Differences between American and British heavy bombers
td, I think the graphic will explain, the SC 250 bomb had mounting lugs on the nose for vertical carriage, also on the casing for horizontal. Germans wanted all their aircraft to be dive bomber capable, guess horizontal mounting would be used in that event with reduced capacity in the bomb bay, but extended by under wing carriage.
As for accuracy even the famed Norden bomb sight had issues, so I think going out tail first would have little detrimental effect.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/20...beyond-belief/
As for accuracy even the famed Norden bomb sight had issues, so I think going out tail first would have little detrimental effect.
The actual performance of the Norden in combat was good some of the time, but rarely great, and often terrible. Several studies revealed that as few as 5 percent of Eighth Air Force bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the target and the average error for 500-pound bombs dropped in Europe was a whopping 1,673 feet. There are examples of many hundreds of bombs aimed at a single small target with only one or two bombs reaching their mark. Some gross errors were even measured in miles.
Last edited by megan; 26th Apr 2020 at 05:30. Reason: norden
As for accuracy even the famed Norden bomb sight had issues, so I think going out tail first would have little detrimental effect.
The actual performance of the Norden in combat was good some of the time, but rarely great, and often terrible. Several studies revealed that as few as 5 percent of Eighth Air Force bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the target and the average error for 500-pound bombs dropped in Europe was a whopping 1,673 feet. There are examples of many hundreds of bombs aimed at a single small target with only one or two bombs reaching their mark. Some gross errors were even measured in miles.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for accuracy even the famed Norden bomb sight had issues, so I think going out tail first would have little detrimental effect.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/20...beyond-belief/
Gentleman Aviator
I doubt many of the crew considered that to be 'loads' of ammo when they were spending hours over enemy territory...
Forty Flying Fortresses ...
And I grew up with the song which included (to the tune of Glory Glory) the lines:
"The yanks were flying Fortresses at forty fousand feet (x 3)
With loads of ammunition and a teeny weeny bomb."
AND
"The RAF were flying Lancasters at zero zero feet (x 3)
With no ammunition and a f***in' great bomb!"
"The yanks were flying Fortresses at forty fousand feet (x 3)
With loads of ammunition and a teeny weeny bomb."
AND
"The RAF were flying Lancasters at zero zero feet (x 3)
With no ammunition and a f***in' great bomb!"
Point above noted that the B-17 may have been derived from an airliner, whereas the Lancaster and Halifax were bomb trucks, pure and simple.
the B-17 may have been derived from an airliner