B-29 and other allied Bombers: Bombloads too small?

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Odin
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Wanne-Eickel

B-29 and other allied Bombers: Bombloads too small?

Post by Odin »

Hi all,

while looking trough the aircraft details, i see that the heavy bombers had a relative small bombload..?

I mean, a B-24 can only carry 10 x 500 pounders?

And how about the B-29?

Odin
Image
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: B-29 and other allied Bombers: Bombloads too small?

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Odin

Hi all,

while looking trough the aircraft details, i see that the heavy bombers had a relative small bombload..?

I mean, a B-24 can only carry 10 x 500 pounders?

And how about the B-29?

Odin


the B-29 carries 20x500lb GP bombs. 20 of those bombs doesn´t sound small to me. IIRC the maximum load of a B-24 was somewhere around 8000lb in real life but the usual loadout wasn´t always maximum load, therefore the devs went with an "average" loadout I guess...

max bombload for the B-29 around 20.000 lbs, not sure she could carry 40x500 lb bombs though.
User avatar
topeverest
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:47 am
Location: Houston, TX - USA

RE: B-29 and other allied Bombers: Bombloads too small?

Post by topeverest »

B 29 and B32 are in classes all of their own. They will sweep all before them.

Not that the Liberator, 17's and other ALlied HB's are bad. Those are very very effective.

As for bomb loads, they varied considerably based on range and target. Bomb types also varied. The current game settings are more than adequate to bury the Japs.

What are you trying to get at?
Andy M
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: B-29 and other allied Bombers: Bombloads too small?

Post by tocaff »

When looked at specs of a vehicle of any sort are always given by the manufacturer.  That in itself slants things a bit and are given under ideal circumstances.  The longer a flight the more fuel required and of course that means fewer bombs.  Real life conditions never are ideal.  A DD has a listed maximum speed of X knots, but the water must be like glass and we all know that the ocean isn't calm like a little pond.  The B-29 was huge next to a B-17 or 24 and carried a greater bombload over great distances, but this required more fuel.  On Tinian there were many crashes on takeoff due to the great weight involved and the A versions of the plane being underpowered.  The planes themselves suffered from heavy use and became tired, thus reducing their capabilities.  My dad's plane flew many missions with the 2 inboard engines having non functioning superchargers above a certain altitude (when needed the most).  Their cruise speed in reality never approached what it stated on paper and when flying at high altitude they hit the jet stream, a first.  A bomb load rarely approached the maximum capabilities due to many factors.

Still the B-29 carried a huge load compared to her predecessors and the game reflects this.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
xj900uk
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: B-29 and other allied Bombers: Bombloads too small?

Post by xj900uk »

True.  Also the US planes had more armour plate & bigger better gun protection which cut down on the available bombload.  However it is astonishing that most B17's in the european theatre only carried 2,000lb of bombs (increased on some models to 4,000 by conflicts end),  the same as a de Havilland Mosquito.
It was the RAF who got massive bomb-loads off to a fine art.  The later mark Lancaster, with its cavernous bomb-bay,  could carry the ten-ton 'Grand Slam' which weighed in at 22,000 lbs and a lot of bombers regularly carried up to 17-18,000 lb of bombs on a single night mission.  However this was at the expense of removing every scrap of armour plate & protection from the planes in order to squeeze in more of a bomb-load (at Harris' insistance).  When an RAF plane was hit by a german night-fighter or flak,  the crew had a 1 in 7 chance of getting out (they also didn't wear their parachutes due to space limitations),  compared with a 4 in 7 chance for US planes...
Food for thought.  Was it worth it?
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: B-29 and other allied Bombers: Bombloads too small?

Post by Hard Sarge »

2000 pound bomb load for a B-17 ? must of been a very deep mission, 4-5000 was standard (and for shorter missions it could be much more)

and don't get too carried away with the English loads, until they started adding in flashbangs when the big bombs were dropped (to take a photo of the aim point) and it was found out that most of the bombers were dropping there big bombs over the north sea, too much weight to climb to Alt (and they had poor top Alt, to start with) (talking the 4000 pound cookie here)

also, don't forget that the planes that carried the Tallboys or the Grand slams, were not normal models, and not normal Squadrons
Image
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: B-29 and other allied Bombers: Bombloads too small?

Post by Nikademus »

not a problem in WitP......city bombing made easy. [:D]
User avatar
Odin
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Wanne-Eickel

RE: B-29 and other allied Bombers: Bombloads too small?

Post by Odin »

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

....talking the 4000 pound cookie here

2-3 Years ago they found one in my city...near a chemical factory, possibly this belongs to the fuel-producing ones in the war.[8D]
Image
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”