Which WW2 bomber had the most flexible adaptable bomb load?

[Readie]

So...which one did?
I'll prepare my case for the noble Lancaster.
Cheers
John

 

[P-40K-5]

He 111H

 

[Readie]

He 111H

Torpedoes? and.....
Cheers
John

 

[P-40K-5]

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

 

[Readie]

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

Ok, contender no 1 then, or should I say Nummer eins.
Thanks for replying
Cheers
John

 

[P-40K-5]

oh, I forgot to mention the German Magnetic mine also.

 

[Mustang nut]

edited

 

[evangilder]

I'd go with the de Havilland Mosquito

 

[Milosh]

Lancaster bomb loads
Bomb Loads

 

[Mustang nut]

edited

 

[Lighthunmust]

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.

 

[davebender]

The Do-217 could carry an aerial torpedo in the bomb bay. Plus all the weapon options available to the He-111.

 

[GrauGeist]

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"

 

[Lighthunmust]

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"

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.

 

[P-40K-5]

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.

 

[norab]

don't forget to add V-1 to the He-111

along with airborne cable cutters

with AI radar as a training plane for nightfighter radar operators

could tow along an Me-321 full of supplies

and also a Jumo jet engine test bed

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[Readie]

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I know you are a real admirer of the superfortress but,

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.

as its involvement in WW2 is minimal compared to others you mention its not a relevant comparison perhaps?

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).

 

[Readie]

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).

Hi Alder,

'Island up north'? Or..you mean me .I thought you were refering to Iceland for a minute 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.
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