06.03.2010, 03:22
Hey all,
I was wondering what the most effective bomb/size ratio was in real life (as far as the fighter-bombers go...) I know in WWII most fighter-bombers usually carried 2x 500LB bombs rather than 1x 1,000LB. However in IL-2 the 1,000LB bomb is much more effective due to it's larger blast radius.
Was 2x 500LB bombs more effective in real-life? I know they usually had to release both 500's at the same time, when they were wing mounted (1 on each wing)... I suppose in real-life the two bomb blasts of 2x 500lb's would compound making the blast radius similair to the 1,000. I've found in IL-2 however, the 1,000 gets the job done much better.
As far as stability goes, it seems to me than 1 1,000 lb bomb mounted on the centerline of the plane would be more stable than haveing a 500LB on each wing. Similairly, the 1,000 would proably produce less drag as well... So why did most fighter-bombers usually use 2x 500LB instead?
I was wondering what the most effective bomb/size ratio was in real life (as far as the fighter-bombers go...) I know in WWII most fighter-bombers usually carried 2x 500LB bombs rather than 1x 1,000LB. However in IL-2 the 1,000LB bomb is much more effective due to it's larger blast radius.
Was 2x 500LB bombs more effective in real-life? I know they usually had to release both 500's at the same time, when they were wing mounted (1 on each wing)... I suppose in real-life the two bomb blasts of 2x 500lb's would compound making the blast radius similair to the 1,000. I've found in IL-2 however, the 1,000 gets the job done much better.
As far as stability goes, it seems to me than 1 1,000 lb bomb mounted on the centerline of the plane would be more stable than haveing a 500LB on each wing. Similairly, the 1,000 would proably produce less drag as well... So why did most fighter-bombers usually use 2x 500LB instead?