G8N

Ik

@@Merluso415 You could be right. I just googled it and apparently they made the G5N "Shinzan" (Deep Mountain) and the G8N "Renzan" (Mountain Range). The numbers built of each were 6 for the G5N, and 4 for the G8N. They both look very similar, and I from the limited pics I could find, I could not tell the difference between them. Thanks to your comment, I learned a little more today! History is awesome.

B52 is a nightmare with Vietnam in Vietnam war

@@jayjayquest4958 The difference is in defensive armament. The G8N1 had 1-2 extra 20mm Type 99 cannons. Other than that, no real difference.

Came here to say this - except the long range (i.e. UK -> Germany) load for a B-17 was actually 4,000lb. Agree, some consistency is required. Lancaster sacrificed guns, ammo, armour, and crew size for bomb load - it therefore carried more bombs, MANY more bombs. Also, the design of the Lanc's bomb bay was much better & more flexible. The B-17 was great at carrying 8-16 500lb bombs pointing vertically down & not much else...

4,000 lbs. Unleashing the Avro Lancaster: The Daring Mission to Destroy Augsburg's U-Boat Engine Plant kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gbN1h7GZuZ2YnZ8.html

Avro 683 Avro Lancaster B.1 Special 32 aircraft were adapted to take first the super-heavy (12,000 lb) ‘Tallboy’ and then ‘Grand Slam’ bombs (first use March 45) and included up-rated engines (with paddle-bladed propellers to give more power) and the removal of gun turrets to reduced weight and give smoother lines. For the Tallboy, the bomb bay doors were bulged slightly whilst for the Grand Slam, they were removed completely and the area faired over. For some Tallboy raids the mid-upper turret was also removed. This modification was retained for the Grand Slam aircraft and the nose turret was also later removed. BAE Lancaster page

@@michaelcottle6270 Agree, the mosquito could carry 4000lbs over a fair range, at much higher speed than the B-17 - When Britain refers to a 'heavy bomber' they mean the bomb load, when USA refers to 'heavy bomber' they mean the weight of the aircraft.....

Agreed that they should be consistent, however the if we use 14,000 lbs for the Lancaster (maximum unmodified internal bomb load), then we should use the equivalent for the B-17 and B-24. For the B-17 it was 12,800 lbs and for the B-24 it was 13,200 lbs. The loads at 8,000 lbs or less were long range formation flying loads, and the Lancaster had to fly similarly light loads (maybe slightly heavier) if it wanted to fly that kind of mission.

True - but only with extensive modifications. Correct for a standard Lancaster. You are right to bring up the B17 - standard load was only 4,000lbs. Not a well thought out presentation!

Yeah I was just looking that up. 17000 lb for a B-17 seems a little steep I thought it could only carry 8000 pounds of bombs then I saw what he was doing which isn't really fair. Why do people insist on pulling this crap

✅

Beaks, Buffs and Bones AKA don’t Fuc# around or you WILL find out.

​​@@HankD13 Extensive modifications? Most powerful Merlin engines and strengthen the bomb bay area are hardly 'extensive'

the Valkyrie wasn't much of a heavy lifter though, the bomb bay was rather small.

Wasn't the B-70 the reason why the Mig-25 was designed ... and built?

@@Rockhunter329 Yup, which has added comedy as the Soviets made a counter to the B-70 (which they knew about), but it got cancelled, and so they ended up accidentally building a counter to the SR-71 (which they didn't know about).

Yes, the Lancaster could go approximately twice as far, twice as fast with twice the bombload. For half the price and half the training ('cos it only needed 7 crew and one pilot)

@@32shumble only the payload comparison is accurate. I’m a big Lancaster fan but it’s range and speed was very closely matched with the B-17.

The engines on the He-177 were more explosive than the payload!

Iirc the b-32 could carry a few at once on external payloads but the fun ended in Europe before it could get over there.

The 'lanc' was capable of carrying a payload of up to 22,000 pounds of bombs, and yes it was the only bomber capable of carrying the grand slam (earthquake) bomb

@@davidtaylor8464 Avro 683 Avro Lancaster B.1 Special 32 aircraft were adapted to take first the super-heavy (12,000 lb) ‘Tallboy’ and then ‘Grand Slam’ bombs (first use March 45) and included up-rated engines (with paddle-bladed propellers to give more power) and the removal of gun turrets to reduced weight and give smoother lines. For the Tallboy, the bomb bay doors were bulged slightly whilst for the Grand Slam, they were removed completely and the area faired over. For some Tallboy raids the mid-upper turret was also removed. This modification was retained for the Grand Slam aircraft and the nose turret was also later removed. BAE Lancaster page

Yea bro

@@Pengelana_Rindu big fan here BUFF

B-36 was cooler IMO

@@Leipaa no the b1 was cooler

B 17, B 29, B 24: Bro?

75000 to be exact. I'd assume the video creator was on something when he wrote this down.

​@@BattleshipMan_ he was on an overdose of freedom

@@ahnafmuzibmahi9253 even freedom doesn't get you this fucked, believe me I would know

The 134,000 lbs figure probably comes from Janes. According to the USAF's & Boeing's own fact sheets, the B1-B can carry 75,000 lbs in 3 internal bomb bays. Boeing also includes 50,000 lbs of payload externally. The B-1B has 6 external hardpoints. So that is 125,000 lbs total. Another website states 59,000 lbs external. Regardless, going by Boeing, the B-1B has the potential of carrying 125,000 lbs or possibly more of ordnance or anything else. Thus it does have the heaviest payload capacity than any bomber. But it is unrealistic and impractical that such a maxed load out would ever be done. So it is either all internally, all externally, or a mix but not at max.

@@BagoPorkRinds Полностью согласен с вами. Для сравнения Ту-160 при взлётной массе в 275 тонн и тяге двигателей более 100 тонн несёт 45 тонн боевой нагрузки. B-1B имеет взлётную массу в 216 тонн, тяга двигателей в 55 тонн и внезапно половина взлётной массы это полезная нагрузка??? Фантастика в соседнем отделе магазина, мы про реальность говорим. Из самолёта тогда надо выкинуть всё, включая парашют пилота и его тапочки и взлетать на минимальной заправке с шансом заправиться в воздухе (или не успеть и упасть красиво и ярко). Но, как вы верно указали, скорее всего это вынужденная мера, когда в бомболюк не влезают нужные боеприпасы и их приходится крепить на внешние узлы крепления. Суммарная нагрузка на всех узлах крепления для B-1B составляет 34 тонны. I completely agree with you. For comparison, the Tu-160, with a take-off weight of 275 tons and engine thrust of more than 100 tons, carries 45 tons of combat load. The B-1B has a take-off weight of 216 tons, engine thrust of 55 tons and suddenly half of the take-off weight is a payload??? Fiction is in the next department of the store, we are talking about reality. Then you need to throw everything out of the plane, including the pilot's parachute and his slippers, and take off at a minimum refueling with a chance to refuel in the air (or not have time and fall beautifully and brightly). But, as you correctly pointed out, most likely this is a forced measure when the necessary ammunition does not fit into the bomb bay and they have to be attached to external attachment points. The total load on all attachment points for the B-1B is 34 tons.

DH98 Mosquito B. Mk IX 54 built 1,680 hp Merlin 72 engines - otherwise as B. Mk IV. 54 built. Could carry 2,000 lb internally, plus one 500 lb bomb or a drop tank under each wing. Some modified with bulged bomb bay doors (starting 1944) for 4,000 lb bomb. BAE Mosquito page

I'm sorry but the B-17 could carry internally twice as much as the mosquito could carry internally and externally

That was for missions to reach Germany not maximum bombload which this video is focusing on.

*Missouri

its possible there would be cases of them flying the same plane their grandfather or even great-grandfather flew in years to come.

6:38 bro what the f### is this goofy ah ah bomber😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

🤣

Not on KZfaq.

The only was yhr B-17 carried the external bombs as well as an internal bomb load es to remove most of the Gunners, Rado Op and the navigator and their guns amd ammo, all except the tail gunner and his weapons. The Bombardier retained the chin turret controls and weapons.

The B-24 couldn't take a water ditching without tearing apart. The B-17 could hit the water intact and float for a while.

@@Ivan_IvanbI4 я просто знаю,что ту 160 самый большой и тяжёлый бомбардировщик,при чем тут эльфы)

Как не печально, но B1 Lancer выигрывает по ракетнобомбовой нагрузке)

​@@Yugay.Alexandr формально - да. Но фактически - при заявленной максимальной нагрузке его боевой радиус сократится до неприличия, поэтому этот вариант вряд ли когда-либо применялся на практике...

@@vladimirlatyshev8511 ну там вроде на внешние пилоны можно навесить тон 16

Это видео только о том, сколько бомб они могут нести, и в нем не говорится о ракетах.

That was a heavily modified tu95v

Specially modified planes can have much larger payloads if you remove the guns and defensive systems.

@@Raptorman0909 ok. Tu-95MS can carry 16 cruise missle Kh-55SM. Every missle - 1455 kg. 16x1455=23280.

@SovietWarryor OK, but the one used to drop the Tsar Bomba was heavily modified just as the B-29's that were used to drop Little Boy and Fat Man were heavily modified.

@@Raptorman0909 Of course, I'm not arguing with you. The point is that the bomb load of SERIAL Tu-95MS significantly exceeds the 15,000 kg mentioned in the video. Namely - 1.5 times.

If you watched it to the end you would have seen the B-17.

ah the tea drinkers are here

RAF heavies carried more bombs on average due to only operating during darkness for almost two years, so in summer they were not going into Germany any further than the Ruhr Valley. Pay Load 17's had almost 2,000 lb of armor compared to next to none on Lanc's plus 250 lb of flack jackets reverse Lend Leased because Lanc's were too confined for use. Over 2,000 lb of fuel to form up into combat boxes of up to 54 AC and climb to 30,000 feet before crossing the coast, an alt Lanc crew could only dream of. B-17 vs Lancaster Payloads and Armor (unlisted) Gregs Air and Auto kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qq-BnZWiy9a8g5s.html&lc=UgyqEM1O_qNRScyeM7t4AaABAg

Could it be that 10 crew and dozen's of 50 cal MG's were included in the payload?

The 17,600 load is not "theoretical" it was used extensively during D-Day and in the following weeks supporting the allied liberation of France. Also the American idea of a heavy bomber focused on range and protection over payload capacity. They were more concerned about reaching the target and making it back home alive than having the massive f-you bomb bay that Britian was fond of.

I'm an American but I have to admit the Britons did it better

Avro 683 Avro Lancaster B.1 Special 32 aircraft were adapted to take first the super-heavy (12,000 lb) ‘Tallboy’ and then ‘Grand Slam’ bombs (first use March 45) and included up-rated engines (with paddle-bladed propellers to give more power) and the removal of gun turrets to reduced weight and give smoother lines. For the Tallboy, the bomb bay doors were bulged slightly whilst for the Grand Slam, they were removed completely and the area faired over. For some Tallboy raids the mid-upper turret was also removed. This modification was retained for the Grand Slam aircraft and the nose turret was also later removed. BAE Lancaster page

and the US planned to modernize these planes for more powerful engines, better rudders, and air to air missiles, but it was cancelled.

@@tianrongchen6916 Well just like the A-10, it has been scheduled for deletion yet somehow the overwhelming practicality of an otherwise impractical platform keeps them flying. Largely because there simply is no replacement with the same capabilities.

5:48

Oh yes the best heavy bomber, an attack plane :P

Thank you! Cheers!

The b17 can carry 17,600 lb of bombs but only by using external bomb racks which not very many were used

Dassault Breguet Mirage iiiC was a marvellous MiG21 killer.

Avro 683 Avro Lancaster B.1 Special 32 Aircraft were adapted to take first the super-heavy ‘Tallboy’ and then ‘Grand Slam’ bombs and included up-rated engines (with paddle-bladed propellers to give more power) and the removal of gun turrets to reduced weight and give smoother lines. For the Tallboy, the bomb bay doors were bulged slightly whilst for the Grand Slam, they were removed completely and the area faired over. For some Tallboy raids the mid-upper turret was also removed. This modification was retained for the Grand Slam aircraft and the nose turret was also later removed.

Only 32 Lanc's were heavily modified to carry one 12,000 lb Tallboy OR one 22,000 lb Grand Slam, first use March 45. About 1,250 Mossies were built in wartime as unarmed bombers with a max internal bombload of 2,000 lb. Starting 1944 a few hundred of those were modified to carry one 4,000 lb HC "cookie" bomb for nuisance and harassment raids. Most of this can be found on BAE Lancaster and Mosquito pages.

Avro 683 Avro Lancaster B.1 Special 32 Aircraft were adapted to take first the super-heavy ‘Tallboy’ and then ‘Grand Slam’ bombs and included up-rated engines (with paddle-bladed propellers to give more power) and the removal of gun turrets to reduced weight and give smoother lines. For the Tallboy, the bomb bay doors were bulged slightly whilst for the Grand Slam, they were removed completely and the area faired over. For some Tallboy raids the mid-upper turret was also removed. This modification was retained for the Grand Slam aircraft and the nose turret was also later removed.

Bueno, aniquilar sistematicamente civiles no es algo que me fuera a sorprender del ejercito de Putin y Wagner a estas alturas, despues de las fosas comunes con centenares de civiles que se van encontrando en la reconquista ucraniana de territorios ocupados

It should be the same as b-29 because they did nothing but copy the b-29

DH98 Mosquito B. Mk IX 54 built 1,680 hp Merlin 72 engines - otherwise as B. Mk IV. 54 built. Could carry 2,000 lb internally, plus one 500 lb bomb or a drop tank under each wing. Some modified with bulged bomb bay doors (starting 1944) for 4,000 lb bomb. BAE Mosquito page

DH98 Mosquito B. Mk IX 54 built 1,680 hp Merlin 72 engines - otherwise as B. Mk IV. 54 built. Could carry 2,000 lb internally, plus one 500 lb bomb or a drop tank under each wing. Some modified with bulged bomb bay doors (starting 1944) for 4,000 lb bomb. BAE Mosquito page 4,000 lbs. Unleashing the Avro Lancaster: The Daring Mission to Destroy Augsburg's U-Boat Engine Plant kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gbN1h7GZuZ2YnZ8.html

That's not even... None of that is true. The B-17, laden with internal and external ordinance, can carry the 17,600 lb that the video said it could. That's more than four times as much as the DH mosquito.

BS B 17 could not carry 17000 lb of bombs

It was copied from B-29 that landed in Vladivostok after a bombing mission over Japan in 1945. The USSR wasn't yet at war with Japan so the plane couldn't be allowed to leave. I was used to reverse engineer a bomber for the USSR

The plane landed in Vladivostok. The pilots were sent to Tashkent. Then NKVD (predecessor of the KGB) arranged for them staged "escape" (and the pilots believed that they were escaping themselves!) so that they can escape to Iran, and from there home to the USA

Why does a Fairchild C-123 look more like a Lockheed C-130 than a Consolidated B-32 does.

​@@vintagethrifter2114 you are joking right?