Attack and Bomber Classifications

[KJ_Lesnick]

I've heard some general rules, but I am curious as to what bomb-loads/ranges USAAC/USAAF considered to be the minimum/maximum for the attack-category; and what the USAAC/USAAF, RAF, and Luftwaffe considered to be the minimum/maximum bomb-loads and ranges for the light, medium, and heavy bomber categories in the following time periods

• 1918-1921

• 1921-1934
  
  • 1934-1939
• 1939-1942
  
• 1942-1945
  
• 1950-1955
  
• 1962-Present
  

[maxmwill]

May I make the following suggestions to help make the list(s) more complete?:

That other countries be included, as bombers such as the Il'ya Muromets has been considered the first actual  strategic heavy bomber,with many of the Capronis coming close, and later, the various postwar Soviet bombers, as well as others.

To also include failures, such as the Tarrant Tabor, the Barling Bomber and the Nakajima G5N and others, and possibly some speculation as to what might've been done to render them useful.

These are simply suggestions, and in no wise are criticisms of your proposed list(s), but might help provide a more rounded set of results.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Well the idea I was going for was what the standards were for these designs, like hypothetically:

Light Bomber
- Payload Requirements: 500 - 2,000 pounds
- Maximum range-Requirements: 1,200 - 1,800 miles
- Combat radius requirements: Ability to carry: 1,000 pounds of bombs 800 miles

I'm making this up of course but this is kind of what I'm looking for

[jcf]

Here ya go, loads of info, documents, free online books even, after you've read through you can come back and tell
the class what you've found.

http://www.afhso.af.mil

http://www.afhra.af.mil/index.asp

[KJ_Lesnick]

JCF,

I've done some looking around and it would appear that starting in the late teens, the light-bomber load was around 450 to 750 pounds max, with mediums going to around 1,800 to 2,000 pounds followed.  The medium-bomber designation seemed to vanish in the mid-1920's into the 1930's it would seem, with the light-bombers seemed to increase in load from 1,500 to 2,750 depending on design with a few featuring overloads to 4,000 pounds.  Heavies if you count the Barling Bomber went up to around 5,000 pounds, though most were around 4,000 - 4,400 pounds maximum.

By the mid-1920's the attack designation ended up taking over the previous light-category, and early loads were around 200-400; they ballooned into the 400-500 pound range and by the mid-1930's you were seeing figures of around 500 to 1,000 pounds

The light-bomber design seemed to suffer a slight reduction in bomb-load early on with the monoplanes with one design only carrying around 1,200 pounds of bombs; the B-10 series were carrying around 2,260 though (which seems about normal), with designs such as the B-21 a similar load; the A-20 which was an attack-plane, was also a light bomber and carried around 1,600 to 1,760 pounds of bombs, which was later increased to 2,400 pounds, and later on 2,000 pounds of external loads were added as well.

I'm curious mostly where the boundaries lie: For example when does a medium become a heavy, and when does a light become a medium and so on?  I cannot seem to find that particular sort of thing.

[kerick]

I don't know of any rules but it probably changed as technology advanced. A fighter today can carry much more than a WW2 heavy bomber. As each new design came out the concepts changed if not the rules.

[Gondor]

I'm curious mostly where the boundaries lie: For example when does a medium become a heavy, and when does a light become a medium and so on?  I cannot seem to find that particular sort of thing.

The classifications probably went the other way as technology allowed larger heavier aircraft to be built with larger and heavier bomb loads. Check what the Lancaster/Lincoln was designated as during WWII and then in the mid to last 50's, I think you will find they are changed from Heavy Bombers to Medium bombers.

Gondor

[maxmwill]

Well, it also depended upon the country, as Germany classified the He111 and various types of the Do 17 class(the 17. 215 and the 217) as heavy bombers, when the closest equivalent the allies had, such as the US was the B 25 or B 26, which were classified as medium bombers, and would even be classified as medium tactical bombers nowadays.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Kerick

I don't know of any rules but it probably changed as technology advanced. A fighter today can carry much more than a WW2 heavy bomber.

True, however I am curious if there were different rules of thumb for different air-forces in different eras.


Max M. Will

Well, it also depended upon the country, as Germany classified the He111 and various types of the Do 17 class(the 17. 215 and the 217) as heavy bombers, when the closest equivalent the allies had, such as the US was the B 25 or B 26, which were classified as medium bombers, and would even be classified as medium tactical bombers nowadays.

That's actually one of my major interests: Comparative analysis

For example

• It would seem very few air-arms had an "attack" category, though the USAAC did
• The USAAC's attack category might have included some designs that were so small that they would have been below the minimum criteria of most air-arms light-bomber category, though many were equivalent to what other air-arms would consider a light-bomber

• The light-bomber category used by the USAAC might have encompassed a little bit of the upper end of most air-arms light-bomber category, as well as much of the medium bomber category
  
• The USAAC's medium bomber category seems to cover the top end of the medium bomber category and seemed to
  

See where I'm going here?

[wuzak]

I'm curious mostly where the boundaries lie: For example when does a medium become a heavy, and when does a light become a medium and so on?  I cannot seem to find that particular sort of thing.

Because it probably doesn't exist.

It may be that the categories refer more to the aircraft than the bomb load.

And while there was an official attack category, there was no such thing as a light, medium or heavy bomber category. They were just bombers.

Attack aircraft were specialised for ground attack/CAS duties (for the air forces). And would often be dive bombers.

There is no hard divide between light and medium, medium and heavy or heavy and very heavy bomber categories. The capabilities of aircraft improved with improved engine power and operational experience. There were considerable overlaps in capabilities between the categories. And that is only within the one service.

If we look across different services, what counted as a heavy bomber (based on bomb load) in the USAAF would be not much more than a medium bomber in the RAF in WW2.

In the RAF the Whitley and Wellington may have been regarded as heavy bombers when first designed, but by the time the Stirling, Halifax and Manchester appeared (1940/41) they were clearly no longer heavy bombers.

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

Because it probably doesn't exist.

You're telling me there are no general rules for light, medium, and heavy bombers in different eras?  There seemed to be as the planes took on specific shapes.

It may be that the categories refer more to the aircraft than the bomb load.

Well can you specify those?

If we look across different services, what counted as a heavy bomber (based on bomb load) in the USAAF would be not much more than a medium bomber in the RAF in WW2.

In the RAF the Whitley and Wellington may have been regarded as heavy bombers when first designed, but by the time the Stirling, Halifax and Manchester appeared (1940/41) they were clearly no longer heavy bombers.

Well, the Whitely definitely carried a nice load; the Wellington Mk.1C had a load of 4,500 pounds of bombs, but if I recall the Mk.1 and 1A carried less

[wuzak]

wuzak

Because it probably doesn't exist.

You're telling me there are no general rules for light, medium, and heavy bombers in different eras?  There seemed to be as the planes took on specific shapes.

The powers-that-be most likely specified the bomb load, type of bombs and other considerations.

For example, P.13/36 that produced the Halifax and Manchester specified an 8,000lb bomb load, or two 24" torpedoes. Alternatively it was to carry 24 soldiers in the troop transport role.

The torpedo requirement is what gave the Manchester and Lancaster their long, uninterrupted bomb bay.

A requirement for catapult launch (not sure if this was with the original P.13/36 specification or came later) meant that the Manchester was structurally very strong.

The troop requirement dictated the general shape of the fuselage.

[KJ_Lesnick]

The powers-that-be most likely specified the bomb load, type of bombs and other considerations.

You're telling me there was no standard at all?  Nowhere?

[jcf]

That's exactly what he's telling you.
There was, and is, no Boy's Own Big Book of Bomber Design.
 

[chiglet]

There was, and is, no Boy's Own Big Book of Bomber Design.

Of course there was. EVERY Air Force had one. Unfortunately Chapter one was as far as anyone went. Why?
'Cos the other beggars kept changing the rules.
E g, (off the top of my head) B25, 1 ton bomb load 300 mph 5 ? crew range 1500 miles Great aeroplane... Then that Idiot at De Haviland developes the Mossie  2 ton bomb load, 400 mph 2 crew range  2500 miles.
Time scenario not perfect, but I hope that you get the gist