The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[the lancaster kicks ass]

B-29's were flown and tested with 2 Tallboys on pylons - no sweat. There were also tests and plans to have it carry internally the 42,000 pound T-12. For that its bomb bay had to be modified. Testing in this configuration continued into 1946. Here's a site about it, good stuff....

VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS. Bomb, SAP, 25,000-lb, T28E4

dude at no point am i doubting the B-29's abilities to carry bigger payloads than the lanc, nowhere in those few posts have i said the lanc carried bigger payloads than the B-29 i'm getting annoyed now that everytime i comment regarding the B-29 and lanc that i'm trying to say the lanc is the better bomber, i make the exact opposite explicitly clear if you take the effort to read my posts! this all started from me saying the lanc had a bigger, more versatile bomb bay that allowed a greater range of weapons to be carried internally, and that was only in responce to a post from annother member, in reply everyone is posting about the B-29 carrying loads externally which i'd already talked about! jeezz....

 

[syscom3]

Lanc, in what way is the Lancaster better than the B29?

In fact, to be fair, do you think the Lincoln was a better plane?

 

[k9kiwi]

To quote the shortest sentence ever written.

"Jesus wept".

 

[FLYBOYJ]

dude at no point am i doubting the B-29's abilities to carry bigger payloads than the lanc, nowhere in those few posts have i said the lanc carried bigger payloads than the B-29 i'm getting annoyed now that everytime i comment regarding the B-29 and lanc that i'm trying to say the lanc is the better bomber, i make the exact opposite explicitly clear if you take the effort to read my posts! this all started from me saying the lanc had a bigger, more versatile bomb bay that allowed a greater range of weapons to be carried internally, and that was only in responce to a post from annother member, in reply everyone is posting about the B-29 carrying loads externally which i'd already talked about! jeezz....

Well gee Lanc, do you think there's an obvious reason why we're a little gun-shy???

 

[johnbr]

For me it is the B29 big bomb load and long range.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Lanc, in what way is the Lancaster better than the B29?

In fact, to be fair, do you think the Lincoln was a better plane?

oh for christ's sake! are you incapable of understanding something a 16 year old's saying i've tried to make it as explicitly clear as possible that i'm not arguing for the lanc being the better bomber, i was simply commenting on their bomb bays in responce to annother member's post! go back, read all my posts carefully, i make it explicitly clear if you take the time to read them as opposed to just reading me say "lanc" and "B-29" and assume i'm contradicting myself by arguing for the lanc being the better bomber, because i've made it quite clear i'm not!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

i make it explicitly clear if you take the time to read them as opposed to just reading me say "lanc" and "B-29" and assume i'm contradicting myself by arguing for the lanc being the better bomber, because i've made it quite clear i'm not!

Are you sure!?!?

 

[plan_D]

lanc, my picture was of a B-29A with a Grand Slam. It's carrying the load in the exact same way as the Lancaster, "semi-recessed". How is the Lancaster's bomb-bay more diverse? When the B-29 can carry the same equipment internally too.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it can't carry a tallboy internally, it can't carry a 12,000lb HC bomb internally, it can't carry an 8,000lb HC bomb internally, i don't know the exact dimensions but you'd have to be quite abstract to get a cookie in there, not to mention the range of different payloads, in one lanc you can fit a massive variety of different bombs in one go, pictures i've found of the B-29's bomb bays arrangement seem to be suggestive of the bomb bays being particularly suited to carrying pretty much one size of bomb at a time, and i believe the biggest the yanks had in that range was the 2,000lber? the only modification i've seen for the B-29 even attempting to carry the tallboy internally still has the tallboy semi-recessed..........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Uh Lanc the B-29 had a larger bombay than the Lancaster so how was the Lancasters more versatile? The B-29 could carry the same weapons internally as the Lancaster.

You need to post some evidence for that arguement of yours because its not true.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

length of tallboy- 21ft

length of B-29's bomb bays- each one was 13ft 6 inches, she had two but there was the huge wing spar running between them, ruling out the tallboy internally.........

the 12,000lb HC bomb would also be ruled out owing to similar dimensions

this diagram

also suggests that bombs were only carried facing each other on those racks and bombs were not faced outwards into the centre? I'm also struggling to find dimensions of the cookie and 8,000lb bomb, however if the bombs are stacked in pairs to the sides then no racks would be available anyway and I'd imagine it'd be a squeeze in terms of bomb diammeter...........

Lancaster Bomb Loads

that site lists a number of the lancaster's standard payloads, many of which carry a wide range of different bombs and commanders knew that for whatever bombing they were doing the lancs could carry any combination of RAF bombs for the exact desired effect, the bomb loads were easily adjusted to what was needed allowing many, many more possabilities that were not "standard"

as a final note on bbomb bay versatility after the dams raid, all lancs were converted back into standard bombers no different to any other lancs and were back on normal ops in the next few weeks............

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good info, where did you get that diagram at?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

sorry should've said, source on right click, or just go straight to B-29 Cutaways: 39th Bomb Group (VH) there are some very interesting shots on that page.........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

To carry oversized bombs internally the B-29 had to be modified and there were plans to modify several for this role.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Cool thanks guys, learned something new.

 

[Mtr Bao]

My vote goes to the He-111 for providing the opp'ty for so many of our brave lads to get onto the score board.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

what the and just how many Americans actually shot down He-111s? after the BoB they were mostly used on the eastern front, and there were easier bombers to shoot down.............

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Interesting concept I guess.

 

[daishi12]

My vote goes to the He-111 for providing the opp'ty for so many of our brave lads to get onto the score board.

Hi Lanc, do you think that it is possible for an American to have a sense of irony? There were Americans flying in the BoB (I think about 15-20) so they obviously made the vast majority of the He-111 kills

But seriously, the He-111 was a good aircraft for it's original design criteria, and was one of the mainstays of the Luftwaffe until it was rendered obsolete.

 

[evangilder]

Wow, thanks for doubling the number of Americans in the BoB. There were only 7 Americans that flew in the BoB. Unfortunatlly, some Americans don;t know that there was actually a war going on in Europe before we got involved! Morons.