Comparing bomb load effectiveness

fastmongrel · May 26, 2013

RAF bombs missed by up to 1,000 yards. USAAF bombs hit within a radius of 1,000 yards

Shortround6 · May 26, 2013

tyrodtom said:
Have you got any sources for those "properly conducted tests " ?

To reduce the errors in testing from dropping from aircraft;

Little David - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original 4000lb cookies tended to tumble in flight which makes predicting the path a little difficult. Some had a hollow drum attached to the back which was supposed to help but I don't know if the flat front and hollow drum rear gave as steady a flight path as a pointy front ( or semi-pointy) and regular fins.

The USAAC used very few 1600lbs. They get listed a lot as they make an airplane sound like it has a very impressive bomb load. The have a much thicker casing than a "normal" GP bomb and are actually smaller in diameter than a 1000lb bomb. They carried less explosive than a 500lb GP bomb ( here is one example of weight of bomb vs weight of explosive) but fit rather nicely in small bomb bays. Unless attacking armoured ships or concrete they really weren't much good.

Planes do have an effect on accuracy. Some bombers were known to "snake" or yaw a bit from side to side as they flew which affects not only the bomb aimer but the drop it self.

mhuxt · May 26, 2013

fastmongrel said:
RAF bombs missed by up to 1,000 yards. USAAF bombs hit within a radius of 1,000 yards

"I see what you did there."

tyrodtom · May 26, 2013

Shortround6 said:
To reduce the errors in testing from dropping from aircraft;

Little David - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original 4000lb cookies tended to tumble in flight which makes predicting the path a little difficult. Some had a hollow drum attached to the back which was supposed to help but I don't know if the flat front and hollow drum rear gave as steady a flight path as a pointy front ( or semi-pointy) and regular fins.

The USAAC used very few 1600lbs. They get listed a lot as they make an airplane sound like it has a very impressive bomb load. The have a much thicker casing than a "normal" GP bomb and are actually smaller in diameter than a 1000lb bomb. They carried less explosive than a 500lb GP bomb ( here is one example of weight of bomb vs weight of explosive) but fit rather nicely in small bomb bays. Unless attacking armoured ships or concrete they really weren't much good.

Planes do have an effect on accuracy. Some bombers were known to "snake" or yaw a bit from side to side as they flew which affects not only the bomb aimer but the drop it self.

I don't see how a aircraft bomb could be fired from that motar without damaging the tailfin.

I know the Northrop flying wing had yaw problems bad enough to make it what was considered a bad bomb platform, but what other aircraft had serious problems with this ?

Maxrobot1 · May 26, 2013

I have always wondered why they just didn't load B-17s and B-24s with lots of 100 or 200 pound bombs when going after factories or refineries. Looking at strike photos it sure looks like a lot of 500 pounders just made holes in farmer's fields. If they dropped a 100 pounder through the roof of a machine shop it would put the gear out of production just as well as a 500 pdr. If the number of bombs dropped in a raid was doubled, the chances of getting a direct hit would increase, right?

wuzak · May 26, 2013

Maxrobot1 said:
I have always wondered why they just didn't load B-17s and B-24s with lots of 100 or 200 pound bombs when going after factories or refineries. Looking at strike photos it sure looks like a lot of 500 pounders just made holes in farmer's fields. If they dropped a 100 pounder through the roof of a machine shop it would put the gear out of production just as well as a 500 pdr. If the number of bombs dropped in a raid was doubled, the chances of getting a direct hit would increase, right?

The USAAF preferred larger bombs for factories - because they did more damage.

The smaller bombs - 100lb and 250lb - didn't quite do so much damage, and weren't particularly good for knocking out equipment.

There were plenty of times that they did use the 100lb and 250lb bombs, though. And most of the effects were more potholes in farmer's fields (which, btw, usually mean they have missed the target completely, as factories tended to be in towns/cities).

nuuumannn · May 27, 2013

Some bombers were known to "snake" or yaw a bit from side to side as they flew which affects not only the bomb aimer but the drop it self.

Yes, snaking or excessive yawing would affect accuracy, but then that's where pilot skill comes into effect. "Some bombers"; in which ones was this a specific issue? Can you provide examples of aircraft in which this affected the fall of bombs over a particular target during the war?

Shortround6 · May 27, 2013

tyrodtom said:
I don't see how a aircraft bomb could be fired from that motar without damaging the tailfin.

I know the Northrop flying wing had yaw problems bad enough to make it what was considered a bad bomb platform, but what other aircraft had serious problems with this ?

They could use a Sabot to adjust to the size of the bomb. Sabot could be built to push against bomb body rather than the fins.

I can't remember the number/types of bombers offhand but quite a few went through modified vertical tail surfaces from prototype to production or even during production and some types were chosen over others in competitions due to yawing. Not all tail modifications were due to bomb run snaking though.

gjs238 · May 29, 2013

From Wikipedia regarding the B-26:
According to an article in the April 2009 edition of AOPA Pilot on Kermit Weeks' "Fantasy of Flight", the Marauder had a tendency to "hunt" in yaw. This instability is similar to "Dutch roll". This would make for a very uncomfortable ride, especially for the tail gunner.

Would that affect accuracy?

tyrodtom · May 29, 2013

gjs238 said:
From Wikipedia regarding the B-26:
According to an article in the April 2009 edition of AOPA Pilot on Kermit Weeks' "Fantasy of Flight", the Marauder had a tendency to "hunt" in yaw. This instability is similar to "Dutch roll". This would make for a very uncomfortable ride, especially for the tail gunner.

Would that affect accuracy?

Yes it would, the aircraft would be moving around it's center of gravity, the tail is a lot more distant from the cog than the nose, but the bombadier in the nose would experience the same movements as the tailgunner, just not as severe.

Civettone · Jun 1, 2013

I would just like to add that post-war interrogation at German factories revealed that heavy bombs were much more destructive than an equivalent mass of smaller bombs. To put it in other words, better one 2,000 lbs bomb than two or even three 1,000 lbs bombs.

Kris

Comparing bomb load effectiveness

More options

fastmongrel

1st Sergeant

Shortround6

Major General

mhuxt

Staff Sergeant

tyrodtom

Senior Master Sergeant

Maxrobot1

Senior Airman

wuzak

Captain

nuuumannn

Major

Shortround6

Major General

gjs238

Tech Sergeant

tyrodtom

Senior Master Sergeant

Civettone

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads