Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

Differences between American and British heavy bombers

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

Differences between American and British heavy bombers

Old 26th Apr 2020, 05:13
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,882
Received 362 Likes on 192 Posts
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.
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.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/20...beyond-belief/

Last edited by megan; 26th Apr 2020 at 05:30. Reason: norden
megan is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2020, 08:14
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,824
Received 26 Likes on 25 Posts
Originally Posted by megan

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.
I alluded to this in an earlier post,there were not that many Norden Bomb Sights available anyway - they were expensive and difficult to manufacture,so Formation Leads/Deputy Leads had Norden Sights and the other Aircraft 'Toggled' their bombs when the Lead Bombardier 'Dropped'.So therefore the Bombing Accuracy would be (at best) the same as the size of the Squadron Formations and of course relying on the navigation/accuracy of the Lead Crews.
longer ron is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2020, 08:27
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by megan

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/
An experienced ppruner once explained to me the inherent problem with accuracy for dumb bombs. The flight of a bomb relative to the ground is strongly affected by wind. Most sights had provision for adjusting for wind at the aircraft's altitude, but wind strength and direction normally vary with height; precise wind speeds could not have been known, and it's doubtful if a sight could have been devised that would compensate for them. So however exquisite the optics and ingenious the computation of a bombsight, it was always hit and miss, and mostly miss; hence dive bombing, and the first guided weapons, especially for naval targets.
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2020, 13:45
  #24 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 74
Posts: 3,691
Received 42 Likes on 21 Posts
I doubt many of the crew considered that to be 'loads' of ammo when they were spending hours over enemy territory...
And I doubt if the lyricist considered that. I was only reporting what I recall from my youth.
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 6th May 2020, 18:43
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Amersham
Age: 66
Posts: 41
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Forty Flying Fortresses ...

Originally Posted by teeteringhead
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!"
Yup, me too. Although the variant that my father recounted had 'forty Flying Fortresses' etc. 'and they all had a teeny weeny bomb.' Clearly British aircrew were fully aware that British heavy bomber design was based on the maximum achievable bombload, everything else was extraneous (a second pilot and decent defensive firepower spring to mind.)
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.
Strumble Head is offline  
Old 7th May 2020, 02:45
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,882
Received 362 Likes on 192 Posts
the B-17 may have been derived from an airliner
The aircraft was not derived from an airliner in the manner I think the quote is intended. it merely incorporated the construction techniques Boeing had developed in previous aircraft, the 247 and XB-15. The Boeing techniques were developed following inspection of a Tupolev TB-1, which they worked on when it passed through Seattle in 1929 on a flight to New York.
megan is offline  
Old 7th May 2020, 03:46
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Boeing 307 Stratoliner was derived from the B-17. The 307 was pressurised and as such, the fuselage section was completely different.
evansb is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.