WW2 Bombers
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why did the US build two heavy bombers?
>>28250348
IDK ASK THEM
>two
The B25 isn't a heavy bomber. Now if you had posted a picture of a B17 and a B29, the answer would be that the B29 was a massive improvement as far as carry weight, range and comfort.
>>28250348
Why does the us have so many fighters?
Why doesnt the army just give every solider a .50 cal?
Why arent wars fought with nuclear bombs to shorten lengths of wars?
Why is it so wrong to throw pee bottles at peoples houses?
>>28250402
That not the b25 dumb ass, that the b24
>>28250402
That's a B-24
>>28250402
>>28250348
is everyone stupid
>>28250412
>>28250411
Well fuck.
>>28250402
>B25
>>28250416
No it's just been forever since I've looked at WW2 bombers and the tail told me B25.
>>28250402
Liberator and Flying Fortress
Why not just the liberator with its greater bombload and iirc range?
>>28250520
apparently they weren't as durable. B-17 could limp home with an engine out, from what I have read the B-24 usually wasn't capable of doing so.
>>28250348
So what happened was Consolidated was asked to produce the B-17 under license. Instead of giving an estimate on how well they could do that, they decided they could build a better bomber, so they came up with an entirely new design and submitted that instead. Same thing happened with North American and the P-51, IIRC.
>>28250520
The B-17 was good enough, and it would have been more expensive to shut down and retool all the B-17 factories for a new bomber with negligible strategic difference.
>>28250348
>>28250520
Mainly because the B-17 was already in service before the war, with crews already trained on them and factories were already producing them.
Would have taken time to switch production, and it was two different companies manufacturing them anyway.
>>28250520
First of all, the B-17 proceeded the B-24. Had the B-24 been unequivocably better, it WOULD have served as the B-17's replacement rather than just a contemporary counterpart.
But as it happened, the B-17 was plenty able to hold it's own against it's younger, larger counterpart. B-17s were more rugged and reliable than the B-25, and ergo could sustain higher sortie rates. The B-17 also had a higher service ceiling, which alongside it's ruggedness helped maintain survivability roughly on-par with the faster B-24. So the lack of clear superiority of the -24, combined with the insatiable demand for heavy bombers in general, motivated the US to keep the B-17 in production until the end of the war, rather than deal with the time and trouble of having Boeing re-tool to produce a different heavy bomber (be it a licensed B-24 or a newer bomber of their own design).
>>28250705
>proceeded
Fug.
I meant preceded.
>>28250348
>Why did the US build two heavy bombers
To drop bombs and blow up the enemy's shit.
>>28250348
because we fucking could.
thats why. OP. That is why
>>28250348
Because more bombs = good
>forgetting about the b29
Bruh
>>28250839
That's prolly the best possible answer.
It's worth noting that the B-17G dropped half of all the bombs that were ever dropped on Nazi Germany, though. That one make and model. HALF. Which is a lot of fucking bombs.
>>28250348
WHY NOT?
>>28250402
B-25 is not an ugly fucker like the b-24 is
>>28250915
Hey, that's not nice! The B-24 isn't ugly, she's homely and robust!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTCtVvndu5Y
You are reminded that the US had FOUR heavy bombers that saw combat in WW2.
>>28251062
My eyes
>>28250915
B-25 vs. A-26--which is better, and why?
>>28250915
Why the front-facing machine guns? They used this also as a ground-attack aircraft in addition to bomber?
>>28250425
Phoneposting strikes again bitch, at least zoom in on the image next time
>>28251719
The B-25 is better if you want to be a hard target. It's tough as nails, and it has more guns (depending on configuration) mounted in a defensive role. It also has a higher flight ceiling by 2k feet.
The A-26 has 1000 lbs better bomb capacity, and is probably better at strafing because of the 6 nose mounted MGs. It also requires half the crew and has a better top speed by 70 miles an hour.
>>28251836
Yeah. Some versions had a 75mm cannon for anti-ship / anti-tank use
>>28251889
>The A-26 has 1000 lbs better bomb capacity, and is probably better at strafing because of the 6 nose mounted MGs.
>probably better at strafing because of the 6 nose mounted MGs.
Even the glass nose B-25s could carry 6 nose mounted .50s, and the top turret adding another two
The solid nose ones could carry 12 in some versions.
>>28251062
It was the backup to the B-29 program IIRC
>>28251836
Yes. It was a formidable ground attack machine.
>>28251062
One of them was the last plane to be fired on by the Japanese, wasn't it?
>>28250411
Nice call. Some faggots don't know the difference between a liberator and a Mitchell.
>>28252109
Correct.
![U.S._bomber_scale-chart_0[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/RslIRQs.gif "U.S._bomber_scale-chart_0[1].gif")
>>28251062
Plus the B-36 (design started in 1941), the B-45 (design started in 1944), the B-47 (design started in 1943), and even the B-52 (design started 1945). And the experimental alternates for each of these, all of which produced prototypes (XB-46, XB-48, and the XB-49. Designs for all started in 1944). And of course the YB-35 flying wing (design started 1941) and the XB-32 Mixmaster (design started 1943)
The UK built 3, so it wasn't just the US doing it
Why is B-17 such a pretty plane.
>>28252386
Yes, but the Stirling didn't really work out in the end.
Pity for such a nice looking aircraft
>>28250348
>B-17 Flying Fortress
>B-24 Liberator
>B-29 Super Fortress
>B-32 Dominator
>two
Pic is B-32
B24 was designed and built later. It generally performs better than the 17 in all regards. Though the 17 is a little more durable.
24 wasn't fielded in sufficient numbers until 1943. While the 17 got all the good propaganda .
more Dominator
B-24 had a much better airfoil than the B-17.
Way better laminar flow which gave it better cruise speed, payload and range.
But retooling factories costs a lot and the B-17 was good enough.
B-32 had some flaws in terms of visibility, shitty instrument layout, high noise, overweight.
But flight performance thanks to its laminor flow Davis wings was great, much better cruise speed than the B-29 despite being roughly the same weight and same engines.
Davis wings were dropped after the war because thick wings at high speed (near supersonic) cause too much wave drag, but for WW2 era speeds it was the best thing out there.
>>28250348
>>28250907
not nearly enough daka
>>28250402
>B25
>>28250402
You fucking idiot.
>>28250907
>>28255735
>>28250402
holy shit
>>28255484
Catalina is such a beautiful name. Reminds me of one of my secondary school girlfriends called Carolina.
>>28250348
The B24 was a lot cheaper to produce than a B17
every B24 was just about scrapped after VE day because they flew and felt like shit
The B29 was a super B17 and lasted in service until Korea.
At least the B24 gave us this iconic shot over Ploesti.
>>28250402
I didn't think it was possible to be this retarded
>>28256087
It was the Brits that originally gave it that name. Americans liked it so much it stuck over here as well. The Canadians, for some reason, called it the "Canno" or something similar to that.
>>28256087
>>28256208
Correction: Just check the Wikipedia page, the Canadians called it the "Canso."
>>28252868
Well, my granddad flew one for years. Including being the second pathfinder over Arnhem
>>28250398
The B-29 was built too late in the war to make a huge difference, but they did have a few sorties. B-17 and B-25 were used from start to finish.
>>28250402
AHAHAHAHAH WHAT A FUCKING RETARD
>>28255616
>tfw there's a museum dedicated to the 8th Air Force 15 minutes from my grandparent's house in Savannah
It's a really neat place to walk through. Lots of large scale models of airbases, a mockup of a B-17 waist gunner station where you can try shooting down incoming fighters, a B-47 outside, and more. It's a really nice place to visit.
