Which WW2 bomber had the most flexible adaptable bomb load?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hi Alder,

'Island up north'? Or..you mean me .

I was not referring to you, just an observation based off of years of discussing this very same topic.

AND before you say anything...the Spitfire was perfect 8)

Pretty close to it in my opinion...

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

Well if you are going to talk only Europe, then it is the Lanc. Don't think there really is much of a discussion on the matter.

Now one can break it down even more if you wish, and that might make it interesting. Using criteria such as Light Bomber, Medium Bomber, Heavy Bomber, etc..

 

[Lighthunmust]

Still think the Lanc would be a better torpedo bomber than the Superfort. The Lancaster wins hands down on distinctive good looks. The Superfortess looks like a penlight with a tongue depressor stuck through it at 90 degree angle.

 

[davebender]

Such large and expensive aircraft have better things to do then serve as torpedo bombers.

 

[Milosh]

Though the thread has seem to have gone off track from bomb loads, what German a/c carried a lifeboat?

 

[Lighthunmust]

Such large and expensive aircraft have better things to do then serve as torpedo bombers.

I agree but the thread is about flexibility and adaptability. I don't think you'll find the Mosquito or Ju88 capable of carrying Grand Slams. I think the low level flight characteristics of the B-29 may prevent it from safely being used as a torpedo bomber. Certainly the use of either the Lanc or Superfort as a torpedo bomber would probably be warranted only under extraordinary conditions or a specific mission requirement for range and payload.

 

[davebender]

Why would anyone expect a light bomber to carry such a massive bomb? Not what they were designed for just as the B-29 was not designed for torpedo bombing.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Why would anyone expect a light bomber to carry such a massive bomb? Not what they were designed for just as the B-29 was not designed for torpedo bombing.

No one would, but the thread is about flexibility and adaptability of bomb load. During the time period of the piston engine bomber, todays heavy bomber is tomorrows medium bomber, todays medium bomber is tomorrows light bomber.

 

[Readie]

I was not referring to you, just an observation based off of years of discussing this very same topic.



Pretty close to it in my opinion...



Well if you are going to talk only Europe, then it is the Lanc. Don't think there really is much of a discussion on the matter.

Now one can break it down even more if you wish, and that might make it interesting. Using criteria such as Light Bomber, Medium Bomber, Heavy Bomber, etc..

'I was not referring to you, just an observation based off of years of discussing this very same topic'... I know, I was joking, I found your remark funny Alder.

'Well if you are going to talk only Europe, then it is the Lanc. Don't think there really is much of a discussion on the matter'.

Ummm....I have made a bit of a hash with this thread.

Sorry guys, I'll be more specific next time

Regards
John