>yfw modern fighters can carry heavier bomb loads then

you consider an F-15 modern? are you high? it doesn't even have active electrostaticheterelogicalfluidic stealth modules.

>>30150434
my love for the F-15 makes it modern

>>30150434
fuck you

eagle drivers stronk

File: but its probably just his dildo.jpg (16KB, 236x260px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x260px

>technology advances
>Turbines are better than propellers

Holy shit guys, I think OP might be onto something here

>>30150423

that's not really a realistic loadout for a F-15E, by the way.

a pretty typical loadout these days is 4 GBU-12's, 3 GBU-38's/54's on the CFT's, a GBU-31 centerline, and tanks and 2x2 on the wings.

File: fw190.jpg (355KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1280x800px

>post yfw modern fighters will never again be FW-190

File: 1459443468925.jpg (107KB, 810x810px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 810x810px

>>30150452
if it was fitted with a dozen APKWSs then it would be truly stonk.

Modern fighters are practically as big as WW2 bombers, too

>>30150423
B-b-b-but the bombs from WW2 weighed more! And there were more of them! That's such a crazy thing to say OP, it totally blows my mind that you would say that thing but you said it and it's crazy! I, being less educated on the subject, would assume the heavier bombs would be deadlier, but looks like you put my entire world perspective on its head because you said this thing! I feel so stupid for not knowing this fact, but now that I know it, I am smarter and I am going to trick my friends so that they can feel stupid and I can feel smart!

File: boeing-f15se-silent-eagle.jpg (73KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x550px

>>30150434
W-WE H-H-HAVE THOSE IF YOU WANT SOME REALLY F-FUCKING CHEAP BUY EM N--N-NOW

>>30150505
this is good copy pasta. I rarely save, but this is a treat.

>>30150500
Only your mother can carry that kind of payload

>>30150475
why wouldn't it be realistic? if they were going to carpet bomb without any regard for collateral damage it's the best configuration.

File: JUST fucking buy them.jpg (7KB, 193x261px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 193x261px

>>30150434
BUY OUR FUCKING PLANE REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>30150534

well for one, we don't carry the racks on the wing stations or on the centerline. and the two fuel tanks help a lot with range (and have the flexibility to be ditched when needed - can't jettison CFTs)

also sometimes you just need a bigger boom than 500 lb bombs can provide.

>>30150460
Holy shit... is time linear?

File: 1443109774286.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>30150508
>yfw we'll probably wind up buying them anyway since we were cucked into shutting down F-22 production

>>30150549
yeah but the blast radius of a single large warhead is wasted by the residual sphere it has to encompass. nukes use this principle to now break their format into smaller sets that essentially carpet bomb a target, but chemical weapons should utilize a similar concept i'd say. i'm not a pilot nor am i a payload specialist, but to me, i'd just have all the racks i can get and just do air refueling.

>>30150582

not going to get into weaponeering specifics but there's a place at the table for having 20 SDB's and there's a place at the table for having 5 GBU 31's.

>>30150534
Because
1) the times we wouldn't care about collateral damage are extremely rare
2) carpet bombing is for plebs, PGMs get the job done faster AND cheaper AND have other benefits like more standoff distance from the target, better impact angle control, ability to adjust for mobile targets...

(In 7 years of being a targeting analyst I've never seen us use dumb bombs.)

File: 1459630067660.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>30150610
i suppose if penetration is needed but at that point you're dealing with a MOP not a GBU

>>30150635

see >>30150622

better to hit your target with one accurate bomb than empty everything in its vicinity.

>>30150582
There are buildings that one or two GBU-31v1s will take out that would need more than 4x their number of GBU-38s. Don't forget that with the cost of each guidance kit it's much cheaper to drop one GBU-31v1 than the same weight in GBU-38s. You also get a LOT more useful blast from that GBU-31v1 unless you're looking at point targets in different locations.

>>30150610
This.

>>30150635
The vast bulk of targets don't need a MOP, we have GBU-31v3s for a reason and they're very effective for typical targets that require penetration. The BLU-109 is a fantastic warhead--not to mention, the MOP is exceedingly limited in its delivery platforms (and expensive).

>>30150679
even if there's more than one? in the time it takes to target and adjust a JDAM for multiple vehicles and personnel they could put out a shoulder fired stinger.

>>30150622

also if we didn't care about collateral damage we'd drop a lot more WCMDs

>>30150716

you can still drop multiple JDAMs in one pass.

>>30150716
It doesn't take very much time at all. And anyone that isn't in a should-have-been-retired-A-10 doesn't give a shit about MANPADS, we fly too high for them.

File: B-29 tallboy.jpg (33KB, 470x370px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 470x370px

>>30150423
You may be interested to know that modern fighters are actually heavier and more powerful the most WWII bombers.

Pic No room inside and not the largest non nuke bombs available.

>>30150434
F-35 = 18,000lbs payload
B-17, B-24= 8,000lbs
B-29 = 20,000lbs


1,296 Bombers dropped around 4,000 tons on Dresden, which could be done with 114 B-52's

>>30150879
Dresden was done before the Americans turned up afterwards in daylight and continued the destruction.
Define mass murder.

File: Lancaster_617_Sqn_RAF_dropping_Grand_Slam_bomb_on_Arnsberg_viaduct_1945.jpg (126KB, 800x604px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x604px

>>30150879
22,000 lbs :)

>>30150879
30 C-5 Galaxy's could do it if they filled the cargo hold with bombs, or 47 C-17's..

Or 19 An-225's

File: RAF bombs including Grand Slam and Tall Boy_53.jpg (321KB, 1200x669px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1200x669px

>>30150918
>Bomb, Medium Capacity, 22,000 lb,

>>30150908
The British lit the firestorm and bombed the firefighters trying to contain it

>>30150918
>>30150947
>you will never drop a supersonic 5 or 10 ton bomb on a German target with 617 Squadron, causing a small earthquake at the impact site
>why even live

>>30150966
they weren't supersonic

>>30150964
>The British lit the firestorm and bombed the firefighters trying to contain it
The US was tasked with ensuring that the burial parties burned.
That is a fucker. Go USA.

>>30150986
>After release from the Avro Lancaster B.Mk 1 (Special) bomber,[2] the Grand Slam would reach near-supersonic speed, approaching 1,049 ft/s (320 m/s), 715 mph (1150 km/h). When it hit, it would penetrate deep underground before detonating. The resulting explosion could cause the formation of a camouflet[9] (cavern) and shift the ground to undermine a target's foundation.

I conflated the Grand Slam with Wallis' original design to take out the dams - a 10-ton bomb dropped from 40,000 ft from the Victory bomber. Quite right you are - but still, near-supersonic ten ton bombs are still pretty fucking awesome.

>>30150988
>hur muricans are cometely to blame for this hugely successful air campaign
>hur muricans never contributed to the war in any way
Like a tipical fucking brit. At least Putin bots acknowledge the United States contributions

>>30151032
Earthquake bombs, be they conventional or nuclear, are indeed pretty fucking awesome.

File: Bielefeld Various (1).jpg (60KB, 592x390px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 592x390px

>>30150986
Grand slam never went supersonic because nothing could fly high enough for that to happen.

>>30151038
Excuse me.
Dresden was a burning hell and the US sent in aircraft in daylight to basically execute the survivors.
>hur muricans never contributed to the war in any way
You did that. Live with it.

>>30150487
>inferior German prop
Fix yourself hans

>>30151068
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Bomber

Because the Air Ministry wouldn't let Wallis build this beautiful bastard

File: ka52.jpg (38KB, 620x395px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 620x395px

Piston engines and armored compartments don't do well for power/weight ratios.

>>30151068
The best part about that photograph is the shitload of craters from previous, unsuccessful attacks... and the one crater from Grand Slam

File: Lancaster_area_bombing_load_IWM_CH_18371.jpg (85KB, 800x659px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x659px

Do we have a sauce for the original "Cookie Monster"

>>30151091
I'm German, moved to America when I was little. War is war and the Americans did a damn good job. I'm surprised you are'nt proud of the acheivment

>>30151117
Inferior to what?

>>30151091
eh, we nuked japan twice, Germany got off easy.

>>30151038
>>30151091

Bongs are still pissed we had to rescue their asses... while fucking their sisters.

File: Mustang1.jpg (24KB, 764x340px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 764x340px

This guy ! ffs. :)

>>30151282
Bongs are still pissed off at how much we had to pay £ for it.
Frogs still have a lot to pay for with all that giving your your own land of the free shit. ;)

>>30150947
I love photos like this, with some guys nice handwritten notes

>>30150573
You couldn't possibly be insinuating that events are sequential?

File: Dropping_of_the_Atomic_Bomb_on_Japan,_August_1945_CH13626.jpg (47KB, 612x800px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 612x800px

>>30151284
Cheshire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Cheshire

>>30151142
>>30151068
Would going supersonic have even given a significant performance boost to its effect?

>>30151878
Would have meant deeper penetration and potentially greater damage from shockwave effects

>>30150716
Shoulder-fired MANPADS are very limited in range. Can kill helicopters, but not your typical planes unless they are taking off or landing.

Only the A10 is really vulnerable, and that's if it using the BRRRRRT gun instead of bombs.

Some other nations could be vulnerable if their optics suck and they have to get low, but frankly MANPADS haven't been a threat to NATO jet fighters in a while. Helicopters are a completely different story though.

File: Boat1.jpg (20KB, 435x310px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 435x310px

>>30151878
As a penetrator Tallboy would have benefited most.
Check the spaced roofs on the U Boat pens in the background.
Getting through all that is still a challenge today.

>>30150423
Jets fighters have been carrying more bombs than ww2 bombers since Vietnam, maybe even before

>>30150879
Could one B-52, armed with B-83s, do a better job at destroying Dresden, than the actual historical bombing?

>>30152057
Yes, definitely.

File: xt788depthch1.jpg (87KB, 1178x891px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1178x891px

>>30152057
Difficult things become a piece of piss over time.
Nuke Bomber.

File: P-51H.jpg (23KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x333px

>>30151264

File: Loading_cookie_on_Mosquito_WWII_IWM_CH_12621.jpg (53KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x550px

>>30152018
>fighters more bombs than bombers.
?
Cookie monster.

>>30152244
"no"

>>30152244
Fw190 inferior to a limited production a36? Which was for ground attack

File: 1299943382400.jpg (254KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1920x1200px

>>30150475
Of course it's not a "realistic" loadout.

That was just a demonstration of its payload capabilities. Bomb trucks started to become less important (but not totally unimportant as seen in the Gulf War) when decent-quality PGMs became available.

>>30152358
>5000 glorious pounds of penetrator

Ah, Strike Eagles, you'll always have that special place in our Air Force.

>>30150928
>Or 19 An-225's

yeah, too bad they're 17 planes short

>>30152358
why would bomb trucks and PGMs be opposed?

>>30152358
>Bomb trucks started to become less important (but not totally unimportant as seen in the Gulf War) when decent-quality PGMs became available.
Yup. We're starting to reach the point where payload isn't as important so much as the number of hardpoints you have.

The LRS-B, for example, has a fairly low payload requirement compared to the other strategic bombers in the USAF inventory because the idea is that it'll be carrying a dick ton of SDBs that'll have a reasonably high chance of success.

>>30152480
When you're getting to the point where you're averaging around one bomb per target, you're going to start to run out of targets you can reasonably engage if you start carrying ridiculous amounts of munitions.

Let's take the B-1B, for example. Say we decide we want to max out payload capacity (75,000lb internal plus 50,000lb external). Ignoring space, structural, and feasibility constraints, you could (theoretically) mount 612 SDB IIs on the bomber with some weight left over (or "just" 357 internally). Problem is that you're never going to be in a situation where you're going to have that many targets so readily available. Plus, there's the space concern. There's no way in hell you're fitting that many SDBs in a B-1 bomb bay. You end up with a lot of "wasted" payload because the PGMs are comparatively light and bulky, meaning that you can fill up the bomber without coming all that close to payload constraints.

>>30152554

tell me what you think a bomb truck is.

and there is a point of diminishing returns. not every target can be taken out by a SDB. sometimes you need a more massive bomb to penetrate. sometimes you need a bigger bomb with a prox fuze. there is no one-size-fits-all for desire weapons effects.

>>30152554
>612 SDBs
612 pieces of shit still amounts to a bunch of shit.

And an enemy airfield or POL facility (off the top of my head) would certainly have sufficient targets for 1+ Bones stuffed to the gills with GBU-38s.

Payload DOES still matter as penetrators get larger, but there's volume considerations that are just as important (can't stuff a MOP into a B-1 no matter how hard you try).

>>30152591
>>30152624
sorry it was a bit of a half-baked idea I came up with on the spot because I'm tired.

The point was that at a certain point, you start to hit diminishing returns with adding payload. It's why payload capacity actually dropped from the B-36 to the B-52 and F-111 to F-15E - they didn't need that much payload to get the job done.

That's not to say that payload isn't still important, because we still do need larger penetrators for hardened targets. But weapons generally seem to be getting more efficient in terms of payload necessary to kill a target, so what might have been necessary in the past may not be the case now.

In other news, I'd wanna see someone try to cram 612 SDBs on a B-1.

>>30152679

and you're wrong.

the F-111 was a much larger aircraft and was terrible air-to-air and did not represent a credible self-escort or self-protect capability. the B-36 was massive because that was the only way to get range at the time.

>>30152679
>But weapons generally seem to be getting more efficient in terms of payload necessary to kill a target, so what might have been necessary in the past may not be the case now.
Actually, that's not really the case! What's happened is that accuracy and precision have improved so much that things that used to get the job done with a fairly near miss are achieving regular almost-direct hits. This trend may not continue as countermeasures to these types of weapons improve and proliferate.

Targets themselves are still getting harder and I don't think explosive mixes themselves are improving at the same rate, though there is some very cool new conventional ordinance that has come out in the past few years.

I also don't think those planes are nearly similar enough in their designed-for mission sets to make those comparisons; particularly with the F-111 which was a dedicated strike bomber and the F-15E which is a fighter-bomber derived from a dedicated air to air ("not a pound for air to ground!") platform.

>>30150908

Memo to germany...

>start shit, get hit

>>30150858
Fun fact: The A-10 is about the same size as the B-25, B-26, and A-26.

>>30152554
>>30152624
I expect B-21 to be sized to carry at least 1 MOP/MOAB.

Plus the laser cannon, of course.

>>30153670
Of course.

>>30153621

its a big plane

>>30150530
>/thread

>>30150947
>22,000 lbs
>Medium Capacity
holy shit, that is a lot

>>30150918
Keeping in mind that a Lancaster modified for a Grand Slam was well beyond the payload of a regular Lancaster.

>>30152258
>>30152018
that's only true for certain fighters and bombers.

the b17 had a relatively small bomb load in comparison to british bomber.

>>30150908
>Define mass murder.

barbarossa?

>>30150549
I was under the impression CFTs on the Eagle where designed to give lower drag than the clean layout, let alone drop tanks

>>30153670
The MOP was designed with the constraints of the B-21s bomb bay in mind. The MOAB on the other hand is 30% longer

>>30150573

It is not

File: 1391941312895.jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>30150487

File: 11.jpg (26KB, 350x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 350x400px

>>30153692

Considering F-35A is 80% of B-17 or B-24's weight, and there has been a century of development, what is so surprising that modern "fighters" are able to carry as large a payload as heavy bombers from the past?

And the thing is, for bombing, payload mattered more then than it does now. If they had PGMs in WWII none of the giant carpet bombing campaigns on cities and industry would have been necessary. A few large PGMs could do the work of a run involving dozens of WWII bombers.

File: Canada - Lancaster bomber.jpg (774KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1800x1200px

>>30153977
Lancaster had the highest payload of any bomber until B36.

>>30151178
Just going to ask here
Is ka-52 to russians equivalent to apache to americans?

>>30156147
No.
>why?
They don't have as many/enough of them.
>less than 100 KA-5X-series helicopters have been built
>less than 20 KA-52's have been built, of which only 12 were delivered to active service

File: cry havock.jpg (3MB, 5055x3370px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5055x3370px

>>30156224
You're not answering his question at all, he is asking if it the Russian equivalent, nothing to do with numbers.

Mi-28 is the Russian equivalent of Apache, it is primarily a tank hunter with two crew and a tank hunting radar.

KA-52 is a very fast helicopter, so it is primarily used for recon / escort / CAS duties.It doesn't have much of a NATO counterpart. Somewhere between a gunship Lynx and a Special operations Osprey.

>>30156224
So they use mi-24s mostly? Or something else?
Sorry for ignorance

File: _52254941_a330comparison-vimylancandvulcan.jpg (41KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 624x351px

>>30155442

>>30153692
For you

>>30156339
Thanks
Never heard of Lynx, and why it looks similiar to wildcat?
Didn't heard much about mi-28, is it used much?

File: RAF Tornado GR4 of No 617 Squadron, RAF Lossiemouth carrying Storm Shadow_05.jpg (269KB, 1600x1276px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1600x1276px

>>30155442
A Tornado can carry as much as a Lancaster now. At least 617 squadron lives on with it.

>>30156339
And for what that bubble is used on top of main rotor? Seen something similiar on apache

File: 4-lynx-helicopter.jpg (43KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x334px

>>30156427
Lynx is a jack of all trades Brit helicopter, exceptionally faast and manouverable.

Some footage with Top Gun cheezy music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba-dln366-E

>>30156435
It's millimetre wave radar for poking above tree's queueing up targets then rising to launch missiles - just like apache.

>>30156427
>Never heard of Lynx, and why it looks similiar to wildcat?

Wildcat was developed from lynx.

Mi-28 hasn't seen much action and there are a small number (150 or something) compared to MI-24, but that's because of its specialised role.

>>30156452
Whoa, it looks so light and easy in the air, like a feather, and can manouver pretty nice
>>30156479
Wouldn't it be better to make mi-28 from tank hunter to do, what mi-24 does? Like, mi-28 is more modern, and has a lot of pros than mi-24 imo
Or it won't be because it's not worth by the budget, and they have a lot of mi-24s anyway?

>>30150964
>bombed the firefighters trying to contain it

Nigger, you have a severe ignorance if you think that WWII bombs had that accuracy.

>>30150879
>F-35 = 18,000lbs payload
*3,000lbs

>>30156700
No, its 18,000 pounds.

>>30156763
No, it is 3,000lbs unless you want to send all its stealthiness down the shitter at which point it becomes just a very expensive and shitty 4+ gen.

>>30150908
>Define mass murder.
The Holocaust
Also,
>Germans
Nothing of value was lost, stop crying.

>>30156793

How is it a expensive and shitty 4+ gen if it has the ablity to be VLO stealth?

Furthermore, are you IMPLYING that a majority of a planes RCS comes from weapons on the hardpoints?

>>30150879
>>30150947
Imagine if an F35 could carry a grand slam..

>>30156851
It's either a stealth with 3000lbs payload or an expensive and shitty 4+ gen with 18,000lbs payload.
>are you IMPLYING
I'm not implying, I'm saying quite directly that weapons on external hardpoints light up like a New Year tree.

File: 1464610095024.jpg (112KB, 511x437px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 511x437px

>>30156675

Not him, but they didn't nor did they need that accuracy, not with loads of them. Armies had already learnt that by WW1

File: 1464610028021.jpg (93KB, 507x437px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 507x437px

>>30156891
Oh here's the picture before the artillery hit.

>>30156886
>I'm saying quite directly that weapons on external hard points light up like a New Year tree.

They dont, they have an RCS directly relating to the size of the armament. Does it degrade stealth? Oh yes, there is no question.

But if you have an, for example, F-16 with 4 JDAMs on the wings and a F-35 with 4 JDAM's on the wings, the F-35 will have SIGNIFICANTLY less RCS than the F-16.

The F-16 has the (relatively) higher RCS of the plane in addition to the armaments.

>It's either a stealth with 3000lbs payload or an expensive and shitty 4+ gen with 18,000lbs payload.

Yes, you have the option of VLO stealth, therefore its not just a shitty 4+ gen. Its much more mission capable.

This is before we get into the stealthy munitions debate, like the LRSAM.

File: IMG_3577.jpg (365KB, 818x1166px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 818x1166px

>>30150964
>>30156675
You put explosive charges with varying delays into the incendiary bombs. This ensures explosions wherever the fire-fighters would ply their trade, without the need to fly over there again.

>>30156940
>the F-35 will have SIGNIFICANTLY less RCS than the F-16
Of course it will, but not much better than any other 4+ gen.
>you have the option of VLO stealth, therefore its not just a shitty 4+ gen
It is either stealth with poor payload or 4+ with good payload. It's nice to have an option, but implying F-35 can carry 18,000lbs and still count as VLO is outright wrong.

>>30157122
>but not much better than any other 4+ gen.

It will be significantly better than pretty much any other 4+ gen, becuase the base RCS is significantly better than any other 4+ gen.

>It is either stealth with poor payload

Any mission where its VLO stealth is required, 3k payload is plenty. You are either killing air assets, or performing SEAD.

>but implying F-35 can carry 18,000lbs and still count as VLO

Nobody has ever, ever said this.

File: 1464899193702.jpg (78KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x500px

>>30152339
>Fw190 inferior to a limited production a36?

The "A-36" was a temporary measure to keep the P-51s production line in operation after the initial big order for the Brits was completed. The Army Air Force wanted P-51s bad, but there was no remaining funding assigned for pursuit planes. There were, however, funds available for attack planes like dive-bombers. So they just gave it a new name, slapped some dive brakes on it, and bought a bunch of them. It was strictly an administrative shuffle, and nothing more.

With that said the FW-190 doesn't get enough respect. The Bf-109 was sweet and all, but the FW-190 had something it didn't - the best roll rate of any fighter in the war. Yes, it could not turn worth a damn. Yes, its vertical performance wasn't as amazing as the Bf-109 or the P-51. Yes, it wasn't the absolute fastest (though its acceleration was still very good and better than the P-51.) But it had a roll rate of 190 fucking degrees a second. It left fucking everything in the dust; almost DOUBLE the roll rate - the only thing that could come close to competing was the clipped wing Spitfire. Roll rate is more important than turn rate as a maneuverability characteristic. FW-190s were fast, quick, twitchy motherfuckers that could snake onto your tail real fast if you weren't careful.

File: caproni.jpg (480KB, 1600x909px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1600x909px

>>30155442
Nope.

>>30157866
8000kg is chickenfeed son.

File: ANT-16 TB-4.jpg (61KB, 1308x525px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1308x525px

>>30158083
Still higher than the design payload of 14,000lb for the Lancaster. Plus, the Ca.90 held a payload-to-altitude record of 10,000kg - the same weight as the Grand Slam bomb.

If we want to nit pick, there's also the TB-4, which also had a design payload of 10,000kg.

File: Avro_Manchester_Mk_I_of_No._207_Squadron_RAF_at_Waddington,_Lincolnshire,_12_September_1941._CH3879.jpg (60KB, 800x597px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x597px

>>30158151
The Lancaster was designed as a medium twin to carry 3600 kg.
22,000lbs is a fucking lot.

File: image.jpg (31KB, 400x320px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x320px

>You'll never fly against the Tirpitz dropping 12,000lbs for your king and country

>>30158232
No, the Manchester was classed as a heavy bomber. Having two engines does not immediately make a bomber a medium bomber, and the RAF didn't really start to look into making four-engined heavies until after the Manchester proved a failure. For the time it was designed, the Manchester was a heavy bomber just like the Wellington was.

Stop acting like the Lancaster was all that groundbreaking. It had an impressive career, but the only thing really all that significant about it was its cavernous bomb bay.

File: lancaster and meteor.jpg (451KB, 2598x2025px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 2598x2025px

In Flight Refuelling Limited.

File: B-29 with two external Grand Slams.jpg (157KB, 1024x649px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1024x649px

>>30150918
>Comparing modified examples with overload payloads to standard bombers
Maximum load for a standard Lanc was 14,000 lbs. Still pretty damn impressive, but the B-29 was a pretty substantial leap from anything that had come before.
>>30155442
Lolno, B-29 blew the Lanc out of the fucking water. Several were modified to carry the Grand Slam conformally between the two bomb bays, and one was even modified to carry TWO of the motherfuckers externally (yes, that's FOURTY-FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS). After the war, another B-29 was modified to carry the 43,600 lb Cloudmaker bomb while the B-36 was still in development, and the B-50's STANDARD configuration added 8,000 lbs of external stores to the B-29's standard 20,000 lbs of internal stores.

>>30158806
>>Comparing modified examples with overload payloads to standard bombers
Please ;)

File: poppies_2261544c.jpg (24KB, 460x287px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 460x287px

82,000 poppies.

>>30159020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlbIBGpd5qA

File: B-36aarrivalcarswell1948.jpg (71KB, 736x492px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 736x492px

>>30158806
20,000 lbs in that monster. Meh.

>>30159064
>yaaaay

>..yaaayyyy..