Versatile Heavy Bombers

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

if youre saying that the bomb bays didnt need extensive modification to carry the bombs, I will yield to your facts.

I would consider "extensive" or "moderate" modifications as having the airframe changed to the point it would have to go to hanger for the work, maybe even bringing in an engineer to look at it to see that the plane wont fall apart from the change.

And the B24 couldnt be chnaged without major work done. The center "aisle" was a stress bearing part of the airframe. If you move it, it looks like the longitudal strength of the fuselauge would be compromised.
 
that's america's most widely used bombs, the british 4,000lb cookie was one of the best bombs of the war, and one of the most effective.........
 
Lanc even you said that the Lancaster could not fit a Tallboy into its bombay with the standard doors. So a modified Lancaster had to carry them. Whether that modification was intended for the Tallboy or the Grandslam or whatever bomber it was. That slight modification is still a modification.

Here are your words:

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,

Lanc that is a modificaton, and without it the Tallboys would not have fit.
 
I think we have to discriminate to allow certain changes. There is a world of difference in trying to fit a bomb such as the Tallboy or even a 4,000 lb bomb into a bomb bay that isn't big enough and would involve structural changes to get it to fit. As opposed to bulged doors and the removal of some armour.
Also of course, the Lancaster changes had been designed, built and used in anger. Any other bomber would have had to start from scratch.
 
Interestingly Churchill used a B-24 as his personal transport aircraft, his own preferance according to some sources,



B-24 served on every front of the war, Lancaster was Europe only
B-24 production was 18,188 produced to the Lancasters 7,366.
The B-24 did a wider variety of roles during the war than the Lancaster, primarily because there was more of them and because it could do them very well. It was the best maritime patrol aircraft the allies had thanks to its range it could reach deep into the Atlantic to close the gap against the Uboats. It had range second only to the B-29 and by the end of the war was cleared for almost twice it's original take off weight, though it was very difficult to fly in that configuration. The B-24 was the classic all rounder, good in a huge variety of roles but outstanding in none.

The Lancaster was the most versitile bomber, in that it did those other tasks like patrol and transport but not really superior to or even as well as the B-24. But it did a lot more tricky and fancy bombing raids with 'exotic' weaponry like the Dambusters, Tirpitz raid, and various other extremely demanding precision bombing missions that few, if any, other aircraft could have performed as successfully.

If you talking about versitility in all tasks, the B-24 was the best all rounder hands down, but if your talking specificially about versitility in bombing missions then the Lanc is the clear winner.
 
yes but then Churchill and the King used an Avro York as their transport of choice, the York of course using a large number of lancaster components.............

and adler I realise that if a lanc intended to carry the tallboy and already had the "straight" bomb bay doors as i call them (not bulged) then they would have to be fitted, i only said the lanc wouldn't need out and out modification because most lancasters already had the bulged bomb bay doors fitted by this point, i can't say for sure but they may already have been standard by this point..........

and the lancaster was used very successfully in the maritime patrol role post war.............
 
Still I think thats what makes some of these bombers so versatile what the fact that they were so modifiable and it was easy to do too, much easier than it would be to do the same to a B-1 or 52. Not just the Lanc was modifiable but look at all the mutations of the B-17. I think the coolest one was the airsea rescue version. It even appeared in a James Bond movie, I think it was You Only LIve Twice.

:{)
 

I agree 100%%%%
 

Roger that they allready had it, just that we understand that that was a modification.

However my personal take on the matter is, both bombers were extremely versatile and I think they were both equal in that aspects.
 
I guess that I'm going to have to vote for the German HE177 Grief bomber.

The rational is that it served as:

strategic bomber,

tacticaul bomber,

anti-shipping bomber,

anti-shipping rocket platform,

anti-tank attack aircraft,

reconnissance aircraft,

relief drop aircraft

and transport.
 
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