Attack and Bomber Classifications

[jcf]

The Mossie could not fly 2500 miles with 4,000 lbs at 400 mph.

Using max performance figures for comparisons is misleading.

Halifax by Merrick probably has the best set of performance data for a single type,
it well illustrates the trade-offs of range vs. load etc.

[Librarian]

Then that Idiot at De Haviland developes the Mossie  2 ton bomb load, 400 mph 2 crew range  2500 miles.

Why idiot? I'm pretty sure the Mosquito was a private venture. Someone thought (I cannot believe I'm going to use this expression) outside the box and came up with something very good. Specifications demanded by Ministries can restrict the effectiveness of a design. Or am I wrong (as usual).

[chiglet]

Idiot was meant to be a compliment. Original idea, as you say "outside the box"

[Go4fun]

I'm seeing a trend I can relate to automobiles. in the 1960s an American 'Mid-sized' car would have a wheelbase between 102 and 108 inches and weigh between 1,900 and 2,200 Pounds. Something like a Falcon or Chevy II. In France that Mid-sized name might apply toa Citron CV-2 and England a Ford sedanette.
So you have different vehicles under the same name and what might be a Light Bomber in one country another would call an Attack Bomber.
As for the different eras, a 1964 Ford Falcon was in it's era and a Ford Fiesta is a Compact  in the 2014s.
Clear as mud? I wish you luck sorting these different aircraft out.

[Gondor]

Maybe look at the requirements that were issued, they should specify what was required for each task and when. Then you can cross-reference the dates and weights against each other to work things out!

Gondor

[chiglet]

Just been thinking [dangerous] and  IF the B17 and Lancaster were broadly similar in "normal ops" [B24 had a longer range, I believe] and were termed "Heavies" What classification could be given to the B29, Super heavy? Just looking in the worm can.
See some of you at Huddersfield tomorrow xxx

[sandiego89]

Just been thinking [dangerous] and  IF the B17 and Lancaster were broadly similar in "normal ops" [B24 had a longer range, I believe] and were termed "Heavies" What classification could be given to the B29, Super heavy? Just looking in the worm can.

B-29 bomb wings were designated "Very Heavy".    When the B-36 Peacemaker joined the Air Force inventory, the "Very Heavy" designation was dropped forever.  B-29 and B-50 wings were redesignated "Medium."  The new B-36 wings were designated "heavy".

source:http://www.strategic-air-command.com/wings/0509bw.htm



U.S. bomb groups were numbered and classified into four types: Very Heavy (VH), Heavy (H), Medium (M), and Light (L). Groups which combined bombers of differing categories into a single administrative organization were designated "Composite" groups. Bomber aircraft were assigned to groups by category:

Very Heavy: B-29 Superfortress, B-32 Dominator
Heavy: B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator
Medium: B-25 Mitchell, B-26 Marauder
Light: A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader

from wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_group

[PR19_Kit]

B-29 bomb wings were designated "Very Heavy".    When the B-36 Peacemaker joined the Air Force inventory, the "Very Heavy" designation was dropped forever.  B-29 and B-50 wings were redesignated "Medium."  The new B-36 wings were designated "heavy".

Which just goes to prove there WERE no hard and fast rules and the classifications changed over time!

[KJ_Lesnick]

@PR19_Kit

Which just goes to prove there WERE no hard and fast rules

If there are no hard and fast rules -- are there loose and slow rules?  I'm just trying to concoct a rule of thumb here.

the classifications changed over time!

I'm aware of that -- that's why from the start of the thread I created a classification by year thing.  Over the years what would be considered a heavy would change to a medium and light.

[sandiego89]

If there are no hard and fast rules -- are there loose and slow rules?  I'm just trying to concoct a rule of thumb here.

the classifications changed over time!

I'm aware of that -- that's why from the start of the thread I created a classification by year thing.  Over the years what would be considered a heavy would change to a medium and light.

You are over thinking it.  

If you want a rule of thumb, I think it is quite obvious from what folks are saying.....

Regardless of the time frame:
the larger planes that could carry the biggest load= heavy
medium in size and medium in payload= medium
Smaller aircraft that could on carry a smallish load= light  

simples....

You go to a restaurant, and they have three drink sizes, what do you think the sizes would be called?   Perhaps small, medium and large?  Notice I did not specify how many ounces each carries, what the cup is made out of, what the US/UK/USSR/EU drink specification calls for...it is more of a general classification.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sandiego89

That analogy is totally wrong: In different eras, sodas tended to be of a certain number of ounces.  For example, in the 1990's small was 12-16 oz, medium was around 20-22, and large was 32 about.

[sandiego89]

Sandiego89

That analogy is totally wrong: In different eras, sodas tended to be of a certain number of ounces.  For example, in the 1990's small was 12-16 oz, medium was around 20-22, and large was 32 about.
[/list]

You totally missed my point, just like drink sizes, aircraft size classifications have changed over the years, but there is always a small, medium and big.  Of course the ounces got bigger over the years, just like weapons loads did. I realize you get some sort of enjoyment in being difficult, but the analogy stands.  

[KJ_Lesnick]

sandiego89

You totally missed my point, just like drink sizes, aircraft size classifications have changed over the years, but there is always a small, medium and big.

Yes, and for those years there was a STANDARD or a range of standards.

I realize you get some sort of enjoyment in being difficult, but the analogy stands.

No, I don't get some enjoyment out of it.  I think we have a communications gulf of some sort.

After all, when people are going round and round in circles and yelling louder and louder -- that is usually the culprit.

[pyro-manic]

sandiego89
Yes, and for those years there was a STANDARD or a range of standards.

The point is that the "range of standards" is so diverse that it's completely pointless to try and call them standards. One restaurant's idea of small, medium and large is likely not the same thing as another's. These things are relative, not absolute. A concept you seem to struggle with.

As to your question about the A-20, it was a light bomber because it was lighter than the medium bombers of the time. Simple.

Yet again, I suggest you get hold of a book on the A-20 to find out all the details about development and differences between the variants. I suggest this one as a starting point: http://www.amazon.com/Douglas-Havoc-Boston-Crowood-Aviation/dp/1861266707

[Librarian]

I'm no expert on these matters but the Americans produced a few 'pocket-bombers' for the export market...Boston/Havoc, Baltimore, Maryland. All were reasonably successful in their little niche. The Douglas really came into its own when Kenney and the 5th AF started using them as strafers. Thoroughly recommend "Flying Buccaneers" by Steve Birdsall. When Douglas shut down A-20 production to concentrate on the Invader he was VERY unhappy, tried to keep the A-20 production going as he had a thorough dislike for the A-26, as did all his pilots. A classic case of "If it ain't broke....".