Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?

[ThomasP]

I have never done the calculations, but I have read that if the B-17F/G had deployed for operations with 17,600 lb bomb loads the normal 85 Impgal Spitfire would have been able to effectively escort it to target and back. I think this indicates that the effective B-17F/G ROA with 17,600 lbs bomb load would be about 100 miles.

 

[JDCAVE]

I previously mentioned I knew a guy that was flying both the B-17 and B-24…

Thanks!

 

[pbehn]

And this is the reason why taildraggers went away on the majority of aircraft produced after WW2, especially on military aircraft.

You "fly" a taildragger the minute the engine(s) start turning.

I was on a program where you had USAF IPs with minimal or no tail wheel time attempt to fly a motorized tail dragger glider. Many ground loops and damaged aircraft, thank god no one was killed. A bird Colonel saw the light and killed the program.

As I think you saw in my point, not about facts but perception, the reason why they were phased out is obvious but at the time it "went with the territory" no blame attached to tail wheels as there was with nose wheels.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

You may have something there.
You can actually find some accounts or even manuals that will list not only the 12,800lb internal bomb load but a max bomb load of 17,600lbs.
A pair of 4000lb bombs (American not British cookie) under the wings and six 1600lb AP bombs inside.
And again it is a total useless load except for bombing an entire city, assuming the B17 when so loaded could even make it past Dunkirk and make it back to England without running out of fuel.
The American 4000lb bomb was short and fat and wasn't going to land anywhere near where the 1600lb AP bombs were going to land.
And unless the target was the already motioned thick steel or a number of feet of concrete a normal 500lb bomb held more explosive.
A B-17 on normal structures would do more damage with eight 500LB bombs than with eight 1600lb bombs.

View attachment 666783
4000lb bomb on the right.
flying the B-17 with a pair of those metal parachutes hanging off the wings didn't do anything for the speed and range either.

However in 1940-41 there wasn't a big need to exaggerate the B-17s load because British 4 engine bombers were just trickling into service (like the B-17) and the British twin engine heavies couldn't carry much either. A 1940 Wellington with Pegasus engines didn't carry what a 1943 Wellington with Hercules engines did.

Merlin powered Wellington Mk IIs started dropping 4,000 lb HCs in April 1941.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:4000lb-high-capacity-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-17 with a max. load (internal and external stores) was mostly used to strike targets in France and vicinity from England.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As I think you saw in my point, not about facts but perception, the reason why they were phased out is obvious but at the time it "went with the territory" no blame attached to tail wheels as there was with nose wheels.

My father in law (18,000 hours, 20 years USAF, B-1 test pilot, United Air Lines 15 years) was the most humble man I ever met - one time told me "you're a REAL pilot because you could fly a taildragger!"

 

[Greg Boeser]

I have never done the calculations, but I have read that if the B-17F/G had deployed for operations with 17,600 lb bomb loads the normal 85 Impgal Spitfire would have been able to effectively escort it to target and back. I think this indicates that the effective B-17F/G ROA with 17,600 lbs bomb load would be about 100 miles.

So just a bit further than a P-39?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

So just a bit further than a P-39?

Right, but couldn't carry as much ordnance. Or at least an Expert tells me.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

From the USAAF Statistical Digest

It doesn't list 1942 but it would appear that the 4000 lb and up bombs were the exclusive province of B-29s

Correction, the B-17 carried the 4500 lb bombs. They were the rocket assisted "Disney " bombs developed by the British but used exclusively by B-17s.

 

[GrauGeist]

The US AN-M56 4,000lb. general purpose bomb was developed in 1941.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The US AN-M56 4,000lb. general purpose bomb was developed in 1941.

But was it dropped before 1945?

 

[GrauGeist]

But was it dropped before 1945?

Yes.

I've even posted photos in another thread, of the B-17 being loaded and carrying them (externally) in missions to targets in France, spring 1944.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes.

I've even posted photos in another thread, of the B-17 being loaded and carrying them (externally) in missions to targets in France, spring 1944.

There had to be donkeys involved somewhere.

 

[GrauGeist]

There had to be donkeys involved somewhere.

Not that I saw, but there were ground squirrels milling about, so you know they were the poor sobs doing the hefting!

Anyway, found some of my earlier posts with pix and info, and I was wrong about the date above, as the 303rd BG out of Molesworth, was carrying external 4,000 pounders into France in 1943.

Fake B-26 photo?

I count on both photos supplied 26 bombs. The forward bomb bay could only hold 20 100 lb bombs, in the 10 in the aft bay, however this aircraft the aft bay is closed. Sorry the picture is a fake for propaganda.

ww2aircraft.net

 

[GrauGeist]

More info/pix.
(The links look the same, but they'll land you directly on my post)

Fake B-26 photo?

I count on both photos supplied 26 bombs. The forward bomb bay could only hold 20 100 lb bombs, in the 10 in the aft bay, however this aircraft the aft bay is closed. Sorry the picture is a fake for propaganda.

ww2aircraft.net

 

[GrauGeist]

Now, on this link, my post shows the armorer's bomb loading chart.

Note that the B-17 could carry two 2,000 pounders internally as well as two 4,000 pounders externally for a 12,000 pound load - this was not it's max., but the larger bombs were found to create considerable damage not by the blast alone, but the subsequent shockwave that the blast created.
This was something the RAF built on with their "HC" series of bombs, often called "cookies".

Fake B-26 photo?

:thumbright:

ww2aircraft.net

 

[wlewisiii]

Good question but P-39 and P-38 also had nosewheels. The issues for B-24 design seemed rooted in the 'shimmy' experienced during high speed roll and would sem to me to depend somewhat on the attach infrastructure or even the stiffness of the Nose assembly more than the gear itself.

Yeah but the P-39 had an armored nose! That must have helped!

 

[ThomasP]

Hey GrauGeist,

While the external racks could carry 4000 lb bombs, as far as I know they never did on operations. Have you run across photos of the B-17F/G wiht 4000 lb bombs on ops? If so, do you know the mission or how far to the target?

The most I have run across (not counting the Disney bomb mentioned above) was 2x 2000 lb in the bomb bay, and 2x 1000 lb external (1x under each wing).

 

[GrauGeist]

Hey GrauGeist,

While the external racks could carry 4000 lb bombs, as far as I know they never did on operations. Have you run across photos of the B-17F/G wiht 4000 lb bombs on ops? If so, do you know the mission or how far to the target?

The most I have run across was 2x 2000 lb in the bomb bay, and 2x 1000 lb external (1x under each wing).

Click the link on post #334 and #335 above.
You'll see 4,000 pounders in action.

From summer 1943 onward, they bombed French targets and further inland as the war progressed.

 

[33k in the air]

Note that the B-17 could carry two 2,000 pounders internally as well as two 4,000 pounders externally for a 12,000 pound load - this was not it's max., but the larger bombs were found to create considerable damage not by the blast alone, but the subsequent shockwave that the blast created.

The B-24 could also be equipped with under-wing bomb racks which could take a 4,000-lb bomb. There is a photo of that bomb weight on such a rack on page 29 of the book I have mentioned previously. The caption reads, "De-mountable Liberator wing rack for carrying 4000 pound bomb. Elgin Field found the idea operationally unsuitable."