Versatile Heavy Bombers

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lanc the B-24 carried lifeboats also and would drop them into the water just like a Lancaster to rescue people.

And lets see the Lancaster B MK.1 was a conversion (aka modification) of the Lancaster MK.1 to carry the Grand Slam bomb. The Bomb Bay doors also had to be removed to do so as well as aerodynamic fairings fitted. So the regular Lancaster could not carry a Grand Slam.

Also my understanding was that the Lancaster required modification to the bomb bay doors as well as the bomb bay in order to carry the Tall Boy bombs.

Also lets see this is just what I found upond doing a quick google search:

The weight of the Tallboy and the high altitude required of the bombing aircraft meant that the Lancaster bombers used had to be specially adapted. Armour plating and even defensive armament were removed to reduce weight and the bomb-bay doors had to be adapted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb

So you were saying Lanc that the the Lancaster did not have to be modified to carry a Tallboy bomb? Think that one over again. Basically what I am saying here Lanc is what is good for the Lanc is good for other other aircraft also. Just because other aircraft had to be modified does not mean the Lancaster had to be modified either. The same goes for the Lancaster vs. B-24.

Dont discredit things about the B-24 and automatically assume the Lancaster was different. They were a lot more equal in versatility than you would like to admit.
 
Glider said:
Why lower?
Click to expand...

The Jetstream for one. The B29's flying at 30,000 feet couldnt hit anything with winds of 200 mph blowing them and the bombs around

Second is the fighter threat was nil.

Third is the Japanese flak was poor.
 
I understand that but you said that the B29 would have to operate at less than 20,000 ft over Japan, whilst the Jetstream as I understand it is at 30,000 ft.
 
Jet Streams are found between 7 to 8 miles above the surface. Therfore yes theoretically the B-29's did not need to be below 20,000 ft. I can not tell you at what alltitude they were bombing at though.
 
Im going to enquire on the B29 website what altitudes they bombed at in the last few months of the war.

I know it was below 30,000 ft, but nothing like getting verifying info from the men who flew the missions
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Agreed. I am sure it was not below 20,000ft however. That would have just been dumb, the Japanese airforce was not dead yet. Close but not dead.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I'm am with you Lanc on this one, I think that the Lancaster is more versitile than the B-24. Both could do a great many roles well and were used in these roles, both are good aircraft but the Lanc has it for me.
 
The B-29 bombed from as low as 7,000ft when firebombing.

I think Adler is right in that the B-24 could do any role the Lanc could do and that through modifications the B-24 could also do most if not all the test bed functions of the Lanc (in fact there is a cargo version of the B-24 still doing fire bombing in the northwest, I've seen it).

I do feel though that tha Lanc, maybe just through the British willingness to try oddball things, slightly more versatile than the B-24 in actual use.

wmaxt
 
to carry a tallboy no modifications were needed, the only one nessisary was the fitting of slightly bulged bomb bay doors, the lancs chosen to carry the tallboy already had these due to the 8,000lb blockbuster, and to carry a grand slam the only modification needed was the romoval of the bomb bay doors (the british liked smooth things so they faired in the bomb bay too), the turrets and men were only romoved in the actual operational lancs to increase range, the could lift it with the turrets and men in place............
 

Attachments

  • mki_pb995_special_with_aandaee_to_asses_range_with_grand_slam_30_july_45_796.jpg
    17 KB · Views: 231

Lanc listen to yourself. That is a modification of the Lancaster. The bomb would not fit in there with the standard doors.

I do have to say Lanc you need to let go of your one sidedness here and realize what you are saying. That is a modification!
 
you said it needed modification to take a tallboy! it doesn't, it needs modification to take a grand slam! were you getting your bombs mixed up?
 
Putting in slightly modified bomb bay doors for the Lanc. is a minor change. Probably could be done by a few mechanics in a few hours. Wouldnt change the aerodymamics to any big deal of the plane either.
 
are you aware of how big the tallboy is? the B-24 could just bout take the weight but where're you gonna put it? it aint going in the B-24's bomb bay.....
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
didn't crews also enter the B-24 through the bomb bay?
Click to expand...
I believe so - I also think there was a door near the tail. I was in one once several years ago, I remember entering from the bomb bay.
 
thanks for clarifying that, sorry for the missunderstanding..........

and is that a general statement about the B-24 or just for a tallboy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Axis Strategic Heavy Bombers?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
German heavy bombers
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
D
"Self-inflicted" heavy bombers damages in 8th Air Force
Replies
2
Views
1K
Daniel BASTIEN
D
K
Frances bombers massacre 24 October 1944
Replies
0
Views
705
Keith1967
K
high altitude bomber
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register