The tall U/C question was raised on a thread a while ago relating to the Short Stirling.
ISTR that aircraft's need for a gangly and complicated undercart was explained by the need to maintain a certain ground-sitting angle.
Because its fuselage was much longer (compared with the Lancaster and Halifax), the extra mains height was needed to achieve said angle.
I went away scratching my head and still none the wiser as to why an aircraft would NEED to ground-sit at that angle.
Prop-tip clearance and bomb-loading requirements would not have been a factor in that case, I'm sure.
In the case of the Albatross, the wing thickness where it abutted the fuselage was, from memory, something like 28 inches.
I would have thought that was adequate depth for the wheel and associated 'struttery
So... I'm still stumbling around hoping someone can explain that mystery for me.