Which WW2 bomber had the most flexible adaptable bomb load?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Readie, Jun 14, 2011.

  1. Readie

    Readie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Plymouth, England
    So...which one did?
    I'll prepare my case for the noble Lancaster.:D
    Cheers
    John
     
  2. P-40K-5

    P-40K-5 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Earth
  3. Readie

    Readie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Plymouth, England
    Torpedoes? and.....
    Cheers
    John
     
  4. P-40K-5

    P-40K-5 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Earth
    along with the standard 100lbers:

    ~ Hs-293
    ~ Fritz-X
    ~ SD 500
    ~ SC 500
    ~ AB 500
    ~ SC 1000
    ~ PC 1600
    ~ SC 1800
    ~ SC 2000
    ~ LT F5b Torp
    ~ LT F5w Torp
     
  5. Readie

    Readie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Plymouth, England
    Ok, contender no 1 then, or should I say Nummer eins.
    Thanks for replying
    Cheers
    John
     
  6. P-40K-5

    P-40K-5 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Earth
    oh, I forgot to mention the German Magnetic mine also.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Mustang nut

    Mustang nut Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7 Mustang nut, Jun 14, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
    edited
     
  8. evangilder

    evangilder "Shooter"
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    19,419
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer/Photographer
    Location:
    Moorpark, CA
    Home Page:
    I'd go with the de Havilland Mosquito
     
  9. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
  10. Mustang nut

    Mustang nut Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10 Mustang nut, Jun 14, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
    edited
     
  11. Lighthunmust

    Lighthunmust Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    #11 Lighthunmust, Jun 14, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
    Flexible as in variety of types and sizes possible? Well I know the Lancaster can carry the smallest bombs and the largest bombs. It probably could deploy torpedos, mines, glide bombs, guided bombs, cruise missiles, etc, if tasked to do so. Bouncing bombs could be also called unpowered torpedos or glide bombs. The only aircraft I think could possibly compete with the Lancaster's inherent flexibility of type and size would be the B-29 if modified for the tasks. I think a Lancaster would be a safer options for torpedo launching altitudes than a B-29. I am too lazy right now to look up the bomb load capacity and maximum potential bomb lengths of the Lanc to the Superfort for comparison. Come on John I know you have it in you.
     
  12. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The Do-217 could carry an aerial torpedo in the bomb bay. Plus all the weapon options available to the He-111.
     
  13. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,185
    Likes Received:
    2,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    I think that one of the more versatile bombers of WWII would be the Ju88...

    The list of variants and roles is a long one, but in short, it was a bomber, a dive bomber, torpedo bomber, bomber interceptor, "heavy fighter", night fighter and performed mine-laying, ground attack, anti-tank, photo recon and specialty missions.

    It was used as a test bed for R&D and was also used as a "Mistal" platform (flying bomb).

    It was operated by over half a dozen air forces and was in use from the beginning to the end of the war...not too shabby for a "medium bomber" :thumbleft:
     
  14. Lighthunmust

    Lighthunmust Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    #14 Lighthunmust, Jun 14, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
    From what I understand, when USAAF technical teams examined the Ju88 they were extremely impressed with the ingenuity of design. It truly was an effective aircraft that did something many aircraft designed for versatility failed to achieve: more than mediocrity at all things.
     
  15. P-40K-5

    P-40K-5 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Earth
    #15 P-40K-5, Jun 14, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
    yeah I'll have to change my mind. the JU-88 for sure. awesome aircraft, love the NightFighter Ju 88 G-6 version.

    me thinks some versions had rocket assist takeoff too.
     
  16. norab

    norab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    #16 norab, Jun 15, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
    don't forget to add V-1 to the He-111
    [​IMG]


    along with airborne cable cutters
    [​IMG]

    with AI radar as a training plane for nightfighter radar operators

    could tow along an Me-321 full of supplies
    [​IMG]



    and also a Jumo jet engine test bed
     
  17. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    #17 DerAdlerIstGelandet, Jun 15, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
    I think of the "early design" bombers the most adaptable would be the Lancaster, it certainly was more adaptable than the B-17 and B-24. The B-29 in my opinion is the most capable however, as it could operationaly carry the same things the Lancaster could do plus one thing the Lancaster could not, the A-Bomb.

    Certainly options for this discussion are:

    Lancaster
    B-29
    Ju 88
    Mossie
     
  18. Readie

    Readie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Plymouth, England
    Yes,you are right about the 'early design' bombers Adler.
    I know you are a real admirer of the superfortress but, as its involvement in WW2 is minimal compared to others you mention its not a relevant comparison perhaps?
    Only the B29 could hit Japan as hard as the USAAF did there no argument with that but, Europe was the real war of attrition and involved stretching the RAF and USAAF to the limits of their ingenuity and aircraft capability. Not to mention the aircrews endurance.
    Cheers
    John
     
  19. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Actually, I am not that big on the Superfortress. I much prefer the B-17 and the Lancaster, but credit is due where credit is due. I also will not downplay the role the B-29 played in WW2 and shaping the world after WW2. When discussing capability the B-29 was the better than any heavy bomber of WW2, and that includes the Lanc.

    Involvement in WW2 is not a criteria in this topic is it? The criteria was "most flexible and adaptable".

    In flexible and adaptable I will still stick with my above most:

    Early designs: Lancaster

    Late Design and overall: B-29 (It could carry anything the Lanc could, plus one thing the Lanc could not. Just the fact that it was used to launch rocket aircraft in tests after the war will show the adaptability and flexibility of the aircraft)

    Over Europe, I will completely agree with you that the Lancaster was the best heavy bomber in the skies. It was not without flaws (which I think that some people from the Island up north like to believe...;)), but it was not the best overall, and in this case the B-29 still takes it (based off of the thread criteria).
     
  20. Readie

    Readie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Plymouth, England
    Hi Alder,

    'Island up north'? Or..you mean me :shock:.I thought you were refering to Iceland for a minute:lol: I will grudgingly admit that the Lancaster had flaws, what aircraft doesn't?
    AND before you say anything...the Spitfire was perfect 8)
    I have something to admit, I have realised that when I posted this thread I was only thinking about the European war.
    I should been more er, wide sighted but, I wasn't.:oops:
    Yes, of course the B29 was a splendid bomber but, it was 'next generation' as I have before and its not a fair comparison with the early war designs. It would like comparing the B29 to the B52...

    So, where do we go from here?
    Cheers
    John
     
Loading...

Share This Page