Bomber thread

>>33832047
>b-17g
That's a funny way to spell "Spitfire".

File: wilbur resized.jpg (306KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 960x540px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPw4fzjMUp8

Fw 190D

>>33832054
Won't you take a ride, ride, ride

File: Sikorsky R-4 helicopter on Iwo Jima Mar 1945.jpg (189KB, 1200x866px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1200x866px

>>33832047

>>33832078
My nigga

>>33832078
You are one of my new favorite faggots, anon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELUP-oZQKM4

File: sir.png (258KB, 479x349px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 479x349px

why did so many WWII bombers have waist guns? did they really help that much? surely having a powered turret on top and a powered turret on the bottom made having a single powered flexible-mount gun on each side irrelevant. more so on planes like the Wellington which has single .303 waist guns. isn't it just a waste of weight and manpower?

>>33832141
more dakka per plane directly causes fewer plane losses, and you want to have as few dead zones as possible for the goddamn gooks to expose

>>33832150

This poster got me thinking about Italy: how much did the Mafia effect things there? Supposedly, on the US side they were all too eager to look for ways to kiss up to Uncle Sam.

>>33832141
Not really. After the Luftwaffe had been diminished most B-17's stopped flying with waist gunners in the ETO.

>>33832141
Their usage was based on WWI doctrine originally, and their efficacy (and their necessity) diminished over the course of WWII.

>>33832176
The mafia was mostly Sicilian and supposedly "helped" with the invasion of Sicily, but how much truth is behind it isn't really clear. Lucky Luciano was already famous before the war and as most of it is linked to him.

>>33832141

Part of the box formation flying doctrine of having guns cover every angle.

Top turret cant depress guns to far below horizontal.

File: lancaster123.jpg (300KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1920x1080px

>>33832047

Make way chaps!

The real best bomber of WW2 coming through!

>>33832064
this desu
more dakka and more sex

File: 1491117181742.jpg (133KB, 500x743px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 500x743px

We should bring back gunners 2bh

>>33832058
Spitfires are not bombers idiot

Lancaster and tallboy combo

>>33834011

>What was the best plane

>Best plane

>Plane

File: lancaster-plane-and-grand-slam-bomb.png (277KB, 799x425px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 799x425px

>>33834054

forgot mah pic

File: Lancaster_I_NG128_Dropping_Load_-_Duisburg_-_Oct_14_-_1944.jpg (348KB, 1218x550px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1218x550px

Lancaster dropping incenduries and a Blockbuster

File: 28546375.jpg (46KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 900x600px

Lancaster and bouncing bomb

File: Capture.png (609KB, 461x615px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 461x615px

>>33834096
>>33834077
>>33834059

Lancaster was best all-roundbomber

Britain wins again

File: 1464198682652.jpg (39KB, 663x579px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 663x579px

>you will never deliver freedom to japs and krauts from 30,000ft in a cloud of 100 other bombers in the middle of a sunny day as if you're literally waving your american dick in front of the world daring them to come up and try to fuck with you

>>33834106
I wonder how the Lancaster would have performed in day bombing over Germany. I know it was complete madness and American losses were huge.

I'm curious how it would have done with a bigger bomb load and smaller defensive armament.

>>33832058
enjoy your loss of control in dives, faggot.

>>33834123

They would be shot down in thier 100's. They are not as tough as the b17's and have pathetic defensive capabilities.

Shooting 303 rounds at aircraft was a joke

It was a great night bomber tho

>>33834123
>I wonder how the Lancaster would have performed in day bombing over Germany.

They did do at the beginning of the war, the losses were huge and the sole reason they switched to nighttime bombing, accuracy also suffered due to the change in bombing-times until the British became adept/experienced at night raids. Americans were trained and equiped for daytime bombing i.e the Norden Bombsight was only usefull during day, American planes were also a bit hardier and better defensively-armed for daytime ops.

kinda worked out right in the end, Brits did nightime Americans daytime

why has no one spoke up for the PBY?

>>33834123
It could carry a 22,000 earthquake bomb. 3 times the payload of a B-17
What more do you want?

>>33834180
>Accuracy also suffered

And remained crap. Bomber command average 50% hits within a mile of the target.
Said target would be an entire city
We're talking a dispersion range of dozens of

>>33834446
>22,000lb
Dammit

File: Mohne_Dam_Breached.jpg (76KB, 1151x1173px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1151x1173px

>>33834463
>And remained crap

not allways

>>33834435
More a recon or search and rescue plane more than a bomber, save the black cats

File: mem_durham_b_29_gundturret.jpg (35KB, 475x594px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 475x594px

>>33834106
real best all-roundbomber coming through

>>33832047
There's a B-17G coming through on the 6th and 7th, I want to go see it.

>>33834624
I'm also going to the barksdale air show

File: for alex.jpg (296KB, 800x980px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 800x980px

>>33834511
Barnes Wallis, Barnes Wallis, Barnes Wallis

>>33834763
No, this is just a standalone B-17 going around the country.

>>33832100
Holy shit. Any more pics like that?

>>33832100
dat key holing tho...

File: polikarpov-po2.jpg (23KB, 700x340px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 700x340px

>pic related once caused a jet to slow down so much that it stalled and crashed
>credited as only biplane to take down a jet

>>33834058

>bomber thread

>bomber

>thread

>>33832100
HEADSHOT

>>33832100
He probably killed alot of innocent children bombing a useless ball-bearings factory.

>>33834446
My bomber crews to come home.

File: Junkers_Ju_87.jpg (38KB, 555x439px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 555x439px

>>33832047
>not having a siren at the front of your plane to demoralize the enemy

>>33835723
>ball-bearing factory
>useless
Knock one out and you hold up the production of 20 other things.

File: gallery-1448888814-b29-turret-fig1.png (186KB, 768x590px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 768x590px

>>33834604
This. The bomber that finally made defensive gunners useful

File: vampire.jpg (55KB, 930x621px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 930x621px

Sexiest plane of 1945 coming through.

>>33836376
>literally having your elevator in the way of your exhaust

File: 1492890471571.jpg (120KB, 988x688px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 988x688px

>>33836309

>>33836488
fuck, wrong post
was meant for >>33835723
sorry >>33836309

File: 1.jpg (58KB, 640x342px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x342px

>>33836407
pffft

File: mig-15-fagot007.jpg (36KB, 580x386px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 580x386px

>>33836590
>literally having your wing in the way of your exhaust I guess?

>>33836605
They built it that way to have more airflow across the wings.

>>33832292
This

File: 85148-rininger_1.jpg (467KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1920x1080px

>>33832292
>when you don't have a pressurized cabin

>>33832987
How are gunners supposed to stop SAMs you tard.

>>33836778
anti-SAMs?

>>33832047
You meant to say Lancaster

>>33836778
more gunners

>>33834446
To survive the mission, which is why they flew at night, with the halfax, stirling, wellington, hampton, manchester etc. All good bombers in their own way, just not in the daylight.

>>33836659
Why the clothes line between the tail and the cockpit?

>>33835723
Well, that happens when you let a madman run your country who starts a war with everybody.

>>33837193
For drying their clothes you dunce.

>>33837193
It's a radio antenna.

>>33834123
on the bright side smaller crew means less death per shoot down, and larger bomb load means the do more damage per plane.

downside is the defensive armament while not completely inadequate is pretty poor.

however, i do question the value of the defensive armament on the B17, as losses remained heavy until the luftwaffe was effectively destroyed on a strategic level. the escort fighters seem to have made far more of a difference in reducing losses than the defensive armament themselves which hardly seems to have deterred the germans at all.

and lancasters were able to hit some high value targets in daylight, i suspect that losses would be higher in terms of planes but around equal in terms of casualties if both had the same level of fighter escort.

>>33834463
>And remained crap. Bomber command average 50% hits within a mile of the target.
and so did american daylight bombing, precision strikes were a the realm of a very few units, a large number of whom flew lancasters, mainly because the lancasters could carry the tallboy and grand slams.

>Said target would be an entire city
not exactly said target would normally be a specific target within a city, for example hamburg docks or a industrial district.

sure the CEP was around a mile or so but it was a blacked out target at night hundreds of miles from home with 1940s navigational aids

>>33835434
2-op

>>33835029
1940s chemtrail evidence!

>>33837193
Didn't you ask this question yesterday about the 109?

>>33835723
how could they be innocent if they were working in a factory making war materiel?

you libtard sjws really dont think about anything before posting, do you.