Heavy Bombers Payload Size Comparison 3D
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 тра 2023
- Tupolev Tu-160 and Tu-22M join the war. Which Heavy Bomber you think can do the job ?
Heavy Bombers Payload Size Comparison 3D
𝗙𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚
B-1B Lancer
Tupolev Tu-160
Convair B-36 Peacemaker
B-52 Stratofortress
Tupolev Tu-22M
Myasishchev M-4 Molot
B-2 Spirit
Kalinin K-7
Handley Page Victor
Tupolev Tu-95
B-21
B-50 Superfortress
Xian H-6
Boeing B-47 Stratojet
Avro Vulcan
Vickers Valiant
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Tupolev Tu-16
B-32 Dominator
Convair B-58 Hustler
B-17 Flying Fortress
Dassault Mirage IV
Avro Lancaster
Avro Lincoln
Short Stirling
Heinkel He 177
Handley Page Halifax
Tupolev Tu-4
Mitsubishi Ki-20
Petlyakov Pe-8
Nakajima G8N
B-24 Liberator
Piaggio P.108
Mitsubishi Ki-67
𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐂
Whitesand - Vision- Inspirational Piano Music
Whitesand - Fireflies 2
Whitesand - My Spirit Is Free
Whitesand - Hero Within
Whitesand - Glory
Check out Whitesand Channel
/ whitesandcomposer
Final Boss by Myuu
𝟑𝐃 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬
- own creations
- 3D Warehouse (Awesome)
Per section 1.B.ii of the 3D Warehouse TOC - "Combined Work"
Like, Share and Subscribe to 𝗔𝗺𝗮𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗩𝗶𝘇
www.amazingviz.net/
Help me Grow this Channel - Наука та технологія
Normal bomb load for a B-17 was 8000 lbs. The 17600lb load was a special short range version with extra external bomb racks. Using that standard you could quote the Lancaster as having a 22000lb load as a special version carried the grand slam bomb.
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
ua-cam.com/video/KMETNhT74mk/v-deo.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.
The bomber at 0:52 is not the B-24 Liberator. It's the Japanese Nakajima G5N Shinzan. Allies called it the "Liz".
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.
Your Avro Lancaster should be in position 15 with it's Total Payload of 22,000-pound (10,000-kg) the “Grand Slam” bomb. This is fair as you've used the absolute maximum load for your B17 stats.
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'
0:51 you never switched the label after the B-24 Liberator
Sadly the XB-70 never made it into production and wasn’t added in this video, but it was great. 👍
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).
Woo woo hang on, Avro Lancaster behind the B-17. The lancaster carried the 4000lb cookie, 8000lb cookie, highball bouncing bomb nearly 7000lb, yes the 12ooolb tall boy, but also 22000lb grand slam bomb it out classes the B-17 in bombload all day.
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.
Really? Where did you get some of this information, Hans Christian Andersen books?
🤣
The B24 was faster and carried more bomb weight than a B17. The B17 and the wooden Mosquito of the RAF carried the same bomb load. I don't believe the data here is correct.
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.
B52 most charismatic bomber ever built
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?
2:06 fun fact: the he177 had 4 engines. also the lancaster could take something even more nuts than the airmine mentioned: the lancaster was by my knowledge the only bomber at its time capable of carrying the grand slam bomb.
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
I’d seriously like to see where the hell the B-1B would fit 134,000 pounds of ordinance regardless of exterior hard points. From my knowledge it should be around 70-80,000 pounds
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.
at what point could the B-17 Carrie a heaver payload then the B-24 ?? look every body loves the 17 but the fact remains the same the 24 could carry more and farther then the 17 ever could . the 24 couldn't take the battle damage that the 17 could . and that's about the only thing that the 17 had on the 24...
Not on UA-cam.
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.
Tu160 has a bigger payload than B1
I would have thought you could put the Avro Lancaster B1 special in the list- there were 32 of these aircraft produced to carry 22,00lb Grand Slam bombs, would make number 8!
Some interesting add-ons: The Vulcan also flew one of longest bombing missions ever, 8,000 miles from home base to the Falklands and back again in Operation Black Buck. The B-2 holds the record for the longest, a 44-hour flight from home base in Mississippi(?) to Afghanistan, then out over India/Pakistan, back into Afghanistan, and then on to the crew finally setting foot on the ground on Diego Garcia. Also, while Tupolev's mixmaster (which I've read is the fastest non-jet large military plane) is likely to fly into the 2040s, the B-52 fleet is now undergoing an update program (including new engines) that is supposed to keep them flying well into the 2050s; there are actual cases of USAF B-52 crewmen flying the same aircraft their father flew.
*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😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
It’s amazing how fast technology and avionics moved between 1945 to the 50s.
Hey amazing got back to planes need to see more of em
Как B1b оказался на первом месте,у ту 160 больше ракетнобомбовая нагрузка.
@@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.
Fascinating! ✨💯
Tu 95 can carry much more than 15 tons, a Tsar bomb weighing 27 tons was dropped from it
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.
That Heinkel He 177 is all the way wild!
The B17 had a bigger payload than the Lancaster? I'd check that one, if I were you.
Some crazy capacities there.
It's always a trade-off between bomb load and range, but the BOne always comes out on top.
0:53 I think you should reupload this video, if you wanted
im pretty sure a b24 can hold more then a b 17
What program do you use to create animations?
Cool Video! ❤
Lancaster bomber is an epic machine 🙂🙂🙂🙂
I'm an American but I have to admit the Britons did it better
Tupolev Tu 160 carga 45000 Kg
B.U.F.F. Best (Ugly) Friend Forever!!
just kidding, you all know the acronym..
I didn’t even see the end, when you don’t check the name under a Japanese bomber reported as B24 and show plane that were only prototypes while forgetting the B 17, 🙄🤦♂️ forget it gunny!
If you watched it to the end you would have seen the B-17.
top !!! congratulations from brazil !!!
Good stuff. 👍👾
Where did you get 17,600lbs for the B17?? The B17 was renowned for having a poor payload for its size compared to the Lancaster and Halifax. The figure you quote is a theoretical load, with external racks, which were very rarely used in combat.
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
ua-cam.com/video/tIQj2qfpXSg/v-deo.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.
This video would be cool if the numbers were accurate.
Wow! Nice video!
Thank you! Cheers!
Bone for the win...
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.
The Tu-160 is larger than B-1, how can it couldn't carry more ?
Nice to see the Dom.
no offence but I am pretty sure you pulled some of these numbers out of thin air, especially the WW2 ones
Hey, can you do fiction plays, please? Maybe some loopmaster ones
The K-7 wasn't the largest propeller bomber or aircraft. The XB-19 was larger. The XB-36 was larger. The An-22 is the largest propeller driven aircraft.
What's the track at 2:55?
Heinkel HE 177 Greif. Affectionately known as the flying coffin and the one way bomber
Tu95 is not in list?
5:48
The lancaster had a maximum payload of a 22000 pound bomb, NOT 14
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
Sorry if I'm still asking, but can you do something about French Air Force?
Dassault Breguet Mirage iiiC was a marvellous MiG21 killer.
So, why is Mirage IV here but not F-111 or Su-24?
5:00 Love to see Winnie the Pooh with emperor's crown. 😆😁😄😃😀
wow B-1 Lancer
Guess you should have read the entire Wikipedia article on the B-24. Maximum payload is 8,000 Kilograms not 8,000 pounds.
kinda wish they'd given the skyraider a shout.
Oh yes the best heavy bomber, an attack plane :P
B-1 & Tu-160
B-24 was built in Tokyo by Consolidated?
Missing the Tu-22 (25,600 lbs), also the fact the M4 lacked the range to get from the USSR to the USA and back the the USSR wasn't actually considered a problem during design as subsonic strategic bombers weren't expected to make it home anyway.
B-1 60 tons???? Are you sure?????
the japenese never made the b-24 liberator the orange plane is the g8n which resembles the b24 in some way
B1 Lancer 23 000kg de carga
Imo the comparison would be better if the aircraft had accurate livery like the B-52H having livery from the 93rd Bomb Squadron. Also add more data to each aircraft
The normal bomb load of a Lancaster was more tha a b17 .as they had a lot more mn on the B17 as well gun's .even a mosquito could carry nearly as much as a B17.tje grand slam bomb fitted in the Lancaster bomb bay in length as its was long enough to take it .but had the bay doors off beause of it's circumference. This list needs to be reworked..there are other lists that are more accurate of the ww2 plane's. But that's all they have not the newer plane's
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.
♥️♥️♥️
Не может машина меньше ту160 поднять 60 тонн нагрузки! В 1 не может поднять 60 тонн! Он меньше ту160! Ту 160 лидер по грузоподъёмности среди современных стратегических бомбардировщиков!
Ummm B-17 8,000 pounds of bombs and that Japanese B24… yeah.
The b17 can carry 17,600 lb of bombs but only by using external bomb racks which not very many were used
Even no quadrocopter? 😯
Did anyone proofread this before publishing?
turpolev tu 160 and b1 bomber spot of different
I’m curious as to how Homer is paired up with the B-17? DOH!
A Japanese B-24 ??????
搭載量比較の動画に日本機が登場するのは嬉しいが…
四式重爆撃機の爆弾搭載量は、基本800kg・最大1000kgですのでこの動画の基準には合いません。
本機のペイロードとされているのは、桜弾(さくらだん)と呼ばれる成形炸薬弾を装備した特殊機の事を差していると思います。
ただ、本機は大戦後期に登場と活躍した期間は短いながら、スマートな機体と雷撃もできる運動性で我が国でも人気の機体です。
取り上げてくれてありがとう！
Lancer is tactical bomber capable of carrying nukes. Like Tu-22M3. While Tu-160, Tu-95, B-52 & B-2 are strategic bombers.
The B-2; the Spirit of the Dark side of the Force?
Iraqi Air Forces ❤ please 🙏
You lost me in the first row when your models and data failed to match your blurb. Also several planes were knockoffs of American planes given to allies or built from captured or wrecked planes. You need to be more careful in your research.
В52 is the best one.
Do deadly Brasil ground forces
I’m hyped
B-26 Marauder???????????????????????????????????????????????????
No B 17 ever carried more payload than a Lancaster. A Lanc could carry 22000 pounds, the average B 17 took 4000. About the same as a Mosquito
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.
Is it just me that thinks this list was off on like the majority of the bombers payload capacity’s that was listed , and by quite a bit for a few of the bombers listed here also 🤷♂️ , however I am Basing my opinion from war thunder 😂
Not sure any of the supersonic bombers could carry as much payload as the B-52.
Video: heavy bombers (proceeds to put jet fighters/fighter bombers which ARENT HEAVY BOMBERS.)
The tu4 had a larger payload capacity than the b29... like half of these are incorrect
I think you have been more than optimistic with th B17......
The data you provided is probably from the Boeing's salesman's booklet....
you forgot the A-6E Intruder
Info on 32 on 31 is identical, clearly it's the info for 32. FIX IT!
2:05 wtf man the he 177 could carry AT LEAST 7 tons of bombs, and maybe even 9
The pe-8 looks like a b17
The italian ca 90 heavy bomber can carry 8000kg bombs
The AVRO Lancaster could carry the 22,000 pound Grand Slam bomb which was heavier and larger than the Tallboy
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.
A Mitsubishi KI-67 (Peggy) is NOT a heavy bomber. It is a medium bomber.
B17 carrying 17,600lbs? How far did that fly, and how fast was it?
It didn't mess up the flight but they had to use external bomb racks and I don't think many of those saw combat
Tu4 has a payload of 12.000 kg not lb
It should be the same as b-29 because they did nothing but copy the b-29
3:53 thx ussr was giving Turpolev tu16 to indonesia when ops Trikora
Go and do some proper research and then re make this video and get someone to check it it for goofs before you upload it. Otherwise very well presented but duff info.😊
Beaks, Buffs and Bones AKA don’t Fuc# around or you WILL find out. 5:29 6:21 7:03 7:45
B17 had a piifull bomb load of only 5000lb compared the Lancs standard 14,000. Yes the forres could carry more but the range was reduced to just over 100 miles. That i a bit short for effective use. The Mosquito could carry 4000lb over the ame ditance (and faster)
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
ua-cam.com/video/KMETNhT74mk/v-deo.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
Also， tu-160 not count external payload， just two big bomb bays
fortunately， none of them rained kiev
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
Imagine using pounds
F-111