B52 and B1B Lancer ordinance question

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by SGTschlock, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. SGTschlock

    SGTschlock Sensei aishitemasu

    I've been reading up on the specifications on the B52 and B1B Lancer, (Mainly in relation to World war Z and how MANY bombs the air force should have dropped on Zed) and I'm pondering this.

    Assuming you just wanted to shoot the works, didn't have to worry about operating on long range missions , decided to ignore any relevant treaties and maybe even given time to do some modifications...exactly what kind of bomb configuration and weight could you expect to get out of the two war birds respectively?

    I'm mainly confused because most sites give the B52 and B1B as having maximum bomb load outs of 70,000 lbs and 130,000 lbs for the B1b (assuming STAR I was ignored) but I'm not sure what kind of configuration that would give you.
  2. DrStrangelove

    DrStrangelove Self-appointed Opiate of the Masses

    B-52s can carry up to 108 500lb bombs 84 internal+ 24 external

    B-1Bs can carry up to 84 500lbers internally and another 54 externally for 138 total
  3. SGTschlock

    SGTschlock Sensei aishitemasu

    That seems like a significantly greater number of bomb hard points than what I got from when I went over this... The impression I got was that the B52 could carry 52 500 pounders if you included internal and external carriage.
  4. SuperS4

    SuperS4 I need a new witty Custom Title. Thoughts? "Special"

    He's wrong, and right.

    That's only the B-52D Big Belly that could hold 84 internal 500lbs bombs.

    A B-52H, the current model, can only handle 51, which is the same number of 750lbers it can handle.

    The Big Belly is no longer in service, so his numbers are in correct for modern planes.
  5. SGTschlock

    SGTschlock Sensei aishitemasu

    Why was it considered an advantage for the newer version to carry less ordinance? They replace it with something else?
  6. Twisted Mentat

    Twisted Mentat Associate Male

    I'm guessing range and maintainence advantages. And top it off with all the guided weaponry there is today the current payload is probably more than enough.
  7. shubzilla

    shubzilla Wielder of the Furies Super Awesome Happy Fun Time

    The new B-52s can carry cruise missiles and heavier bombs.
  8. Apocal

    Apocal The New Black SuperModerator

  9. DrStrangelove

    DrStrangelove Self-appointed Opiate of the Masses

    Meh i'm getting old . i forgot they retired all the G model BUFFs . after the Ds and Fs got retired they upgraded half the B-52Gs to the same standard for conventional attack.
  10. SuperS4

    SuperS4 I need a new witty Custom Title. Thoughts? "Special"

    You must be getting really old, because I already said in this thread, the only Big Belly's were B-52Ds, not Gs.

    I have never heard of Gs ever being brought up to the Big Belly standard, nor Fs. Fs got external racks under South Bay and Sun Bath, and I can't recall if Gs were built with the racks originally or not, but eventually they had them in production models. But I've never heard of Gs or Fs ever having increased internal bomb load like the Big Belly. :wtf:
  11. SGTschlock

    SGTschlock Sensei aishitemasu

    So is there any bomb loadout that can actually let the B52 carry it's supposed maximum of 70,000 pounds?
  12. Pjay

    Pjay Bloodguard (TA). We Suffice

    In the past a few big nukes would do it.
  13. SGTschlock

    SGTschlock Sensei aishitemasu

    Except there are allot of factors that keep nukes from being used outside the context of deterrence.
  14. TK99

    TK99 Me Use Spell Check Now

    The Boeing proposed upgrades that have been banging for the last couple of years have proposed in making the current models bigger inside period since a lot the upgraded tech. is a lot smaller and less power instinctive.
  15. SuperS4

    SuperS4 I need a new witty Custom Title. Thoughts? "Special"

    What he meant is, only a few types of payloads actually put the B-52 at its limits.

    The problem is merely the design of its bomb bay, while it can carry a lot of weight, its size restrictions in terms of physical dimensions and volume that are the limiting factor. Hence why the Big Belly, which really didn't have any change in its engines, could carry so much more, it just had more space to fit all those bombs, and it came reasonably close to hitting the 70,000 limit.

    B-52Hs which were modified to carry AGM-86 on rotary launchers in their bellies also came close to hitting its limit, since 8 on the rotary launcher and the 12 on the wings come to 64,000lbs.

    So yes, there are some ways to get close to its limits. But with certain treaties, most of those options are gone, and conventional bombs just aren't the right dimensions :p
  16. Ralson

    Ralson Horrible Cat

    If you're fighting zombies, jet bombers aren't really the right thing to use. Wheel in artillery and go to town. An airplane represents a lot of trouble required to put explosives on targets. They're the only way to do it when you don't have any artillery in the area and you're in a hurry, but this isn't really the case with zombies. Big guns are a very simple, direct way to do it.
  17. Commander 598

    Commander 598 Tailhook Representative

    I dunno, the craters B52s made carpet bombing Vietnam were really impressive...
  18. SuperS4

    SuperS4 I need a new witty Custom Title. Thoughts? "Special"

    True. But, bombers represent the ability to strike anywhere, from anywhere. Got a city away from an armor column that's been overrun with Zombies and you want it flattened? Call in some bombers and carpet bomb it.

    Not to mention, the average battery size is 6 guns(8 if self propelled), meaning 12rounds a minute. It would take a good amount of time to do as much damage as a single B-52. Granted, the guns can change on the fly and hit over a wider area, and using certain rounds, can do considerably more damage to fleshy targets via mines and fragmentation.

    To put it into perspective, a battery of guns firing M107 shells(7kg/15lbs), with a rate of fire of 12rounds a minute(6guns*2RPM) would take 141minutes to fire as much as a single B-52 carrying 500lb bombs, or 212minutes when a B-52 is carrying 750lb bombs.

    So both have their uses, granted, I agree, artillery certain has a lot of advantages over a bomber in this kind of situation. But the bomber is not without its uses.
  19. Apocal

    Apocal The New Black SuperModerator

    A 500lbs. bomb has considerable overkill against personnel in the open. Theoretically it has an advantage in a larger effective kill radius, but that shit never works out like it should so it's better to just drops lots of smaller munitions. Hence cluster bombs and ICM shells.

    And a bomber like the B-52 flies once a day. Artillery is 24/7, all-weather. As reliable as pizza delivery and prostitutes.
  20. SuperS4

    SuperS4 I need a new witty Custom Title. Thoughts? "Special"

    True, but I was talking more for just, flattening an entire town in one go. Got a problem city? Not any more you don't!

    30minutes or its free? :drevil::cool:
  21. Forgetful

    Forgetful Nuka Chemist

    Depends what kinda zombies.

    World War Z zombies aren't too affected by bombs and munitions. While many zombies will be taking down, they wll still be active, crawling around on hands to get at prey. They need headshots to be dispatched properly.

    On the other hand, 28 days zombies seem to be taken out like an ordinary human can; perhaps needing more rounds because they're amped up.
  22. SuperS4

    SuperS4 I need a new witty Custom Title. Thoughts? "Special"

    You realize most bombs(and especially artillery shells) fragment, correct? While they aren't going to be scoring 100% headshots, there are going to be plenty of them having their head hit with shrapnel, not to mention several of them could potentially have their heads taken off by debris, or crushed under buildings that collapse.

    All in all, bombs of the size we're talking, will do well at stopping them, and even if they don't, a zombie missing its legs will be slower then one with legs, not to mention any of them that get thrown by the blast and smash their heads will have extensive brain damage, which is likely to kill them outright anyways.
  23. SGTschlock

    SGTschlock Sensei aishitemasu

    I'm mainly bringing up the over sized HE question because of shit I read on /k/ where someone defended WWZ about the zombies being immune to the effect of HE bombs...

    Which is absolutely ludicrious for several reasons.

    This is the Mark 84


    It weighs 2000 pounds. Almost half of that is explosives. It can make a crater 50 feet wide and 35 feet deep. Any zed's within the blast radius aren't going to be "active" afterword's. They're going to be gibbed. Given that zombies bunch up, this is gonna be a pretty significant number. Beyond the initial blast zone, there are gonna be many other zombies who will have their combat effectiveness greatly reduced due to dammage. A B52 can drop 18 of these along with a load of lighter bombs internally. Twenty five B52's could drop 450 of them.

    The idea that a zed swarm would be able to shake off a sustained air attack from strategic bombers is laughable.

    There's also no reason NOT to use them, considering we already have them. Also a large fleet of strategic bombers can react to a million zeds marching out of New York faster than an artillery division can.

    And while from a static position Siege guns are just as capable of dumping down large amounts of munitions...nobody really has siege guns any more. The closest we have are strategic bombers.
  24. Bryan

    Bryan <font color=yellow>The Great Goof!</font>

    I know this is a bit off topic, but for writing a zombie story where the brain has to be destroyed, what about napalm? How would dropping tons of napalm affect the brain?
  25. SGTschlock

    SGTschlock Sensei aishitemasu

    I'd assume that if the napalm clung to zeds head, that after a couple of minutes his brain meat would be cooked.