57 GP
16 x 300-lb M31 Demolition
12 x 500-lb AN-M43/AN-M64 GP
16 x 500-lb AN-M58 SAP
10 x 1,000-lb AN-Mk 33 AP
06 x 1,000-lb AN-M44/AN-M65 GP
08 x 1,000-lb AN-M59 SAP
06 x 1,600-lb AN-Mk 1 AP
02 x 2,000-lb AN-M34/AN-M66 GP

Operationally, the maximum load for some bombs was increased through the use of cluster adapters which allowed more than one bomb to be carried by a bomb rack station. (These same cluster adapters were used in the B-24 and B-29 to greatly increase their small bomb capacities.) The new B-17 maximums:

38 x 100-lb AN-M30 GP
42 x 100-lb AN-M47 incendiary
38 x 120-lb AN-M1A1/M2A1 fragmentation clusters
20 x 250-lb AN-M57 GP
18 x 300-lb M31 Demolition
16 x 500-lb AN-M43/AN-M64 GP

The aircraft could also carry a maximum of 30 x 260-lb AN-M81 fragmentation bombs internally..

I'm uncertain of the number of 150-lb T1 GP that could be carried internally. (The T1 is a little-known bomb that was developed as a more powerful substitute for the 100-lb AN-M30 GP. The bombers of the 8th Air Force dropped 74,920 of these bombs during the last two months of the war.) Given that the T1 had the same diameter as the AN-M30, presumably similar numbers could be carried,, since a bomb's diameter was a key limiting factor in how many could be carried.

wuzak said:

These mission reports confuse me.

View attachment 794411

View attachment 794412

12 x 1,000lb bomb load seems unlikely, especially with additional incendiary bombs.

12 x 1,000lb + 38 x M47A1 (nominally 100lb) seems impossible.

Are these the load across the group?

Click to expand...

The most likely explanation is a typo plus poor phrasing. If the load said, "12 x 500 lb GP or 38 x M47A1 incendiaries" then the loads would be entirely in keeping with what I posted earlier.

Great work, J Jugman .

wuzak said:

Is the 4,000lb M2, a 4,000lb HC Mk.2? Or is it an MC?

Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain M2 refers to 4,000 lb HC bombs filled with Minol-2, an explosive with a significantly greater blast effect than the previous fillings of Amatol 60/40 or 50/50. British records sometimes list separately bombs with such more powerful fillings -- the same thing happened with 1,000 lb MC bombs filled with RDX/TNT 60/40 instead of the usual Amatol 60/40 or 50/50.

The strength of these fillings relative to TNT (peak blast pressure):

095 = Amatol 60/40
097 = Amatol 50/50
100 = TNT
110 = RDX/TNT 60/40
115 = Minol-2

From Harris' Despatch on War Operations 1942-1945:

In the middle of 1943, improved fillings became available for HE bombs, the first of these being RDX/TNT,
which was filled into 500-lb and 1,000-lb MC bombs from July onwards. At approximately the same time,
small quantities of Torpex became available, and this was used in 12,000-lb HC bombs. Towards the end of
the year, Minol was filled into 4,000-lb HC bombs, becoming standard for these bombs and also, subsequently, for the smaller MC types. No troubles were encountered with any of these fillings and their increased power over Amatol fillings proved of great value.

Jugman said:

Back to the main target.
A comparison of bomb loads between AAF bombers . . .

Click to expand...

The maximum loads for the B-32, late model, AAFPGC test findings:

40 x 100-lb AN-M30 GP
40 x 500-lb AN-M64 GP
12 x 1,000-lb AN-M65 GP
08 x 1,600-lb AN-Mk 1 AP
08 x 2,000-lb AN-M66 GP
04 x 4,000-lb AN-M56 LC
40 x 500-lb T4E4 frag clusters
36 x 500-lb E46 or E48 incendiary clusters
40 x E28 or E36 incendiary clusters

With the use of cluster adapters:

112 x 100-lb AN-M30 GP
112 x 100-lb M12 incendiary clusters
136 x 100-lb AN-M47 incendiary
080 x 260-lb AN-M81 fragmentation

The E28 is an E6R2 cluster adapter and 38 6lb M69 incendiaries. The E38 is probably an E6R2 filled with something else. The E46 may be the M-19 (M23 cluster adapter and 38 M69s).
The E48 is an M23 filled with 38 10lb M74 incendiaries.
The dimensions of these cluster adapters and the M6 (used in the M1/M7 and M9) and M7 (M2/M13) cluster adapters and the M43/M64 500lb GP bomb:

wuzak said:

Greg's Planes and Automobiles weighed in on the Mosquito vs the B-17 debate.


View: https://youtu.be/7Wdq0bkRdzE?si=8Hatj475yXgU7ONF
It is mostly fair.

To me it does seem like he suggests that the "cookie" was only used against cities, and the "cookie" was the only 4,000lb bomb that the Mosquito could carry.

And he seemed to suggest that it was only used against cities.

Also suggests that RAF accuracy was measured against the area of an entire city, compared to USAAF using a 1,000ft circle around the aiming point.

Click to expand...

The RAF aiming for cities is BS. To get a firestorm you need concentration. As I have pointed out in the Past according to the USSBS report on oil the RAF achieved better overall accuracy than the USAAF. The USSAF did well on clear days but those days were few.

The method the Eighth Air Force used of bombing in formation meant that many of the bombs would miss the target, no matter how good the aim.

IIRC in that video Greg argues that it was OK if US bombs missed, because they would hit workers' housing and kill them.

But surely that is thr same as targetting an area within a city?

wuzak said:

The method the Eighth Air Force used of bombing in formation meant that many of the bombs would miss the target, no matter how good the aim.

IIRC in that video Greg argues that it was OK if US bombs missed, because they would hit workers' housing and kill them.

But surely that is thr same as targetting an area within a city?

Click to expand...

The 8th AF dropped a large portion of its bombs by radar which can only be area bombing. Read the papers I have posted previously.