# Lancaster as an escorted, daylight bomber ala B-17/24?



## IdahoRenegade (Nov 15, 2020)

I'm curious about something. My understanding is that the Lancaster was largely used as a night-bomber, due to the lessons learned by the British about losses encountered with unescorted daylight bombing, particularly with their lack of availability of a long-range, high performance, high altitude fighter to escort them, at least early in the war. Were Lancs widely used as escorted daylight bombers later in the war (without perhaps much fanfare)? If not, with the escorts the '17 and '24 got by the end of '43 on, could they have effectively done the job of a daylight bomber? Or did their relative lack of firepower (8-.30 caliber MGs vs 11/13 .50s) mean that even with escorts that they would have been too vulnerable? I realize that from a standpoint of managing 24 hour bombing, it might simply have made more sense to keep the British bombing campaign focused on night raides, leaving it to the Americans for daylight, rather than the unsuitability of the Lanc for the job.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 15, 2020)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Were Lancs widely used as escorted daylight bombers later in the war (without perhaps much fanfare)?



I'm not sure if 'widely' is the word everyone would use, but yes RAF heavies did many escorted (and unescorted) daylight operations from mid 1944 on. Armament centred around the Browning .303, single-stage engines, and almost zero formation training would preclude the RAF heavies from embarking on the types of campaigns the US heavies did.

As you say .303-inch guns were certainly weaker than .5-inch, but the defences of the Fortress/Liberator still weren't enough.

That said, the British were certainly eyeing up the self-defending bomber concept again -- once they had their gyro-sighted, 20-mm cannon turrets in service.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 15, 2020)

A reasonable summary from Harris' postwar despatches:

-----------------------------------------------------------

Prior to the invasion of France in June, 1944, the main effort of the Command was employed almost entirely at nights. No attempt was made to employ the Command in a sustained daylight offensive which would have certainly failed, in view of the inadequate defensive armament of the bombers and the absence of suitable fighter cover.

During this period, however, it was possible to make occasional surprise attacks, using small and medium forces of heavy aircraft, and this was done. In April, 1942, a small scale attack was made against the M.A.N. Diesel Factory in Augsberg in which 12 Lancasters used low-level tactics attacking the target at dusk. In October, 1942, forces of approximately 100 heavy aircraft flew to Le Creusot and to Milan in daylight and returned in darkness.

After the invasion of France, it was possible for the Command to increase its freedom of action and to operate against short range targets, mostly in support of the Army and requiring extreme accuracy, in daylight. This was done using the marking technique which was built up during the operations against French marshalling yards during the previous three to four months, but without attempting formation tactics. As France was progressively overrun and the enemy fighter bases were pushed further back, the range of the attacks was extended and greater numbers of aircraft were used. A loose formation known as a “gaggle,” in which aircraft flew in company but not in a fixed formation, was adopted. Long range fighter aircraft became available in small numbers.

By November, 1944, large scale attacks, using at times up to 1,000 aircraft, were carried out against German targets in the Ruhr. The total time over target in these attacks was worked out on the basis of 30 aircraft per minute and although peak concentrations sometimes reached a much higher figure it was found that this was the most satisfactory average rate. For these raids the P.F.F. marking technique and special equipment developed for night operations against similar targets was used.

It was about this time that G.H. was introduced in quantity into No. 3 Group. This was a precision blind-bombing device with an accuracy of the order of 300-500 yards, and could handle up to 80 aircraft at any one time. Until this equipment became available, daylight attacks were ordered only when there was a strong probability of clear weather conditions at the target. G.H. provided a method whereby medium-sized forces could make an accurate attack against precision targets which were obscured by cloud. The device had a range of the order of 200-250 miles and the method normally employed was for aircraft to fly in vics of three, of which the leading aircraft was equipped with G.H. and the wing aircraft released their bombs on a prearranged signal. This method increased the freedom of action of the Command and was particularly successful against oil targets in the Ruhr during the winter months when it was necessary to sustain the attacks and the chances of clear weather conditions were small. Because of the success of this method, 3 Group were employed more often than any other Group on daylight operations.

As previously stated it was not found possible or desirable to use standard close formations. Although this made the task of the fighter escort more difficult it reduced the losses to flak as compared with the conventional formations adopted by the American Fortresses and Liberators. As the penetrations became deeper, however, it was considered advisable to reduce the length of the stream and as a result the concentration of aircraft over the target was increased, and every effort was made to prevent straggling. The "gaggle" formation, however, remained the standard method throughout.

During this period, the Command was called upon from time to time to carry out special operations in support of the Army. In these, the tactics described above were used except that bombing was generally from a low to medium level and special precautions were taken to prevent gross errors in bombing. For this reason, in addition to the Master Bomber who directed the attacks, an experienced captain was detailed to make a special assessment of all markers and drop yellow smoke on any marker which was wide of the aiming point as an indication to the force that it should be ignored. With this precaution it was found possible, in clear weather conditions, to attack targets of which the aiming point was no more than 3,000 yards from the front line.

Although the enemy fighter reaction remained slight, it was known that the bomber forces were accurately plotted as soon as they came within range of his Radar coverage. For this reason, tactics such as signals and Radar silence and the low level approach across Northern France which was used with success at night, were continued. It is probable that had the enemy been given the opportunity to make an early assessment of the composition and nature of the approaching force he would have attempted more frequent interceptions.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
5 | Informative Informative:
9 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Nov 15, 2020)

Here are a couple documents I have readily at hand showing Lancasters and Halifaxes being escorted by RAF fighters during daylight operations:

Spitfire IXs +25 lbs. of 1 and 165 Squadrons escort Lancasters and Halifaxes at Homberg. 27 August 1944
Spitfire XIVs of 350 Squadron escort Lancasters over Ruhr. 11 September 1944
Spitfire XIVs of 130 Squadron escort to Halifaxes bombing Wenne Eickel. 12 September 1944
Spitfire XIVs of 402 Squadron escort Halifaxes to Danne Eickel. 2nd mission - Target cover to Halifaxes at Dortmund. 12 September 1944
Mustang IIIs of 129 Squadron escorting Lancasters to Bremen. 23 March 1945

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Piper106 (Nov 15, 2020)

I am assuming that the bombers retained their night camouflage (black underside), since there were not used enough times on day missions warrant a change to day camouflage.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 15, 2020)

Harris decided that raids against targets in France were to be conducted in daylight hours and at lower altitudes for two reasons. The first was owing to the fear of killing civilians, since France was an ally and so to improve accuracy the ops were flown at lower heights and during mid to late afternoon for greater visibility which also gave the bombers the ability to escape over the Channel under cover of twilight/darkness.

The bombers didn't change colour schemes, primarily because of their predominant night role. As for the reasons for the RAF not doing daylight raids like the USAAF, the Americans were warned about the perils of doing so and it is worth remembering the first US 8th AF daylight raids in 1942, the units suffered high losses. This tended to shaken the resolve by the AAF commanders, particularly since the doctrine had been the staple of the USAAC/AAF bombing corps, and before it became the force to be reckoned with that it became there was lots of soul searching and it needed to be recognised that changes needed to be made. It is worth pointing out that the USAAC/AAF initially advocated _unescorted_ raids and operational experience proved this to be utter folly. The Brits had advised of this and deliberately chose night bombing because of the perils of unescorted daylight raids.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 16, 2020)

Here is the thing about the US 50 calibre Browning US Bombers used versus the 303 Calibre Browning the RAF used on bombers.
1 It doesn't matter. Neither Calibre Worked against coordinated attack by daylight fighters.
2 The 303 Browning was effective against a lone enemy fighter. Sensible Luftwaffe Night fighter's who were spotted and engaged by the turrets of a British bomber broke their engagement and hunted another bomber. Luftwaffe pilots that didn't have this habit died and shot down few aircraft. Some Luftwaffe Nachtjagt pilots experienced accurate 303 fire at 1200 yards.

The Lancaster couldn't be expected to operate far above 20,000ft.

Here is the thing. The 8.8cm FLAK 37 had an engagement envelope of 11 seconds at 30,000ft. Perhaps 3 rounds could be fired off. At 25,000ft however things in theory were better the reality is that gun was already relatively inaccurate. There was much more powerful German guns, the 10.5cm FLAK and 12.8cm FLAK as well as the 8.8cm FLAK 41 with a much higher velocity but they were about 5 times less common. At 20,000ft the plain 8.8cm FLAK 37 gun is quite dangerous.

The Me 109 and Fw 190 had single stage superchargers whose full pressure altitudes were slightly above 20,000ft and therefore these aircraft achieved their peak speeds at around 20,000ft. By fighting at this altitude the German fighters are no longer at an disadvantage against P-47, P-38 or even P-51.

Finally, though stories abound regarding the Lancasters prodigious bombload this is a furphy. If a Lancaster is forced to fly above 20,000ft, if a Lancaster is given the same armour and redundancy as a B17 (multiple generators and hydraulic systems) its bomb load drops to similar levels if not less.

It would be practical* if escorts were provided* but it would not be quite so effective. Assume some extra armour, reduced bomb load and fitting of ventral turrets and maybe 50 calibre guns for the tail and maybe nose turret. Leave ventral gun and dorsal guns at 303 calibres to maintain speed. The rear and front guns on RAF heavies clearly have an enormous field of fire that meant they were less reliant on waist, dorsal and ventral gun positions..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 16, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Finally, though stories abound regarding the Lancasters prodigious bombload this is a furphy. If a Lancaster is forced to fly above 20,000ft, if a Lancaster is given the same armour and redundancy as a B17 (multiple generators and hydraulic systems) its bomb load drops to similar levels if not less.



Not necessarily. It depends on what you are trying to get your Lancasters to bomb and how far away they are from the UK bases. Weight of load has less effect on aircraft performance compared to drag, but increased height presents problems with accuracy. A Lancaster III with a take-off weight of 63,000lbs was capable of operating at 23,000 feet. Clean it up and remove turrets would increase height, but might decrease range and speed. Of course though, with an MTOW of 72,000lbs carrying a Grand Slam, a Lancaster B.I (Special) can only reach a height of 18,000 feet with a reduced range and speed compared to the standard Lancaster III, but that's a given and was under very special circumstances - B.I (Specials) were extensively modified compared to standard Lancasters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## daviemax (Nov 21, 2020)

The primary reason for the Lancaster not being viable as a day bomber was its low ceiling - 21,500 feet loaded. This was even lower than that of the B-24 (23,500 feet) and far below that of the B-17 (at least 30,000 feet). This low ceiling rendered Lancasters operating in daylight very vulnerable to both flak and fighters. Very late in the war, as the German threat declined, some Lancasters were operated in daylight under heavy escort; however, this was very much an exception. It is good to recall that a major reason why the B-24 began to phase out of the 8th AF from the summer of 1944 was due to its relatively low ceiling. With its even lower ceiling the Lancaster was a non-starter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 21, 2020)

daviemax said:


> The primary reason for the Lancaster not being viable as a day bomber was its low ceiling - 21,500 feet loaded. This was even lower than that of the B-24 (23,500 feet) and far below that of the B-17 (at least 30,000 feet). This low ceiling rendered Lancasters operating in daylight very vulnerable to both flak and fighters. Very late in the war, as the German threat declined, some Lancasters were operated in daylight under heavy escort; however, this was very much an exception. It is good to recall that a major reason why the B-24 began to phase out of the 8th AF from the summer of 1944 was due to its relatively low ceiling. With its even lower ceiling the Lancaster was a non-starter.



Of course this is with single stage Merlins, optimized for low/mid altitude performance. With the two stage Merlin 85 the Lancaster could cruise at 254mph TAS at 27000ft @ 2650rpm and 4.2lb boost at 62000lb, this with both forward turrets and radome. Full throttle would be 3000rpm and ~7lb boost at the same altitude. So if you wanted a high altitude Lancaster for daylight bombing, you could have one, as long as there was sufficient supply of two stage engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 21, 2020)

I think the operating altitude of Lancasters and other night time bombers was decided by the height vapour trails form.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 21, 2020)

daviemax said:


> The primary reason for the Lancaster not being viable as a day bomber was its low ceiling - 21,500 feet loaded. This was even lower than that of the B-24 (23,500 feet) and far below that of the B-17 (at least 30,000 feet). This low ceiling rendered Lancasters operating in daylight very vulnerable to both flak and fighters. Very late in the war, as the German threat declined, some Lancasters were operated in daylight under heavy escort; however, this was very much an exception. It is good to recall that a major reason why the B-24 began to phase out of the 8th AF from the summer of 1944 was due to its relatively low ceiling. With its even lower ceiling the Lancaster was a non-starter.


How do you explain the use of the B-24 in the 15th AF.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Nov 21, 2020)

And yet the Lancaster ( a night bomber due to policy, not because of its "low ceiling") often flew above 23,000 feet, and at 25,000 feet, according to a number of first-hand accounts, and operations briefing notes etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 21, 2020)

Milosh said:


> How do you explain the use of the B-24 in the 15th AF.


Doctrine and training.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2020)

Some time ago a member of this forum did a huge amount of research into the losses of the Lancaster and the B24, tracking every mission flown over Europe, by day and by night of the two aircraft. At the end the loss ratio was exactly the same for both aircraft, by day and night.

So to sum up, yes the Lancaster was a viable day bomber and the numbers proved it. You could take this a stage further and say that as the Lancaster carried a payload that on average was 50% more than the B24 and had fewer crew, it was the more efficient bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 21, 2020)

daviemax said:


> The primary reason for the Lancaster not being viable as a day bomber was its low ceiling - 21,500 feet loaded.



Yet in the previous post I posted that Lancaster IIIs could fly at 23,000 feet carrying a full load, with an MTOW of 63,000 ft, and RCAFson pointed out that later more advanced variants had even better performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 22, 2020)

Glider said:


> Some time ago a member of this forum did a huge amount of research into the losses of the Lancaster and the B24, tracking every mission flown over Europe, by day and by night of the two aircraft. At the end the loss ratio was exactly the same for both aircraft, by day and night.
> 
> So to sum up, yes the Lancaster was a viable day bomber and the numbers proved it. You could take this a stage further and say that as the Lancaster carried a payload that on average was 50% more than the B24 and had fewer crew, it was the more efficient bomber.



Was this over the same time period? After August 1944 the Reich was running out of fuel, out of well trained pilots, out of propellant for FLAK and out of quality explosive fillers to burst its FLAK shells properly. Many of their radars were jammed or degraded with only a few receiving anti-jamming circuits able to penetrate the hundreds of allied "carpet" jammers and hundreds of tons of Windows dropped.

It's not hard to see that the B24's advantages would not benefit it over the Lancaster when in essence the Reich for the most part is defenceless against either.




nuuumannn said:


> Not necessarily. It depends on what you are trying to get your Lancasters to bomb and how far away they are from the UK bases. Weight of load has less effect on aircraft performance compared to drag, but increased height presents problems with accuracy. A Lancaster III with a take-off weight of 63,000lbs was capable of operating at 23,000 feet. Clean it up and remove turrets would increase height, but might decrease range and speed. Of course though, with an MTOW of 72,000lbs carrying a Grand Slam, a Lancaster B.I (Special) can only reach a height of 18,000 feet with a reduced range and speed compared to the standard Lancaster III, but that's a given and was under very special circumstances - B.I (Specials) were extensively modified compared to standard Lancaster's.



I'm sceptical of this.

The Performance of the Lancaster is described here: Lancaster Performance Trials (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)
In essence what can be said about the Lancaster I (with 4 x Merlin XX engines) and the much later Lancaster III with much more capable Merlin 24 engines is that in both cases the aircraft achieves its maximum speed at 16,000ft but then both climb and speed decrease until the aircraft reaches its service ceiling of 23,000ft. An The Lancaster III can simply carry 10,000libs more weight. An aircraft at its service ceiling is at a climb rate of 100ft/minute (0.5m/sec) and is on the edge of a stall with little margin for manoeuvring. With reduced load we can get the Lancaster III operating at 23,000ft but the aircraft will be much slower in speed and climb than a B17G.

The B17 Data shows the aircraft achieving peak speed at not 16000ft like the Lancaster I or III but 25,000f, moreover the speed is higher.
B-17 Performance (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)




RCAFson said:


> Of course this is with single stage Merlins, optimized for low/mid altitude performance. With the two stage Merlin 85 the Lancaster could cruise at 254mph TAS at 27000ft @ 2650rpm and 4.2lb boost at 62000lb, this with both forward turrets and radome. Full throttle would be 3000rpm and ~7lb boost at the same altitude. So if you wanted a high altitude Lancaster for daylight bombing, you could have one, as long as there was sufficient supply of two stage engines.



Two stage Merlin's would be absolutely essential in my view. The Lancaster VI so equipped being significantly faster than B17 at 24000ft but trailing of rapidly beyond that. A B17 can keep climbing to 36000ft compared to 28,000ft in a less armed Lancaster VI (which never entered service).

How feasible is this in August 1942, the date the USAAF conducted its first raid over Ruon France escorted by RAF Spitfire V or even August 1943 the date of the Schweifurt Raid. I understand Merlin 61 engines were in service on Spitfires by 1942.

I'm not a cynic regarding the technical ability of the Lancaster but apart from the ability to produce the engines for it in numbers.

The aircraft would need maybe 1000lbs more armour, secondary hydraulic pumps and generators and 50 calibre guns int he tail and nose.

Spitfire VIII had more range than early P-47C and should be able to escort almost to Berlin so long as waves of aircraft were used so that the longer range wave of escorts were not forced to jetison their fuel tanks.


----------



## Glider (Nov 22, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Was this over the same time period? After August 1944 the Reich was running out of fuel, out of well trained pilots, out of propellant for FLAK and out of quality explosive fillers to burst its FLAK shells properly. Many of their radars were jammed or degraded with only a few receiving anti-jamming circuits able to penetrate the hundreds of allied "carpet" jammers and hundreds of tons of Windows dropped.
> 
> It's not hard to see that the B24's advantages would not benefit it over the Lancaster when in essence the Reich for the most part is defenceless against either.


It covered all raid from the date of entry into service. Raids such as the first daylight unescorted raids undertaken be the Lancaster's were in the mix, nothing was left out.


> I'm sceptical of this.
> 
> The Performance of the Lancaster is described here: Lancaster Performance Trials (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)
> In essence what can be said about the Lancaster I (with 4 x Merlin XX engines) and the much later Lancaster III with much more capable Merlin 24 engines is that in both cases the aircraft achieves its maximum speed at 16,000ft but then both climb and speed decrease until the aircraft reaches its service ceiling of 23,000ft. An The Lancaster III can simply carry 10,000libs more weight. An aircraft at its service ceiling is at a climb rate of 100ft/minute (0.5m/sec) and is on the edge of a stall with little margin for manoeuvring. With reduced load we can get the Lancaster III operating at 23,000ft but the aircraft will be much slower in speed and climb than a B17G.
> ...


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17.html
I suspect your missing one point. Max speed and climb are of secondary importance when in actual combat. Far more important is cruising speed and my understanding is that the Lancaster had a higher economical cruising speed than the B17 when at maximum weights


> The aircraft would need maybe 1000lbs more armour, secondary hydraulic pumps and generators and 50 calibre guns int he tail and nose.


Generally speaking the nose turret was of little benefit but some Lancs were equipped with 0.5 in the Dorsal position and some in the tail. Some tail mounts were very sophisticated with radar directed blind fire sights far in advance of anything fitted to the B17 / B24

As for armour the Lancaster seemed to be average in its ability to take damage and armour would simply slow it down undoing any benefit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2020)

One of the major factors which argued strongly against 8th AF abandoning strategic daylight bombing was that the entire training program was mobilized for close formation daylight operations, including navigation and window of daylight for Norden bombsight. 

A little mentioned factor arguing against 'switching' was the risks of combining day and night operations into night operations. Doubling the amount of bombers into a night window posed many problems which didn't have solutions, namely nav aids and standardized processes for launching and returning in bad weather/low visibility in fall/winter 1943-1944.

As for RAF daylight ops change as early as summer 1944 was a distinct lack of adequate supply of Mustangs for deep penetration. The RAF force could be compared on ratio of squadrons to multiple groups (8th AF) - and there were zero P-37D equipped RAF squadrons suitable for intermediate range escort duties.

Aside from the above factors I see zero reason why Lancasters could not have performed very well as Mustang escorted precision daylight bombers. Higher cruising speed below 22K (average B-24 bombing altitude), heavier bomb load and excellent bombsight, augmented by RAF electronic bombing aids..

One comment made above gave the impression that the 2BD/AD experienced a major transition in B-24 strength in summer 1944. the 389th was transferred to Pacific (Dec 44) and the the 492nd was tasked from Bombardment to Carpetbagger/night ops (Aug 44). Conversely the B-24 equipped BG more than doubled in size in spring 1944.

While both the 1st and 3rd BD were equipped with Bomb Groups equipped by the B-17, the 2nd BD steadily gained relative strength of B-24 groups reaching a peak in July1944. One thing is true however, the loss to combat ops of the 389th and 492nd did reduce the total strength of 2AD but it did not further reduce. Another note - the 3AD 34th BG and 493BG converted from B-24 equipped to B-17 equipped in Sept 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Nov 22, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Doctrine and training.


The 15th flew the same kind of missions as the 8th, even having to fly over mountains to get to their targets which the 8th didn't have to do.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 22, 2020)

Milosh said:


> The 15th flew the same kind of missions as the 8th, even having to fly over mountains to get to their targets which the 8th didn't have to do.


What I was responding to was why not use B-24’s for night missions. The 15th and the 8th were trained for daytime missions as per USAAF doctrine. Not whether or not they were capable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 22, 2020)

If the RAF had a pressing need for a high altitude day bomber I reckon the Avro Lincoln and Handley Page Hastings (name reused for post war transport) would have been pushed into production. 

The Lincoln could carry the same bomb load as a Lancaster higher faster further with a much heavier armament. A while ago I read that the reason the Lincoln wasn't rushed into service was that it cost 50% more and took nearly twice as long to build as a Lanc. (I might have those figures about face)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Nov 22, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> What I was responding to was why not use B-24’s for night missions. The 15th and the 8th were trained for daytime missions as per USAAF doctrine. Not whether or not they were capable.



RAF Bomber Command aircraft carried a lot of electronic equipment that wasn't carried by the B17/24. I am not saying that the B24 couldn't carry it, but it would have added a lot of weight to the B24 and that would have needed compensating for. The ball turret and one of the waist gunners were removed from the B24 in Europe from around May 1944 to reduce weight and improve handling. Add a load of electronic equipment and someone to operate it and something else will have to give. 
It isn't quite as easy as it first looks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 22, 2020)

Glider said:


> RAF Bomber Command aircraft carried a lot of electronic equipment that wasn't carried by the B17/24. I am not saying that the B24 couldn't carry it, but it would have added a lot of weight to the B24 and that would have needed compensating for. The ball turret and one of the waist gunners were removed from the B24 in Europe from around May 1944 to reduce weight and improve handling. Add a load of electronic equipment and someone to operate it and something else will have to give.
> It isn't quite as easy as it first looks.


No argument there.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 24, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> in both cases the aircraft achieves its maximum speed at 16,000ft but then both climb and speed decrease until the aircraft reaches its service ceiling of 23,000ft. An The Lancaster III can simply carry 10,000libs more weight. An aircraft at its service ceiling is at a climb rate of 100ft/minute (0.5m/sec) and is on the edge of a stall with little margin for manoeuvring. With reduced load we can get the Lancaster III operating at 23,000ft but the aircraft will be much slower in speed and climb than a B17G.



So, let's argue the point, as Glider rightly points out, why is that a problem? It's a bomber, not a fighter, far less likely to be achieving this over the target area, at which point of the flight regime the aircraft is at cruising speed and best altitude that the operation dictates. When fully laden you don't blat up at your maximum climb speed after take-off, you'd short change yourself of fuel. You climb at the most economic rate of climb to the best altitude for the operation required and the time it takes and speed of the climb is of secondary importance to preserving fuel economy at its maximum weight, which is at take-off.



Koopernic said:


> n aircraft at its service ceiling is at a climb rate of 100ft/minute (0.5m/sec) and is on the edge of a stall with little margin for manoeuvring.



Taken from the document "A review of the performance and handling trials of ten production Lancaster Mk.III aircraft"

All up weights from 63,000 lbs to 54,000 lbs

4.13. Climb in FS Gear at max. climbing power, i.e. 2850 rpm + 9lb/sq in boost. Mean of ten aircraft.
Rate of climb: Constant from 12,000 ft to the full throttle height. 590 ft/min
Full throttle height, 15,800 ft
Time from 12,000 ft to 20,000 ft, 16.7 min
Service ceiling 23,200 ft

Here: Lancaster III Performance (wwiiaircraftperformance.org) 

Taken from the document " Memorandum Report on B-17G Airplane AAF No. 43-37746"

One climb... was run at a take-off gross weight of 57,650 lbs, cowl flaps wide open, calibrated airspeed 138 mph and 2,300 rpm and 38 inches of mercury. The results are as follows:
Altitude Bhp per engine Rate of climb Ft/min Time to climb min Gross weight lbs
SL 985 720 0 57,600
10,000 990 640 14.5 56,950
15,000 995 550 22.5 56,570
25,000 1015  270 47.5 55,550

Here: Memorandum Report on B-17G Airplane, AAF No. 43-37746 (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Dec 4, 2020)

I’ve been working on a related project and after going through Middlebrook & Everitt’s “_The Bomber Command War Diaries_” as well as RAF fighter unit Operations Records Books, I was struck by the extent of daylight RAF heavy bomber missions during autumn 1944, the lack of German air reaction and the light losses suffered by the bomber force. Principal daylight bombing attacks by Lancasters and Halifaxes from Sept. 1944 – Dec. 1944 with escort typically provided by Spitfire IX & XIV, Mustang III and occasionally Tempests:

9/1/44 – V-2 Rocket stores Lumbres & La Pourchinte
9/3/44 – Airfields in southern Holland
9/5/44 – Le Havre
9/6/44 - Le Havre, Emden 
9/8/44 – Le Havre
9/9/44 – Le Havre
9/10/44 – Le Havre
9/11/44 – Le Havre. Synthetic oil plants at Castrop-Rauxel, Kamen and Gelsenkirchen
9/12/44 – Synthetic oil plants at Dortmund, Scholven/Buer and Wanne-Eickel. 
9/13/44 – Gelsenkirchen & Osnakbruck
9/15/44 – Tirpitz
9/17/44 – Boulogne
9/19/44 – Walcheren
9/20/44 – Calais
9/23/44 – Walcheren
9/24/44 – Calais
9/25/44 – Calais
9/26/44 – Calais area
9/27/44 – Calais area, Bottrop, Sterkrade
9/28/44 – Calais area
9/30/44 – Sterkrade, Bottrop
10/3/44 – Walcheren
10/4/44 – Bergen
10/5/44 – Wilhelmshaven
10/6/44 - Synthetic oil plants at Sterkrade and Scholven/Buer
10/7/44 - Kleve, Emmerich
10/11/44 – River Scheldt gun batteries
10/12/44 – Wanne-Eickel oil plant
10/14/44 – Duisburg 
10/17/44 – Walcheren
10/18/44 – Bonn
10/22/44 – Neuss
10/23/44 – Walcheren
10/25/44 – Essen, Homberg
10/26/44 – Leverkusen chemical works
10/28/44 – Cologne, Walcheren
10/29/44 – Walcheren, Tirpitz
10/30/44 – Walcheren, Wesseling
10/31/44 – Bottrop oil plant
11/1/44 – Homberg oil plant
11/2/44 – Homberg oil plant
11/4/44 – Soligen
11/5/44 – Soligen
11/6/44 – Gelsenkirchen oil plant
11/8/44 – Homberg oil plant
11/9/44 – Wanne-Eickel oil refinery
11/11/44 – Castrop-Rauxel oil refinery
11/12/44 – Tirpitz capsized
11/16/44 – American army support
11/18/44 – Munster
11/20/44 – Homberg oil plant
11/21/44 – Homberg oil refinery
11/23/44 – Gelsenkirchen oil plant
11/26/44 – Fulda railway centre
11/27/44 – Cologne railway yards
11/29/44 – Dortmund, Duisburg tar & benzol plant
11/30/44 – Bottrop coking plant. Osterfeld benzol plant
12/2/44 – Dortmund benzol plant
12/3/44 – Heimbach
12/4/44 – Oberhausen
12/5/44 – Hamm
12/8/44 – Urft Dam, Duisburg railway yards
12/11/44 – Urft Dam, Osterfel railway yards, Duisburg coking & benzol plants
12/12/44 – Witten steelworks
12/15/44 – Siegen
12/16/44 – Siegen railway yards
12/19/44 – Trier railway yards
12/21/44 – Trier railway yards
12/23/44 – Trier railway yards, Cologne/Gremberg railway yards
12/24/44 – Lohausen & Mulheim airfields
12/26/44 – St-Vith troop positions
12/27/44 – Reydt railway yards
12/28/44 – Cologne/Gremberg marshalling yards
12/29/44 – Koblenz railway yards
12/31/44 – Vohinkel railway yards

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
8 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 4, 2020)

I wonder how many of the raids were carried out using electronic bombing aids due to weather and poor visibility.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 4, 2020)

Glider said:


> RAF Bomber Command aircraft carried a lot of electronic equipment that wasn't carried by the B17/24. I am not saying that the B24 couldn't carry it, but it would have added a lot of weight to the B24 and that would have needed compensating for. The ball turret and one of the waist gunners were removed from the B24 in Europe from around May 1944 to reduce weight and improve handling. Add a load of electronic equipment and someone to operate it and something else will have to give.
> It isn't quite as easy as it first looks.


Agreed that it's not as easy as it looks, so my question is how much weight are we talking about for the added electronics suite?


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 4, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Agreed that it's not as easy as it looks, so my question is how much weight are we talking about for the added electronics suite?


Oohhh. Good one.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 4, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Agreed that it's not as easy as it looks, so my question is how much weight are we talking about for the added electronics suite?



Actually, it seems surprisingly difficult to get equipment weights for British electronic equipment flown in heavy bombers during WW2. 

I did find this entry in the IWM Collections section that hints at a total weight of 330kg for the H2S radar system...but the item and component descriptions are confusing, and the total weight is actually listed as a length (weird!):

Navigation Equipment, Radar H2S Mark II, British

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2020)

The list would be extensive.
H2s
H2s Fishpond
Gee
Various jamming devices
Homing Equipment
'Normal' navigation equipment
IFF 
plus no doubt others


----------



## Airframes (Dec 4, 2020)

And then there's all the extra gubbins carried by 100 Group aircraft, in the form of ELINT and ECM equipment etc. some heavy stuff there.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 4, 2020)

Up the Lancaster’s armament. Four gun dorsal turret out of the Defiant. Return the ventral turret. Can we get four guns into the nose?


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 6, 2020)

Glider said:


> The list would be extensive.
> H2s
> H2s Fishpond
> Gee
> ...



1 Only Pathfinder carried H2S. American bombers also carried H2S, in large numbers, only their version was called H2X and was used for bombing through the clouds. Fishpond was a rare late WW2 device that simply allowed H2S screen to display fighters approach from below. 
2 Various blind bombing navigation aids were carried by US bombers. Micro-H was their version of Gee-H
3 American bombers carried the same Carpet 1, Carpet 2 etc noise jammers as RAF aircraft. They too wanted to degrade Gun laying radar. About the size of a shoe box.
4 American aircraft carried homing equipment and the ability to land in bad weather, fog etc.

I doubt there was any substantive difference between the US electronic warfare fitout and the British.

What American bombers carried was 4 electric generators not 1. They also carried multiple hydraulic pumps, not the notorious single pump on the Lancaster that powered the turrets.

All that redundancy, armour, turbo charging equipment added weight but it made daylight bombing possible.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> 1 Only Pathfinder carried H2S.



Not true. On 21 Feb 1943, Bomber Command decided to fit H2S to every aircraft and by the summer of that year it was in regular use as both a bombing aid and a navigation aid.




Koopernic said:


> American bombers also carried H2S, in large numbers, only their version was called H2X and was used for bombing through the clouds.



H2S was not the same thing as H2X. The latter was an American adaptation of the former. Both systems were used by the RAF and USAAF. While the USAAF bomber fleet may have had large numbers of H2S/H2X, it was not carried in every airframe as was the case with Bomber Command. 




Koopernic said:


> Fishpond was a rare late WW2 device that simply allowed H2S screen to display fighters approach from below.



Again, not correct. Fishpond entered service in the autumn of 1943 (hardly "late WW2") and it was fitted to most Bomber Command aircraft (so hardly "rare").




Koopernic said:


> 4 American aircraft carried homing equipment and the ability to land in bad weather, fog etc.



Are you suggesting Bomber Command aircraft didn't have homing equipment? What about Rebecca/Eureka and BABS (Beam Approach Beacon System). IIRC, the USAAF equipment you reference were actually these UK-developed systems.




Koopernic said:


> I doubt there was any substantive difference between the US electronic warfare fitout and the British.



Apart from the fact that relatively few US bombers carried H2S whereas every Bomber Command heavy bomber had that equipment. The Brits also had extensive EW suites fitted to Mosquitos and 100 Group dedicated jammers (e.g. Benjamin, Domino, Hookah, Jostle, Lucero, Mandrel, Piperack, Rope, Serrate, Tinsel etc.).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 6, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Not true. On 21 Feb 1943, Bomber Command decided to fit H2S to every aircraft and by the summer of that year it was in regular use as both a bombing aid and a navigation aid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



H2S replaced a belly turret on Lancaster as it did on Liberator and Fortress.

B17/B24 carried carpet jammers and dropped huge amounts of window to degrade FLAK radar. Windows was the main load of Electronic Warfare equipment.

Some of that Electronic Warfare equipment you mentioned wasn't carried by every Lancaster. It was carried by RAF B17 to high altitude to try and spread the jamming energy over a wider area.

Im saying USAAF bombers carried considerable electronic navigation equipment. Loran from 1944, Micro-H, Windows, H2X at the expense of a turret and the weight they were burdened with was not less in terms of electronics but more burden in the form of armour, armament, redundancy.

How would a Lancaster flying at 240mph max cruise at 21000ft, a perfect height for the 190, deter a 416mph Fw 190A6 attacking from the side and below?


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> H2S replaced a belly turret on Lancaster as it did on Liberator and Fortress.



Yes, but that still doesn't make your initial statement correct. H2S was fitted to every RAF Bomber Command heavy bomber. That was not the case in the USAAF.




Koopernic said:


> Some of that Electronic Warfare equipment you mentioned wasn't carried by every Lancaster. It was carried by RAF B17 to high altitude to try and spread the jamming energy over a wider area.



I never said that it was carried by every bomber. I specifically called out Mosquitos and 100 Group aircraft. I was responding to your comment that "I doubt there was any substantive difference between the US electronic warfare fitout and the British" (which clearly isn't correct given the broader use of H2S/H2X in the RAF) coupled with your mention of homing devices on USAAF aircraft which suggested that the RAF was somehow less flush with electronic systems than the USAAF. Again, methinks you're mistaken in that belief.




Koopernic said:


> How would a Lancaster flying at 240mph max cruise at 21000ft, a perfect height for the 190, deter a 416mph Fw 190A6 attacking from the side and below?



If' you look at Mike's post #26, it seems RAF Bomber Command was undertaking daylight raids on almost a daily basis from 1 September 1944 onwards so, clearly, the Lancaster could survive under the operational conditions of the time based on the tactics employed by Bomber Command and its supporting escort fighters (which were different than those of the USAAF).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> How would a Lancaster flying at 240mph max cruise at 21000ft, a perfect height for the 190, deter a 416mph Fw 190A6 attacking from the side and below?



Same as the B-17 and B-24 had to; with escort fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 6, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Same as the B-17 and B-24 had to; with escort fighters.



There is a world of difference between the escorts B17's had in 1942/43/early 1944 to the escorts Lancasters had over France (not Germany) while being escorted by thousands of land based fighters based in France and able to attack German airfields in France and Germany. It's not the same thing.

A Fw 190 operating at 20,000ft was in its element of speed and manoeuvrability. It can use attack angles with ease to get at blind spots and weaknesses. At 25,000ft and above it has drastically fallen of in performance.

FLAK is about 3 times more deadly at 20,000 versus 25,000ft. 1/(0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8) the factors are x, y, z(shell burst and range accuracy) and engagement time.

The Lancaster I/III simply could not have conducted daylight raids over Germany. in the same way as the B17 It would get destroyed at attrition levels beyond sustainable even with escorts. The Lancaster VI, with heavy modification, maybe could.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 6, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Yes, but that still doesn't make your initial statement correct. H2S was fitted to every RAF Bomber Command heavy bomber. That was not the case in the USAAF.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lancaster operating over France were not challenged by FLAK in anywhere near the way USAAF bombers were challenged while opperating over Germany. Nor were they challenged by Luftwaffe fighters in significant numbers.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Lancaster operating over France were not challenged by FLAK in anywhere near the way USAAF bombers were challenged while opperating over Germany. Nor were they challenged by Luftwaffe fighters in significant numbers.



Have you read the list of targets provided by Mike Williams? It includes Hamburg, Essen, Cologne, Gelsenkirchen, Dortmund, Oberhausen, Bonn, Wilhelmshaven and a number of others which aren't in France...they're in GERMANY. Why do you feel the need to constantly diminish the role of the RAF heavy bomber force?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Lancaster I/III simply could not have conducted daylight raids over Germany.



The evidence clearly shoes that the Lancaster I/III _did_ conduct daylight raids over Germany...unless you're suggesting that the list is wrong, made up, or fake?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> H2S replaced a belly turret on Lancaster as it did on Liberator and Fortress.



I think your missing the point. All RAF Main force bombers carried H2S generally only Bomber Leaders in the USAAF carried it. You can to a degree prove this yourself when looking at photo's of the B17/B24. How many do you see without a ball turret? 
It is also true that all UK based B24's lost their ball turret and one waist gunner to lose weight and improve handling.


> B17/B24 carried carpet jammers and dropped huge amounts of window to degrade FLAK radar. Windows was the main load of Electronic Warfare equipment.


This I agree with and my understanding is that only 1 or 2 aircraft per squadron carried the carpet jammer and it was an extra crew member, the majority used window.


> Im saying USAAF bombers carried considerable electronic navigation equipment.


I would agree that leader's did but generally they didn't. The USAAF had navigation leaders and bomber leaders who clearly needed the extra equipment, the extra personal to use it and the compensating loss of weapons and or payload to compensate. To a much larger degree the RAF had it all as a standard fit without compensation to payload or weapons.


> How would a Lancaster flying at 240mph max cruise at 21000ft, a perfect height for the 190, deter a 416mph Fw 190A6 attacking from the side and below?


Probably no better or worse than a B17 or B24. 
Again this is something you can check yourself looking at the gun camera film available online. How many times do you find one taken from the side, above or below. In fact remembering that the B17 cruised at a lower speed than the Lancaster the B17 was as at much risk if not more than the Lancaster being an easier target and spending more time over enemy territory.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Lancaster operating over France were not challenged by FLAK in anywhere near the way USAAF bombers were challenged while opperating over Germany. Nor were they challenged by Luftwaffe fighters in significant numbers.



Can I strongly suggest that you spend a bit more time doing research before making such obviously incorrect statements.

1) Are you seriously suggesting that the RAF didn't suffer at the hands of the German nightfighter force? 
2) In daylight are you seriously suggesting that the Germans treated the RAF with less degree of seriousness remembering of course that carried a much heavier bombload (approx 50% more) and were more accurate on the many days where cloud cover was around.
3) Re the German Flak. There is a reason why it was in place before the USAAF started bombing targets in Germany. It was there because the RAF pressure forced it to be deployed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> 1 Only Pathfinder carried H2S.



Not true, as you have been advised, but the Pathfinder units in No.8 Group were the first to receive H2S sets, notably No.35 Sqn equipped with the Halifax, as well as No.7 Sqn equipped with the Short Stirling.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 6, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> How would a Lancaster flying at 240mph max cruise at 21000ft, a perfect height for the 190, deter a 416mph Fw 190A6 attacking from the side and below?



What a stupid question! How is it _possible_ that the finest Luftwaffe fighters could not have shot down _every_ Lancaster that flew over German territory?!

You can do better than this, Koopernic.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 7, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> There is a world of difference between the escorts B17's had in 1942/43/early 1944 to the escorts Lancasters had over France (not Germany) while being escorted by thousands of land based fighters based in France and able to attack German airfields in France and Germany. It's not the same thing.
> 
> _A Fw 190 operating at 20,000ft was in its element of speed and manoeuvrability. It can use attack angles with ease to get at blind spots and weaknesses. At 25,000ft and above it has drastically fallen of in performance._
> 
> *SNIP*


I'm pretty sure that altitude band was right in the Mustang's wheelhouse, are British Mustangs handicapped somehow? Could not the 8th or 9th AF reciprocate the favors of the RAF early war where Spits were sent to escort B-17's?


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 7, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Have you read the list of targets provided by Mike Williams? It includes Hamburg, Essen, Cologne, Gelsenkirchen, Dortmund, Oberhausen, Bonn, Wilhelmshaven and a number of others which aren't in France...they're in GERMANY. Why do you feel the need to constantly diminish the role of the RAF heavy bomber force?



These raids do not in any way prove the suitability or survivability of the Lancaster for the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted between 1942 to 1945.
1 These targets are within the escort radius of even the Spitfire IX from Southern England. IE 300 miles.
2 These are conducted 4 months After the June 6 invasion of France after the RAF has bases on the continent.
3 These raids are conducted when the Luftwaffe is weak and on the ropes. The Lancaster is simply not being challenged by the Luftwaffe.
4 Bombing poor old Cologne was by then hardly worth it but clearly targets beyond the Ruhr deeper into Germany were a bit too dangerous.
to try.
5 If they tried Lancasters in 1943 they’d get shredded. FLAK attrition probably 3 times greater, maybe 4. Operating at 20,000ft is also perfect for the German fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 7, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> These raids do not in any way prove the suitability or survivability of the Lancaster for the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted between 1942 to 1945.



The RAF wasn't flying "the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted." Bomber Command had an entirely different approach, simply because there wasn't time to retrain night bomber crews to fly in the large box formations as employed by the USAAF. The tactics were entirely different and hence the delivered different results. 




Koopernic said:


> 1 These targets are within the escort radius of even the Spitfire IX from Southern England. IE 300 miles.
> 2 These are conducted 4 months After the June 6 invasion of France after the RAF has bases on the continent.



While many of these targets are located in western Germany, Hamburg is rather further inland...so let's not oversimplify the arguments by ignoring facts that don't support your position. I also don't understand the point of these 2 comments. The title of this thread is "Lancaster as an ESCORTED daylight bomber." The type of escort fighter is not specified so it could just as easily be USAAF P-47s and P-51s, just as Spitfires provided escort for portions of a great many USAAF bombing raids. 




Koopernic said:


> 3 These raids are conducted when the Luftwaffe is weak and on the ropes.



It was also the timeframe when flak defences were getting more dense and effective. Even 8th AF records highlight the increase in casualties to flak as the German front line collapsed towards Germany proper. And yet you state that the Lancaster was clearly flak bait. 




Koopernic said:


> The Lancaster is simply not being challenged by the Luftwaffe.



Do you have a source for that assertion? Clearly the USAAF bomber formations were still being engaged by both fighters and flak during this time period...and yet the RAF isn't? I'd really like you to provide some statistics backing up this assertion. 




Koopernic said:


> 4 Bombing poor old Cologne was by then hardly worth it but clearly targets beyond the Ruhr deeper into Germany were a bit too dangerous to try.



That's a pretty big assumption you're making. At the end of the day, the bombers were tasked against targets that were deemed the most important given that stage of the war, which is precisely why so many bombers, USAAF and RAF, were used in CAS-like missions to destroy German frontline ground forces as the Allies advanced through Europe. Again, you're painting a very negative view of the RAF. I think you need to climb off your nationalistic hobbyhorse. 




Koopernic said:


> 5 If they tried Lancasters in 1943 they’d get shredded. FLAK attrition probably 3 times greater, maybe 4. Operating at 20,000ft is also perfect for the German fighters.



With due respect, the USAAF B-17s and B-24s got shredded in 1943, which is why, from May 1943 onwards, the USAAF decided that heavy bomber raids into Germany required fighter escort. The USAAF never succeeded in unescorted daylight raids...at least, not until very late in the war. Again, this thread is about the Lancaster as an ESCORTED daylight bomber. 


One final observation...the Lancaster could carry a heavier bomb load and so required fewer aircraft to carry the same tonnage of bombs than either the B-17 and B-24 (the B-24 was better than the B-17 but the Lancaster surpassed them both).


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 8, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'm pretty sure that altitude band was right in the Mustang's wheelhouse, are British Mustangs handicapped somehow? Could not the 8th or 9th AF reciprocate the favors of the RAF early war where Spits were sent to escort B-17's?



The Fw 190A and Me 109G both fell of in performance rapidly after 20000 Feet. The USAAF by attacking at above 25000ft forced the Luftwaffe to fight where it was at a serious disadvantage wrt P-38, P-47 and P51. At 20,000ft things are nowhere as bad in terms of speed, climb and turning rates.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 8, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> The RAF wasn't flying "the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted." Bomber Command had an entirely different approach, simply because there wasn't time to retrain night bomber crews to fly in the large box formations as employed by the USAAF. The tactics were entirely different and hence the delivered different results.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A Lancaster carried more bomb load only because it had less armament, less armor and , this is a big one, it had less redundancy of systems. Carrying H2X meant the American aircaft lost a ball turret. They still had their waist guns and 050.

The big radials on the B17 slowed it a little due to drag and the turbos added weight but the B17 was still faster if the cruise was at 25,000ft. It would have been relatively easy to fit turbo charged Allisons to increase the B17 performance significantly and even the twin wasps replacing the cyclone would have reduced drag.


----------



## Airframes (Dec 8, 2020)

The fact that the Lancaster bomb bay was 33 feet long very possibly had something to do with the size of the bomb load, regardless of what weapons and equipment were fitted !

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 8, 2020)

Why does the Lancaster have to cruise at 20,000 feet. Most crews tried to get higher and plenty flew at 22/23,000 feet.

If you want better altitude then fit high altitude rated engines don't have to be 60 series if they're not available the Merlin 47 (RM6S) fitted to the high altitude Spitfire mk VI might work.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 8, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> A Lancaster carried more bomb load only because it had less armament, less armor and , this is a big one, it had less redundancy of systems. Carrying H2X meant the American aircaft lost a ball turret. They still had their waist guns and 050.



Yes, you're absolutely right. The ability of the Lancaster to carry a typical bomb load of 14,000lb for a range in excess of 2,000 miles is largely due to it having fewer redundant systems.

Oh...and the extra armour which was needed to protect the extra crew which were needed to fire the extra guns...at least 4 of which (depending on the variant) were pintle-mounted and of more use to crew morale than they were a threat to the enemy fighters. 

By comparison, the B-24 is carrying a max of 8,000lb over 1,500 miles or the B-17 carrying 6,000lb over 2,000 miles are clearly the better weapons. 




Koopernic said:


> The big radials on the B17 slowed it a little due to drag and the turbos added weight but the B17 was still faster if the cruise was at 25,000ft. It would have been relatively easy to fit turbo charged Allisons to increase the B17 performance significantly and even the twin wasps replacing the cyclone would have reduced drag.



Relatively easy to fit Allisons to the B-17? I'm not going to touch that nonsense.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 8, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Relatively easy to fit Allisons to the B-17? I'm not going to touch that nonsense.


Actually Allisons were fitted to the B-17, the XB-38.
Boeing XB-38 Flying Fortress - Wikipedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2020)

Not too far fetched but the performance difference is subject to interpretation. 
Test aircraft had one .30 cal gun in the nose. It may have been operating several thousand pounds lighter than a B-17G. 

While the peak power may have been higher on the Allison the max continuous power may have been the same?
1000hp for both engines?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 8, 2020)

The V-1710 was also proposed for the B-24.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 8, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The V-1710 was also proposed for the B-24.
> 
> View attachment 604317


Cool.


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2020)

A couple of obvious responses to your comments



Koopernic said:


> These raids do not in any way prove the suitability or survivability of the Lancaster for the kind of daylight raids the USAAF conducted between 1942 to 1945.
> 1 These targets are within the escort radius of even the Spitfire IX from Southern England. IE 300 miles.


A number of these were, of that there is no doubt but its also fair to point out that the USAAF bombers also could have had the same advantage. Also there was at least one daylight raid in 1944 to the Rhur escorted by Tempests, that suffered zero losses. The RAF didn't repeat it due to the emphasis on night raid, and its clear that one raid should not be given too much relevance. But it was a daylight raid, to a very heavily defended German target which had very large numbers of AA defences, before D Day and it had no losses. Had the RAF wanted to then no doubt it could have continued with further raids


> 2 These are conducted 4 months After the June 6 invasion of France after the RAF has bases on the continent.


Correct and again the USAAF had the same advantages


> 3 These raids are conducted when the Luftwaffe is weak and on the ropes. The Lancaster is simply not being challenged by the Luftwaffe.


Again the comment re the USAAF applies. I don't think you gave an answer to my earlier question. So are you implying that the Luftwaffe decided not to attack the Lancaster's but tried everything they could to stop the USAAF.


> 4 Bombing poor old Cologne was by then hardly worth it but clearly targets beyond the Ruhr deeper into Germany were a bit too dangerous.
> to try.


If you can hit the targets hard by night, why attack them by day?


> 5 If they tried Lancasters in 1943 they’d get shredded. FLAK attrition probably 3 times greater, maybe 4. Operating at 20,000ft is also perfect for the German fighters.


A couple of points here.
a) Are you saying the USAAF didn't receive unsustainable loses in 1943? Before you reply its worth remembering that deep penetration unescorted raids were effectively stopped in 1943 until the long range fighters became available.
b) Re the accuracy of the Flak defences. You can of course support that statement, remembering of course that at the higher cruise speed the Lancaster would have been in range of the AA guns for a shorter period of time. I and no doubt others would appreciate this evidence. Also remember the example of the Rhur raid in May 1944, loads of the most modern AA guns and no, repeat no losses. No doubt they were lucky to a degree, but it does nothing to support your belief that the FLAK attrition would be three to four times the losses suffered by the USAAF.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 8, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Actually Allisons were fitted to the B-17, the XB-38.
> Boeing XB-38 Flying Fortress - Wikipedia



Hi Milosh,

Yes, the XB-38 flew with Allisons but if it was "relatively easy" then it would have been implemented operationally. As it was, the juice doesn't seem to have been worth the squeeze. Yes, it had a higher speed but its operating altitude was lower and the engines were needed for other aircraft, notably the P-38s that were desperately needed as escorts (at least they were in 1943). 

Any technical challenge can be overcome given enough time, money and resources. However, it still think it's rather glib for anyone to suggest that getting an operational Allison-powered B-17 was an easy thing to achieve.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 8, 2020)

Glider said:


> A couple of obvious responses to your comments



I suspect our colleague is merely trolling, as some of his statements are bordering on the ridiculous and are very much unsubstantiated.

Out of general interest, in 1942, the Air Fighting Development Unit at RAF Duxford carried out tactical trials by day and night using a 44 Sqn Lancaster I. Subsequently, a 'flying circus' of three Spitfires visited all the squadrons within No.5 Group Bomber Command to carry out familiarisation flights with the bomber crews. The following is taken from the report, No.47 Tactical Trials - Lancaster Aircraft. Under the heading Fighting Manoeuvres For Formations, there is a description of what action Lancasters should take when formation flying by day.

"28. It has also been found in the majority of recent daylight operations that the German fighters are shy of the power-operated turrets and stand off at 600-400 yards using their cannon. The result is that if any close formation is adopted by the bombers they present a mass target while adding nothing to their mutual fire support, owing to the extreme difficulty of achieving a correct aim at long range with our present sights.""29. It has therefore been necessary to develop a form of evasive action, which will give the bombers a chance to carry out individual evasion while maintaining their track to the target and giving each other assistance. Just before the fighters attack the Lancasters should climb up to 600 feet and numbers 2 and 3 should come well up on the beam of the leader."

"When the fighters close in the leader of the vic should undulate violently between 600 feet and ground level, while Nos. 2 and 3 carry out a modified form of corkscrew on either side of the leader beginning with a diving turn outwards of about 20 degrees and varying their height between 600 and 100 feet. Practise is necessary to ensure that the outside aircraft are never more than 300 to 400 yards from the leader and that they do not mask his guns by sliding in behind him during their inward movement. Nos. 2 and 3 should attempt to keep as close as possible to the leader until an attack actually develops so that during their evasion they will not go too far away from him. This evasive manoeuvre enables the formation to continue upon track while it gives the fighters difficult deflection shooting."

"The fighters found it hard to attack the leader as he was protected by the guns of the outside aircraft, and if they followed an outside aircraft in its corkscrew, they were soon drawn under the leader's guns. A further advantage of this manoeuvre is that the slip stream of the formation is fanned out over a large area and frequently upsets the fighter's aim, being particularly unpleasant near the ground."

These manoeuvres were practised at low level, which makes them remarkable. In a paragraph about high altitude formation flying it states that they could also be carried out to the detriment of the fighters pursuing, but that good fighting control from the lead aircraft was essential.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 9, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> A Lancaster carried more bomb load only because it had less armament, less armor and, this is a big one, it had less redundancy of systems.



Actually no, not at all. It does depend on which model of the B-17 we are discussing, because the early B through D models had an all hand held armament of four or five machine guns. The Manchester was designed from the outset to have four power operated gun turrets, with a total of no less than *ten* machine guns, and that was with that massive 33 foot long bomb bay that was unique in any in-service bomber of the war. Obviously, between the Manchester and the Lancaster, the four Merlins as opposed to two Vultures enabled the Lancaster to have a greater MTOW and thus a larger bomb load, but certainly not at the sacrifice of armament or armour or anything. In fact, the Lancaster was faster, had a larger load lifting capability, longer range and greater ceiling than the Manchester, yet could carry the same armament of ten machine guns.

The underside turret on both types was removed because it proved uncomfortable to use, not to save weight. This reduced both types' armament to eight machine guns, but still *all* contained in power operated turrets. The B-17E and F sometimes had fewer guns than the Lancaster/Manchester was designed to carry, and only four of them were in two power turrets; the 'G certainly had more than the Lancaster was nominally fitted with, but it wasn't until the 'G model that the B-17 had an equal number of powered turrets. Lots of guns doesn't mean accuracy. Power turrets proved to be far more accurate than hand held guns.

The Lancaster had plenty of redundancy built in, systems wise. It had an engine driven hydraulic pump on both inboard engines and a hand pump as a back up, as well as an accumulator, and the gun turrets, driven through the aircraft's hydraulic system each had their own engine driven pump in the different engines aside from the main hydraulic system pumps. There was also a vacuum pump fitted to both inboard engines, again for redundancy in case of failure of one, for the instruments and gyros for the Mk.XIV bomb sight. The electrical system was based around two 1,500 watt generators, as well as the 24 volt battery. Each fuel tank was fitted with its own electrically driven fuel booster pump, and a back-up system was was provided in the form of suction by-pass lines when the pumps were not in use.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 9, 2020)

I dunno if it has been mentioned yet, but it is worth remembering that when the US 8th AF arrived in the UK in 1942 and begun its daylight raids, the doctrine was that these were to be _unescorted _and the bombers had to rely on their machine gun and formation defences alone. The British advised that this was folly and mounting losses also proved it. As a result of a US officer flying with a Lancaster crew during night raids and observing, the 422nd Bomb Sqn was assigned to fly on a series of Bomber Command night raids in September 1943. Despite good results and low losses, two B-17s being shot down in 35 sorties, the idea of the 8th flying night raids was not continued.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 9, 2020)

It might be interesting to note, that the powered turrets could not get accurate aim on enemy aircraft (as they passed) during head-on attacks or later, when they encountered the Me262.
The flexible-mount gunners (waist positions, for example) had a better chance at catching an Me262 by "lead shooting" their target because they could swing faster.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 9, 2020)

Testing showed that manually operated beam/waist guns rarely hit anything. They were useful as deterrent guns, no pilot likes flying into fire. Trying to hit anything must have been like trying clay pigeon shooting while standing in the back of a moving vehicle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 9, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I suspect our colleague is merely trolling, as some of his statements are bordering on the ridiculous and are very much unsubstantiated.
> 
> Out of general interest, in 1942, the Air Fighting Development Unit at RAF Duxford carried out tactical trials by day and night using a 44 Sqn Lancaster I. Subsequently, a 'flying circus' of three Spitfires visited all the squadrons within No.5 Group Bomber Command to carry out familiarisation flights with the bomber crews. The following is taken from the report, No.47 Tactical Trials - Lancaster Aircraft. Under the heading Fighting Manoeuvres For Formations, there is a description of what action Lancasters should take when formation flying by day.
> 
> ...



So in 1942 RAF bomber command found out it could avoid being shot down by RAF spitfires in pursuit. To bad they didn’t explain their tactics to the 8th USAAF as it could have spared them a lot of trouble. How did they handle head on attacks?


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 9, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Yes, you're absolutely right. The ability of the Lancaster to carry a typical bomb load of 14,000lb for a range in excess of 2,000 miles is largely due to it having fewer redundant systems.
> 
> Oh...and the extra armour which was needed to protect the extra crew which were needed to fire the extra guns...at least 4 of which (depending on the variant) were pintle-mounted and of more use to crew morale than they were a threat to the enemy fighters.
> 
> ...


 
Without quoting range altitude your numbers are meaningless for comparison purposes. Why did Coastal command need b24 to close “the gap”?


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Without quoting range altitude your numbers are meaningless for comparison purposes.



Nice to know that range and bomb load are meaningless. I wish you'd been around to share your pearls of wisdom with the men who levied the performance requirements for aircraft.

You should note, however, that altitude is a double-edged sword. While greater altitude may help protect aircraft from flak, it also reduces bombing accuracy which means you need more aircraft to hit the target or repeat trips to finish the job, all of which expose more crews.




Koopernic said:


> Why did Coastal command need b24 to close “the gap”?



Because Bomber Command refused to release any of the Lancaster production for Coastal Command. And the reason the Lancaster was in such high demand was because of its bomb capacity and range.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> So in 1942 RAF bomber command found out it could avoid being shot down by RAF spitfires in pursuit. To bad they didn’t explain their tactics to the 8th USAAF as it could have spared them a lot of trouble.



Bomber Command did share knowledge and experience with the USAAF and warned against unescorted daylight raids. The RAF was ignored, with predictable results in the early part of 1943.




Koopernic said:


> How did they handle head on attacks?



With the two machine guns in the power turret fitted to every RAF heavy bomber. Of all the Allied heavy bombers, only the early B-24s and B-17s went to war without forward-facing defences...and it took until the G-variant for the latter to get decent forward protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 9, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Why did Coastal command need b24 to close “the gap”?



Buffnut has already answered this but I will add further information. Postwar the RAF Coastal Command used Lancs as Maritime patrol aircraft regularly flying to the Arctic sea to hunt Soviet naval forces. They were replaced by Avro Shackleton's from 1953.

The Canadian air force also used Lancs as Maritime patrol particularly in the Greenland Straits region. They were used until replaced by the C107 Argus.

France used Lancs as Maritime patrol and air sea rescue into the 1960s.

Several other airforces used Lancs for similar maritime services.

During WW2 the RCAF used specially modified MkX Lancs to ferry aircrew back to America that had flown aircraft to the UK. The usual flight time for these journeys was 13 1/2 hours with 15 hours not unheard of due to weather.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 9, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> With the two machine guns in the power turret fitted to every RAF heavy bomber. Of all the Allied heavy bombers, only the early B-24s and B-17s went to war without forward-facing defences...and it took until the G-variant for the latter to get decent forward protection.


The B-17F had the upper turret, a .50 in the nose and two .50s, one to each side, in the "cheek" area.
The B-24E/D had "cheek" positions as well as the upper turret, the G-1 had the A-6 nose turret.
So both weren't completely helpless to frontal attack, just not as effective as ones with the twin .50 turrets installed in either's next variants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 9, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The B-17F had the upper turret, a .50 in the nose and two .50s, one to each side, in the "cheek" area.
> The B-24E/D had "cheek" positions as well as the upper turret, the G-1 had the A-6 nose turret.
> So both weren't completely helpless to frontal attack, just not as effective as ones with the twin .50 turrets installed in either's next variants.



Who manned the cheek guns was it the Navigator.


----------



## MikeMeech (Dec 9, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Because Bomber Command refused to release any of the Lancaster production for Coastal Command. And the reason the Lancaster was in such high demand was because of its bomb capacity and range.



Hi

Not totally correct as Bomber Command did lend Lancasters and crews to Coastal Command during 1942 (although BC were not flush with the type at the time). I have attached a few details from work I undertook for a naval historian in 2006:







I hope that is of interest.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Dec 9, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> Not totally correct as Bomber Command did lend Lancasters and crews to Coastal Command during 1942 (although BC were not flush with the type at the time). I have attached a few details from work I undertook for a naval historian in 2006:
> 
> ...



Hi

Further to the above BC's ORBAT for early 1942 shows them to have 55 squadrons, 11 of which are four engine (Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster) of which four are operational. Coastal Command have, on 12 February 1942, ten of its squadrons equipped with LR/VLR aircraft (Liberator, Sunderland, Catalina and Fortress), these would be equipped with ASV.

Mike


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 9, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Who manned the cheek guns was it the Navigator.


Navigator and bombardier (as long as the bombardier wasn't engaged in the bombing run).


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 9, 2020)

Given all its guns, was the B-17 effective in defending itself from Luftwaffe fighters?


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The B-17F had the upper turret, a .50 in the nose and two .50s, one to each side, in the "cheek" area.
> The B-24E/D had "cheek" positions as well as the upper turret, the G-1 had the A-6 nose turret.
> So both weren't completely helpless to frontal attack, just not as effective as ones with the twin .50 turrets installed in either's next variants.



Agreed but the the first variants of both airframes to see combat lacked those features, and it rather depends on which build block as to the precise armament that was available. The cheek guns and various ad hoc up-arming of nose guns in general were a reflection of this defensive weakness but, as you point out, the effectiveness was somewhat limited, not least because the lack of space in the nose made it difficult to operate multiple guns at the same time (and only one could be operated during the bombing run).


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> Not totally correct as Bomber Command did lend Lancasters and crews to Coastal Command during 1942 (although BC were not flush with the type at the time). I have attached a few details from work I undertook for a naval historian in 2006:
> 
> ...



Hi Mike,

Thanks for those interesting details. 

Yes, there were a few loaned Lancasters but all efforts to officially equip CC with the type failed. It was the lack of a true long-range patrol capability that directly led to the procurement of B-24s. 

Such was the attitude of the Air Ministry to CC that, throughout 1942, they barely received enough replacement airframes to make up for losses. It was not until 1943 that CC finally started getting the resources it required, including more B-24s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 9, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> I suspect our colleague is merely trolling, as some of his statements are bordering on the ridiculous and are very much unsubstantiated.
> 
> Out of general interest, in 1942, the Air Fighting Development Unit at RAF Duxford carried out tactical trials by day and night using a 44 Sqn Lancaster I. Subsequently, a 'flying circus' of three Spitfires visited all the squadrons within No.5 Group Bomber Command to carry out familiarisation flights with the bomber crews. The following is taken from the report, No.47 Tactical Trials - Lancaster Aircraft. Under the heading Fighting Manoeuvres For Formations, there is a description of what action Lancasters should take when formation flying by day.
> 
> ...


This makes a lot of sense. I was reading about one raid and the Halifax's flew a fairly loose formation and when attacked the target aircraft was instructed to leave the formation in a shallow dive. The idea being that the attacking fighter is being drawn into the fire of the other aircraft and the target has the freedom to evade reducing the chances of a hit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 9, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Given all its guns, was the B-17 effective in defending itself from Luftwaffe fighters?


The B-17 was not impervious to attacking enemy aircraft, but it's defenses were such, that the Germans put alot of effort into applying armor to their Fw190A-8/R8 to protect the pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The B-17 was not impervious to attacking enemy aircraft, but it's defenses were such, that the Germans put alot of effort into applying armor to their Fw190A-8/R8 to protect the pilot.



Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested to see the cause and effect between losses due specifically to the B-17 (or all USAAF bombers?) and the addition of armour plate.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 9, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested to see the cause and effect between losses due specifically to the B-17 (or all USAAF bombers?) and the addition of armour plate.


I do not have my books or computers available (still) so I can't point you in the right direction.
I thought I'd jump on google to see if there's a good source for the Sturmbock to recommend and I kid you not, every single result is a modelling supply link loaded with kits of the Fw190A-8.
So it appears that Google is in high-gear for Christmas by "grooming" my results...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 9, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> So in 1942 RAF bomber command found out it could avoid being shot down by RAF spitfires in pursuit. To bad they didn’t explain their tactics to the 8th USAAF as it could have spared them a lot of trouble.



So, by your account, practising dissimilar air combat against fighters is worthless? Glad you're not running things. Who said the British didn't provide that info to the Americans?



Koopernic said:


> Without quoting range altitude your numbers are meaningless for comparison purposes.



Why? obviously at the ranges and loads mentioned the aircraft would be transitting at the best height and speed to take advantage of lower fuel consumption, and this differed depending on the aircraft. Bombing raids operated across a wide range of altitudes, for various reasons, including tactical necessity. Not every raid was conducted at the aircraft's maximum altitude - they didn't need to be and as Buffnut stated, height is a double edged sword. 

Despite what the general perception of Arthur Harris was, he cared greatly for the welfare of his bomber crews, he was also cognisant of the fact that many of his bombers' target were in occupied territories and strived to conduct raids against targets in those countries during daylight hours and at low altitude, because it was easier to see the target and thus avoid collateral damage and flying at lower heights improved accuracy, important for the same reasons. As I've noted in other threads when this has been mentioned, he did have no objection to blowing up German civilians, though!


----------



## Greyman (Dec 9, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> ... the cause and effect between losses due specifically to the B-17 (or all USAAF bombers?) and the addition of armour plate.



It's possible that this is the wrong way of looking at it. A post-war USAAF paper based on Luftwaffe analysis combat records/films showed that the Fw190 was over five times as effective as the Bf109 in destroying US bombers.

The majority of this discrepancy is attributed to the increased toughness of the 190 over the 109 -- and the subsequent determination it granted 190 pilots. This superior determination is indicated by the average ranges each fighter type did most of their shooting.

*Fw190*: Range inside of which +50% of firing was done: 460 metres​*Bf109*: Range inside of which +50% of firing was done: 1000 metres​
So it's possible that the armour didn't necessarily have that large of an effect on making the 190 bullet-resistant -- but it seems to have greatly increased the number of enemy bombers destroyed. It's possible that this greatly increased aggressiveness even caused more 190s to be shot down than would have otherwise. 

The study points out the data's main weak point is the fact that a destroyed Luftwaffe fighter results in no film or combat report.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 9, 2020)

Recreation of a graph that came out very poorly in the photocopy. It's not pixel-perfect but it's pretty close. Gives a good idea on the difference.

*Fw 190
Bf 109*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Dec 10, 2020)

Another thing about the effectiveness of bomber defensive armament. Until the introduction of long range escorts the Germans were using two engines aircraft with heavier guns to allow engagement at longer ranges.
Obviously, once the escorts turned up they were too vulnerable to keep using.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 10, 2020)

The Luftwaffe's primary bomber interceptor was always single-engined fighters.
With the exception of the Me410A-1/U4, the twin-engined "heavy fighters" carried comparable armament as the SE fighters, especially the Fw190 Sturmbocks.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 18, 2020)

Ascent said:


> Another thing about the effectiveness of bomber defensive armament. Until the introduction of long range escorts the Germans were using two engines aircraft with heavier guns to allow engagement at longer ranges.
> Obviously, once the escorts turned up they were too vulnerable to keep using.



They were also firing adapted Nebelwerfer rockets time fused to burst in the bomber formation. The stedometric range finder in the sight was used to fire at 1200m to get the burst right. I was quite successful I belive.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 18, 2020)

The rockets were highly effective if they came close to a target. But that wasnt easy due to their unstable flight path.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 3, 2021)

I think the greater benefit of the Werfers was to break up the bomber formations.

As for the thread topic, I think Lancs would have done at least as well in daylight as the Americans, with the appropriate escort. I know they performed some low-level daylight precision strikes that are truly impressive; it was one handy airplane.

Now just fit it with IFR gear and drop the Bomb from Tinian. <grabs helmet, dives for slit-trench>

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 3, 2021)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO . .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> 5 If they tried Lancasters in 1943 they’d get shredded. FLAK attrition probably 3 times greater, maybe 4. Operating at 20,000ft is also perfect for the German fighters.



The Germans didn't use flak, radar directed or otherwise, against Lancasters at night?

The bomber formations also had some influence on the effectiveness of flak.

The tight formations used by the USAAF were designed to defend against enemy fighters, but having them close together presented a better target for flak.

The RAF used loose formations, due to the difficulty of maintaining a tight formation at night. This may not have been ideal against enemy fighters, but spread flak targets wider.

Regarding cruising speeds, the B-17 was constrained by the need for formation flying, restricting the cruising speed. B-17Gs operating by the RAF method would likely have higher cruising speeds and possibly longer range (no need to loiter over the UK while forming up).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Why does the Lancaster have to cruise at 20,000 feet. Most crews tried to get higher and plenty flew at 22/23,000 feet.
> 
> If you want better altitude then fit high altitude rated engines don't have to be 60 series if they're not available the Merlin 47 (RM6S) fitted to the high altitude Spitfire mk VI might work.



Merlin 47s would likely struggle to get a fully laden Lancaster off the ground. (The Merlin 46 and 47 were the same except the 47 had a cabin blower for pressurization).

A new 20-series variant using the larger (10.85in vs 10.25in) compressor could have provided the extra altitude required, while still maintaining goof take-off performance.

The Merlin XX had nearly 300hp more power at take-off than the Merlin 47. The Merlin 24 had 500hp more at take-off.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You should note, however, that altitude is a double-edged sword. While greater altitude may help protect aircraft from flak, it also reduces bombing accuracy which means you need more aircraft to hit the target or repeat trips to finish the job, all of which expose more crews.


The other "thing" with altitude is vapour trails which are almost as visible by moonlight as by day. Bomber Command used altitude to separate squadrons within the bomber stream. The problem of vapour trails was noted as soon as the RAF started using the B-17, no need for any sophisticated ground control, they could be seen from miles away.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 5, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The Germans didn't use flak, radar directed or otherwise, against Lancasters at night?
> 
> The bomber formations also had some influence on the effectiveness of flak.
> 
> ...



*Firstly* even radar directed FLAK is more effective when combined with visual sighting and aiming.

The two main Luftwaffe FLAK radars were Wurzburg-D (3m diameter aerial) and Wurzburg-Riesse (7m diameter aerial) both had conical scan and were capable of accurate blind fire. The smaller Wurzburg-D had a on paper accuracy of 0.2 degrees but is sometimes quoted as 0.3/0.5 which is the 60% accuracy when low to ground and ground plane interference. The Bigger Wurzburg Riesse was about twice as accurate and was also well generally surveyed and aligned, about 0.1 degrees or 0.15/0.2 when low to ground. Range accuracy of both was 16m when pointing up. The Bigger radar was very accurate but rarer (4000 versus 500) and often used to direct fighter aircraft interceptions.

The accuracy of FLAK was thus better if optically tracked but ranged by radar. It was also possible to see the bursts. It was quicker to find the targets. Often Wurzburg would put a searchlight on the target and then provide the range as optical systems took over. Finally many engagements were optical only. A rarer German FLAK radar was the Mahnheim FuSE 64 FuMG 41 Radar which had auto track for the range gate. Even if heavily noise jammed, spoof jammed and jammed by windows if an operator happened to get the beam pointed at a target and scanned through he could get an autoblock even if it was manually impossible to track. So visual sightings helped.

The 8.8cm FLAK 37 had an engagement time of less than 14 seconds at 29,500ft so was ineffective at that altitude. It was moderately effective at 25,000ft where the B17's operated comfortably. It was considerably more effective at 23,000ft where B-24 Liberators often operated and was effective at 20,000ft where lancasters would be.

At 20,000ft where the Lancaster would be operating the 8.8cm FLAK 37 would be quite effective. The guns beauty was it was in mass production, not hard to transport and in very wide spread use.

The other two German guns the 10.5cm FLAK 38 and 39 and the 12.8cm FLAK 40. In small number the advanced high velocity 8.8cm FLAK 41.

Luftwaffe studies indicated that at 29,500 feet, the *88-mm/Model 18, 36, 37* had only *fourteen seconds* to effectively engage a target, *the 105-mm *had* forty-nine seconds*, and finally the *88-mm/Model 41 *and the* 128-mm 12.8cm FLAK 40 *had approximately* sixty-eight seconds* of effective engagement time. *At 36,000 feet, *only the* 88-mm/Model 41 and the 128-mm *were able to engage a target for a period of only* thirty-one seconds.*

Incidentally there were 85 12.8cm FLAK 40 at Ploesti and many over parts of Berlin. These, the most powerful AAA gun of WW2 were what cost the RAF so much in the Battle of Berlin when they ventured above them and the USAAF over Ploesti. The gun was accurate and the burst was huge.

*Secondly *If the penetration height is reduced from 25,000ft to 20,000ft there is easily a doubling in FLAK burst accuracy (likely more) and the engagement time of the gun probably doubles or trebles to several minutes. FLAK is now 4-8 times more effective.

*Thirdly* The Germans had some statistics of the relative effect of targeting individual aircraft with a direct hit by the FLAK 37 versus *direct hit*. The double fuse (nose contact plus timed burst time to burst slightly after the bomber) was reckoned 3-4 times more effective against bombers in formation and 2.4 times against individual bombers so they Germans clearly missed an opportunity. So this suggests the ratio 1.25 to 1.66 of FLAK effectiveness of formation versus individual aircraft.

*Fourthly *American aircraft such as the B17 had much more armour and redundancy. The US aircraft had 4 generators and multiple hydraulic pumps. If a single hydraulic pump was lost on the Lancaster then all of the Lancaster's defensive turrets were shutdown. The US aircraft had more armour, they had radial engines.

The higher drag of the B17 heavier armament and radials was a moot point when the aircraft was flying at high altitude in thin low drag air.

*Fifthly.* The claim that the Lancaster can fly higher with a reduced load doesn't scan. The aircraft can fly higher at reduced load, with reduced speed and still has less armour and redundancy.

*Finally* Operating the Lancaster Mean operating at 20,000-21,000ft where the German fighters are at their peak of performance. The Lancaster 303 guns also are far less of a deterrent since the well armoured German fighters could deal with the 303 round.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Apr 5, 2021)

Deleted. I should know better than to get involved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 5, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Up the Lancaster’s armament. Four gun dorsal turret out of the Defiant. Return the ventral turret. Can we get four guns into the nose?


Further to my earlier post, IIRC none of the heavies carried waist gunners like the Wellington. Perhaps that’s a good place to start, in addition to returning the ventral turret.






If this prototype Dalek can have a four gun BP turret, so can the Lancaster’s dorsal gunner.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 5, 2021)

I found a copy of the posting I mentioned earlier in the thread about the losses of the Lancaster when compared to the B24 and its as follows, note I left the typo's in for authenticity:-

_ok sys i did want you want, it took me several hours but i did it!
ok so you stated over Europe the B-24 did 715 sorties from january 1st 1942 'til june 30th 1943 for 24 lost, i make that a loss rate of 3.4% agreed?

well, the lancaster, in the above time period (although her first opperational was in March '42) completed, accounting for day and night sorties, 17,100 sorties exactily, and 585 were lost, believe it or not, that comes out as 3.4% too however i had this feeling you were going to say that's just because the lanc flew by night, so i calculated the the figures for the lancaster's daytime operations for the same period (1st jan. '42 - 30th June '43)...........

just to clarify by a daytime sortie is considdered one in which the aircraft is dispatched at returns in the same day, and so for this period the lanc did 382 daytime sorties for 13 aircraft lost, believe it or not but AGAIN that comes out to a loss rate of 3.4%

but as i was on a role, i thought why stop at the daytime sorties for that period? why not do the whole war?

so i did!

and i can confirm that throughout the entire war the lancaster did 40,139 daytime sorties! and only 281 were lost on these daytime raids, you know what that makes the lancaster's loss rate for daytime sorties in WWII?? *0.7%* !!!!_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 5, 2021)

Simon Thomas said:


> Deleted. I should know better than to get involved.



It was quite an interesting post you did. The claim that the Lancaster lost all of it turrets when the port outer engine failed is common, in fact as your picture shows it is only the tail turret. The question now is was there a cross connection or a hydraulic motor-pump to power this system from another engine.

US aircraft tended to have electrical power for their turrets (say dorsal) that could easily be cross connected though some turrets might be electro hydraulic such as the sperry ball turret. Electrical systems don’t bleed out and can easily be isolated by circuit breakers and cross connected.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2021)

Glider said:


> I found a copy of the posting I mentioned earlier in the thread about the losses of the Lancaster when compared to the B24 and its as follows, note I left the typo's in for authenticity:-
> 
> _ok sys i did want you want, it took me several hours but i did it!
> ok so you stated over Europe the B-24 did 715 sorties from january 1st 1942 'til june 30th 1943 for 24 lost, i make that a loss rate of 3.4% agreed?_
> ...



Ahhh, the joys of statistics that don't match people's pre-conceived notions. Lancasters successfully operating in daylight? Impossible! 😃

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 6, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Ahhh, the joys of statistics that don't match people's pre-conceived notions. Lancasters successfully operating in daylight? Impossible! 😃



The question is where and when. Operating over France in post D-day Europe, the skies swarming with 16000 allied fighters with air dominance doesn’t count as much as Ploesti. Nor does bombing a few German cities in 1945 when the Luftwaffe is out of fuel and their best pilots lost to the 8th Airforce escorts in 1943 and 1944 and most cities such as Dresden had been completely depleted of their FLAK batteries (set up as anti tank batteries).

So yes, statically it had been proven that the Lancaster could opperate successfully in daylight attacking defenceless cities without FLAK and without fighter defences.

Put them over Ploesti or Berlin in day in 1943 to early 1944 it would look like Wilhelmshaven. Maybe 50% attrition, twice what the Americans suffered at schweinfurt. Escorted missions would also be worse as they came in range of FLAK and the German fighters came down in altitude from 25000ft where they were asthmatic.






Europe


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The question is where and when. Operating over France in post D-day Europe, the skies swarming with 16000 allied fighters with air dominance doesn’t count as much as Ploesti. Nor does bombing a few German cities in 1945 when the Luftwaffe is out of fuel and their best pilots lost to the 8th Airforce escorts in 1943 and 1944 and most cities such as Dresden had been completely depleted of their FLAK batteries (set up as anti tank batteries).
> 
> So yes, statically it had been proven that the Lancaster could opperate successfully in daylight attacking defenceless cities without FLAK and without fighter defences.
> 
> ...



Clearly you didn't read Glider's post so I'll quote it again, covering the period 1 Jan 42 thru 30 Jun 43:

_just to clarify by a daytime sortie is considdered one in which the aircraft is dispatched at returns in the same day, and so for this period the lanc did 382 daytime sorties for 13 aircraft lost, believe it or not but AGAIN that comes out to a loss rate of 3.4%_

So that wasn't 1945, and the Lancaster loss rates were identical to the B-24. Just because you want the "asthmatic" Lancaster to fail doesn't mean that it did, and the stats broadly align with the fact that it could operate in daylight. You can hypothesize all you like about engagement times for German AAA or make unfounded claims that 50cal guns forced German pilots to engage at longer ranges than 303s....but the loss rates don't back up your assertions.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 6, 2021)

I fail to see why the Lancaster wouldn't fare any better or worse than the B-17/B-24 would in daylight bombing, especially once the *MUSTANG*/Lightning/Thunderbolt trio are watching over them. I would imagine it would give good service in that capacity with pretty much the same loss rate.


----------



## glennasher (Apr 6, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I fail to see why the Lancaster wouldn't fare any better or worse than the B-17/B-24 would in daylight bombing, especially once the *MUSTANG*/Lightning/Thunderbolt trio are watching over them. I would imagine it would give good service in that capacity with pretty much the same loss rate.


That might be the case, IF the Lancasters were equipped with .50s, but with only .303s, the interceptors could get a LOT closer and do a lot more damage. I'm not at all sure that would be a wise or prudent thing to do. I think the losses would be somewhat worse, if nothing else because of those big .50s. Even with escorts, a determined interceptor could so more damage to the Lancasters while incurring less damage to his aircraft, assuming the machinegunners knew their business (admittedly a low percentage thing).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 6, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I fail to see why the Lancaster wouldn't fare any better or worse than the B-17/B-24 would in daylight bombing, especially once the *MUSTANG*/Lightning/Thunderbolt trio are watching over them. I would imagine it would give good service in that capacity with pretty much the same loss rate.



Because the P47, P-38 turbochargers only give them superiority significantly above 20,000ft and the P-51s advantage is reduced. In fact the P51 has no advantage to the Me 109K4. 20,000ft brings the Lancaster well within the numerous 8.8cm FLAK 37.

The imperfected Lancaster VI with two stage Merlins with the altitude performance of a B24 but not B17 standards would perform better so long as a 1000-1500lb of armour were added and 50 caliber guns replaced some of the 303.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2021)

What evidence is there to suggest that bomber defensive armament affected the range at which intercepting fighters engaged? The Luftwaffe fighter pilots were defending their homeland, perhaps even their own town or city. Are we really suggesting that having 50cals vs 303s would make ANY difference to the ferocity of the defending fighters? Particularly when a fair proportion of those 50cals on American bombers were single pintle-mounts that had more chance of hitting another bomber in its own formation than it did of any incoming fighters.

Let's put the boot on the other foot...during the campaign through France and into Holland and Germany, is there any evidence that Allied fighters opened fire at longer range when engaging trains that were defended by flak guns? Those flak guns were much larger calibre than the 50cal carried by US fighters so I'd really be interested to learn if US fighter pilots suffered from the same target avoidance concerns that you all seem to think were so prevalent in the Luftwaffe.

If defensive armament was of such importance in the minds of the fighter pilots, then surely target fixation would never happen?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I fail to see why the Lancaster wouldn't fare any better or worse than the B-17/B-24 would in daylight bombing, especially once the *MUSTANG*/Lightning/Thunderbolt trio are watching over them. I would imagine it would give good service in that capacity with pretty much the same loss rate.


You could also argue that German defences shot down as many as they could, if the RAF doubled the bomber numbers in the same area on a daylight raid, total losses of the two would not have been much higher. For the same reason the USA escorts would find it almost impossible to protect a single bomber.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2021)

pbehn said:


> You could also argue that German defences shot down as many as they could, if the RAF doubled the bomber numbers in the same area on a daylight raid, total losses of the two would not have been much higher. For the same reason the USA escorts would find it almost impossible to protect a single bomber.



The other factor that's being entirely forgotten about here is that the RAF and the USAAF used entirely different tactics. Even when engaged on daylight ops, the RAF did not practice large box formations. The large formations adopted by the USAAF drew concerted, massed responses from the Luftwaffe. The RAF tactics, with aircraft flying in stream in smaller groups or individually, would likely have drawn a very different response because there was no large mass of bombers to attack. The simple fact that RAF bombing continued over an individual target for a much longer timeframe than was the case for USAAF operations would present challenges for the defending fighters and would reduce the probability of flak hitting an individual airframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> The other factor that's being entirely forgotten about here is that the RAF and the USAAF used entirely different tactics. Even when engaged on daylight ops, the RAF did not practice large box formations. The large formations adopted by the USAAF drew concerted, massed responses from the Luftwaffe. The RAF tactics, with aircraft flying in stream in smaller groups or individually, would likely have drawn a very different response because there was no large mass of bombers to attack. The simple fact that RAF bombing continued over an individual target for a much longer timeframe than was the case for USAAF operations would present challenges for the defending fighters and would reduce the probability of flak hitting an individual airframe.


There are many factors, some obvious some not, neither the allied forces nor the Germans were fools. Mistakes were made and tactics and equipment evolved, it is very hard to make any general statement that is always true or completely false.


----------



## Simon Thomas (Apr 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> It was quite an interesting post you did. The claim that the Lancaster lost all of it turrets when the port outer engine failed is common, in fact as your picture shows it is only the tail turret. The question now is was there a cross connection or a hydraulic motor-pump to power this system from another engine.
> 
> US aircraft tended to have electrical power for their turrets (say dorsal) that could easily be cross connected though some turrets might be electro hydraulic such as the sperry ball turret. Electrical systems don’t bleed out and can easily be isolated by circuit breakers and cross connected.


The extract from the Lancaster Manual I posted.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Because the P47, P-38 turbochargers only give them superiority significantly above 20,000ft and the P-51s advantage is reduced. In fact the P51 has no advantage to the Me 109K4. 20,000ft brings the Lancaster well within the numerous 8.8cm FLAK 37.



I'm not sure I can agree with that, P-51's seemed to be able to shoot down Bf-109's of any marque at any altitude, I've never read an encounter report where the Mustang driver said that he "didn't engage because a 109K was attacking the bomber stream at 20,000 feet so... no joy, you guys are on your own".

Also the B-24's operating at roughly the same altitude, so referencing an earlier post, both the Lanc and the Lib had a 3.4% loss rate if I'm not mistaken, so... ?



Koopernic said:


> The imperfected Lancaster VI with two stage Merlins with the altitude performance of a B24 but not B17 standards would perform better so long as a 1000-1500lb of armour were added and 50 caliber guns replaced some of the 303.



I can see your point about adding some armor perhaps, but was the Lanc so flimsy it needed an extra half ton or so of it? Still not sold that the .303 would need to be replaced but perhaps so, I don't have a good enough frame of reference for that to make a judgement.

Buff makes a good point in the difference in tactics betwixt the USAAF and the RAF, which if we're talking a switch to _escorted_ daylight bombing, the RAF may have to rethink it's position on the BOX v STREAM point.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Apr 6, 2021)

Greyman said:


> It's possible that this is the wrong way of looking at it. A post-war USAAF paper based on Luftwaffe analysis combat records/films showed that the Fw190 was over five times as effective as the Bf109 in destroying US bombers.
> 
> The majority of this discrepancy is attributed to the increased toughness of the 190 over the 109 -- and the subsequent determination it granted 190 pilots. This superior determination is indicated by the average ranges each fighter type did most of their shooting.
> 
> ...



That's interesting data. I would have thought that the 190 would have fired from a longer range, since in general the 190 was more heavily armed than the 109.
I wonder if these numbers are affected by a higher proportion of 190's being used later in the war, as pilot training was decreasing, so the pilots were taught to fire from closer range? I tried to dig up some data that would prove or disprove that theory, but so far I've come up short.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 6, 2021)

If the RAF bombs in daylight I think the Lincoln appears earlier.


----------



## Glider (Apr 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The question is where and when. Operating over France in post D-day Europe, the skies swarming with 16000 allied fighters with air dominance doesn’t count as much as Ploesti. Nor does bombing a few German cities in 1945 when the Luftwaffe is out of fuel and their best pilots lost to the 8th Airforce escorts in 1943 and 1944 and most cities such as Dresden had been completely depleted of their FLAK batteries (set up as anti tank batteries).
> 
> So yes, statically it had been proven that the Lancaster could opperate successfully in daylight attacking defenceless cities without FLAK and without fighter defences.
> 
> ...


Yet the Daylight raid to the Ruhr I think in May 1944 escorted by Tempests which had zero losses tends to be overlooked. They were of course lucky, no one would have expected zero losses but the Ruhr was a heavily defended target and clearly it's flak defences would have been alive and well.

The German fighter defences were capable of inflicting serious damage and didn't

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Put them over Ploesti or Berlin in day in 1943 to early 1944 it would look like Wilhelmshaven. Maybe 50% attrition, twice what the Americans suffered at schweinfurt. Escorted missions would also be worse as they came in range of FLAK and the German fighters came down in altitude from 25000ft where they were asthmatic.


This is fantasy, when did anyone attack Berlin in daylight in 1943? The Ploesti raid in 1943 was completely unsustainable, as was Schweinfurt Regensburg, speculating that the same raids with Lancasters would be even more unsustainable is nonsense. Lancasters were bombing places like Berlin at night and had caused severe damage on the Ruhr and Hamburg, they weren't grounded pending the arrival of long term escorts which is what was essential for daylight raids, even with a Mosquito.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 6, 2021)

30th January 1943 was the tenth anniversary of Hitler’s rise to power.

To coincide with the commemorative rallies, the first daylight raids over Berlin took place on that day when Mosquitoes carried out two attacks timed to disrupt speeches being delivered by Reichsmarschall Hermann Göering and Joseph Goebbels, the Third Reich’s Propaganda Minister, at the main broadcasting station.






The first, in the morning, comprised three Mosquito B Mk. IVs from 105 Squadron, which carried out a low-level attack on the Haus des Rundfunks, headquarters of the German State broadcasting company, at 11:00, when Göering was due to address a parade commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Nazis’ gaining power. It was an hour before Göering could finally take to the lectern, reportedly “boiling with rage and humiliation”. The mission gave the lie to Göering’s claim that enemy aircraft would never fly over the Reich. In the afternoon of the same day, three Mosquitoes from 139 (Jamaica) Squadron went to Berlin to attempt to interrupt a speech by Goebbels, and once again bombed at the exact time he was meant to start speaking, 16.00, although this attack was not quite as disruptive as the earlier one.

Only one aircraft was lost during these raids. Mosquito DZ367 GB-J, of 105 Sqn, flown by Squadron Leader D.F. Darling was shot down near Altengrabow, with both Darling and his navigator, Flying Officer William Wright, being killed.

Göering was not amused:

_“ In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy._

_The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again.”_

— Hermann Göering, January 1943

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2021)

Milosh said:


> 30th January 1943 was the tenth anniversary of Hitler’s rise to power.
> 
> To coincide with the commemorative rallies, the first daylight raids over Berlin took place on that day when Mosquitoes carried out two attacks timed to disrupt speeches being delivered by Reichsmarschall Hermann Göering and Joseph Goebbels, the Third Reich’s Propaganda Minister, at the main broadcasting station.
> 
> ...


All true, it was a spectacular success. But 1 aircraft from 6 is a 17% loss rate. The first raid had no losses, it was a complete surprise attack, the second raid had 1 loss which is 33% on that actual raid, we can only speculate what would happen if surprise raids like this became the norm. The actual radio station building was only nominally in Berlin, the defenders had a problem figuring out where the actual attack was going. Like attacks on Gestapo buildings and prisons which weren't previously considered to be important targets. Losses of 17% are unsustainable, losses of 33% are a disaster, like the Dambusters raid which wiped out many of the UKs best crews.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2021)

Th importance of the American .50 cal guns may be over stated. 
Yes they were longer ranged than the British .303s.

On the other hand the German 20mm mine shells, the 13mm MG 131 ammo, the 30mm MK 108 mine shells were not particularly long range stuff. 
The Germans may have to get within range of the .303s (or at least be pulling out out of the firing run) in order to get a decent shot with their own guns. 

A 400mph fighter closing on a 200mph bomber (numbers just for explanation) is closing the range at 100yds a second. not a lot of time to fool around with taking pot shots at favorable ranges for one's own guns and staying out or range of defensive guns. 

Germans figured the effective range of most of their guns was 400 meters, Aside from the shorter range 7.9mm guns most of the exceptions were rather rare.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Th importance of the American .50 cal guns may be over stated.
> Yes they were longer ranged than the British .303s.
> 
> On the other hand the German 20mm mine shells, the 13mm MG 131 ammo, the 30mm MK 108 mine shells were not particularly long range stuff.
> ...


Further complicated by the fact that a fighter closing head on with a bomber doesn't have its guns pointed at the bomber, the plane and the bullets intersect for a fraction of a second, when they are close to collision, one reason some LW pilots attacked inverted.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2021)

Forgot that the numbers I gave were for closing from 6 oclock on the bomber, from head on the closing wound be at about 300yds per second. 
You are quite right, a fraction of a second at the correct distance to actually get hits.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Forgot that the numbers I gave were for closing from 6 oclock on the bomber, from head on the closing wound be at about 300yds per second.
> You are quite right, a fraction of a second at the correct distance to actually get hits.


Just thinking about it, the more you actually try to aim at a target rather than just laying down fire at a moving target the more likely you are to just fly into what you are trying to shoot. I was once (only once) enjoying life on an Autobahn at 140MPH when a Sunday driver pulled across two lanes at about 60MPH, to overtake the truck that was also overtaking a truck. In seconds a clear road became blocked and that 80MPH difference in speed was huge, when the Sunday driver first moved it was at the limit of my vision, seconds later I nearly hit him or her.


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Apr 7, 2021)

You can't simply scale-up losses when the size of the operation increases. If the British had sent 220 Wellingtons to Heligoland Bight, they certainly wouldn't have lost 120 of them - probably 20-25 would have been the maximum, since the German defences were what they were, and couldn't have been arbitrarily increased. As the saying goes "The more you send the fewer you lose".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 7, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'm not sure I can agree with that, P-51's seemed to be able to shoot down Bf-109's of any marque at any altitude, I've never read an encounter report where the Mustang driver said that he "didn't engage because a 109K was attacking the bomber stream at 20,000 feet so... no joy, you guys are on your own".
> 
> Also the B-24's operating at roughly the same altitude, so referencing an earlier post, both the Lanc and the Lib had a 3.4% loss rate if I'm not mistaken, so... ?
> 
> ...



The Me 109G14AS with an oversized super charger and water injection came into service about June 1944 which closed the performance gap with the P51 considerably. It wasn’t until the Me 109K4 came into service in October 1944 that one could argue that the Me 109K4 could match the P51. It had the same speed and wasn’t at a power to weight ratio disadvantage. The reality is the Me 109K4, at least part tolerably the Me 109G14AS was needed 9 months earlier, December 1943 when the first P51 started tentative missions thought there was no combat till January 1944.

The Problem for the German fighters was that the full pressure altitude (where the s/c can maintain 1 atmosphere pressure) of their single stage superchargers was around 19500 ft and above this speed and power dropped in a knee. The equivalent critical altitude of the P38 and P47 turbos was well over 25,000ft while the two stage Merlins were also comfortable at 25,000ft.

By forcing the Luftwaffe to intercept at 25,000ft the USAAF worsened the Me 109G6 and Fw 190 performance.

The reason Fw 190 pressed home their attack to much closer distances against US bombers wasn’t just because the Fw 190s impressive fire power of 4x 20mm and 2x 13.2 but the heavy armour of the Fw 190 which could resist the US 50 caliber longer. The big radial engine with the armoured oil cooler protected the pilot along with 50 degree sloped bullet proof glass.

If it could resist the 50 calibre browning the 303 Browning with a bullet 1/4th the weight was going to have trouble despite higher ROF. The German MG131 13,2mm was reckoned 3 times more destructive than its 7.92mm rifle caliber analogue. The 50 versus 303 disparity would be greater.

Range was not such a big issue I think. I recall a German night fighter pilot recounting receiving accurate fire from a Lancaster rear gunner at 1100m. In those circumstances the smart night fighter pilots broke off to fight a less suspecting bomber. However the situation was different. Slow Closure rates exposed the German night fighters for much longer periods to return fire.

One would want at least 150 lbs of armour per gunner to protect them. Two less 500lb bombs.

Bomber stream tactics were no doubt somewhat effective during the day in saturating German defenses but they provided no interlocking protective fire. A “Heersusschoss“ was an award to a Luftwaffe pilot for damaging a bomber so that it fell out of formation. It was considered and act of skill and bravery equal to a sucesful claim.

One of the reasons even US medium bombers had two pilots was the exhausting nature of formation flying.

So my view the Lancaster could be modified: 50 caliber guns on the rear, at least 1000lbs of additional armour. So long as they avoided the heaviest FLAK and had an escort and did not attempt to deep a penetration deep into Germany they could work.

Deep penetration raids against a functioning Luftwaffe would need two stage Merlins and likely formation flying and a copilot.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 7, 2021)

One can find BC losses, day/night and other stats, BC Main Page (lancaster-archive.com)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 7, 2021)

Lancasters did get some .50" cal turrets.

R02acd4384a5d9b8330ff1e7da352fc49 (576×419) (bing.com)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 7, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Lancasters did get some .50" cal turrets.
> 
> R02acd4384a5d9b8330ff1e7da352fc49 (576×419) (bing.com)


I think I am right is saying that the other big advantage of this turret was that the gunner had the parachute in the turret with him and could bale out more easily, significantly increasing the gunners chances of surviving. Indeed he could dive out between the guns saving a lot of time.

Letter to Alfred Rose from Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris, dated 19th June 1945. The final part of the letter is particularly telling – “_....what is easily the best turret to date. Furthermore it is the only turret from which gunners can escape, if they have to abandon the aircraft, with any real chance of getting away with it, and we have had several Rose turret occupants back as the sole survivors of crews...._“

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 7, 2021)

More from Harris:
_... in so far as turrets and guns were concerned, very little had been done between February, 1942, and May, 1945, to improve the defensive armament of heavy bombers and, apart from the Rose turret, no real progress had been made in producing for Bomber Command a turret which possessed the characteristics laid down by this Command in 1942. ... Throughout, those responsible for turret design and production displayed an extraordinary disregard for the requirements of the Command._


----------



## Greyman (Apr 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> So my view the Lancaster could be modified: 50 caliber guns on the rear, at least 1000lbs of additional armour. So long as they avoided the heaviest FLAK and had an escort and did not attempt to deep a penetration deep into Germany they could work.
> 
> Deep penetration raids against a functioning Luftwaffe would need two stage Merlins and likely formation flying and a copilot.



For what it's worth schemes were completed in 1942 for an 'armoured Lancaster II' for 'special duties'. This involved a 1250-1677 lb increase in armour for the crew/engines and three possible options for armouring the petrol tanks weighing an additional 3947-7847 lb.

I'm not sure what crazy plan these were meant for.


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 8, 2021)

Does anyone know the weight fo armour carried by the B-17 or B-24 during 1943-45? The Lancaster Mk I carried at least 560 lbs as of late-1942. See this thread:"Crew protection on heavy bombers?"

Maximum air miles for Lancaster Mk I mission planning was:

1660 miles with 14,000 lbs ordnance and 1625 Impgal (including 270 Impgal for WUTO, climb & reserve)
2250 miles with 10,000 lbs ordnance and 2150 Impgal (including 270 Impgal for WUTO, climb & reserve) (this is full permanent tankage)

Reducing the fuel load by ~2000 lbs (278 Impgal) in trade for more armour and heavier armament would only reduce the range by about 350 miles, so the Mk I would be capable of:

1900 miles with 10,000 lbs ordnance and 1872 Impgal (including 270 Impgal for WUTO, climb & reserve)

All of the above ranges are calculated for 216-235 mph TAS cruise at 15,000-20,000 ft, and assumes all ordnance is dropped at about the half way point.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 8, 2021)

To be honest, once the cannon shells and Flak start hitting the aircraft, the armor is for the most part, useless.
The armor behind the pilot doesn't prevent shrapnel from coming up from underneath or down from above and the 30mm Minengeschoss rounds would easily pass through the fuselage and detonate within, sending splinters in all directions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Apr 8, 2021)

I have read in numerous books from pilots that the sight of tracers coming at them got their attention, pilots in Vietnam often quoted seeing balls of fire coming towards them causing alarm as they got closer, same with Argentinian pilots in the Falklands who spoke of 7.62mm tracer from the MAG58's the British clamped to the upper railings as disconcerting. I think a pilot closing in on a Lanc or Fortress are not going to care if it's a .303 or .50, if tracers start flashing passed their hood close enough to touch they are going to break off the attack, lastly, it doesn't matter if a bomber is armed with .303's, .50's or a 20mm the effectiveness comes down to the skill of the gunner, nothing else.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 8, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> To be honest, once the cannon shells and Flak start hitting the aircraft, the armor is for the most part, useless.
> The armor behind the pilot doesn't prevent shrapnel from coming up from underneath or down from above and the 30mm Minengeschoss rounds would easily pass through the fuselage and detonate within, sending splinters in all directions.



A 1cm thick 1 square meter armour plate weighs 72kg about 150lbs.

Dorsal gunner. Id wrap a 2m by 90cm deep plate around in a 2/3rds circle about 1m diameter him so he is only exposed forward. I would give him armoured back rest and seat pan and a small shield that rotates with him. There is probably 200lbs there. It will also stop shells that enter the aircraft.

Rear Gunner. He gets a nice thick 15mm chunk in front of him, armoured seat and back. 

Pilots get armoured seats, backrests, head armour and sides.

You can do a lot with 1000lbs on top of the 600lbs that is already there. I estimate 150lbs per crew member plus 600lbs for aircraft vitals.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 8, 2021)

Go the other way. Strip all armour and armament, cut crew to the minimum and fit high altitude Merlin's. An early V bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Go the other way. Strip all armour and armament, cut crew to the minimum and fit high altitude Merlin's. An early V bomber.


Basically what they did with those carrying the Grand Slam, 5 man crew and one turret, apparently they were great to fly back from a mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 8, 2021)

The Nene Lancaster might have been the answer. A Lancastrian with a pair of Nene's and the Merlin's shut down could cruise over 300mph a Lanc with four Nene's could possibly cruise at 300mph and dash to and from the target at a higher speed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Basically what they did with those carrying the Grand Slam, 5 man crew and one turret, apparently they were great to fly back from a mission.



Must have been like driving a sports car


----------



## wuzak (Apr 8, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> A 1cm thick 1 square meter armour plate weighs 72kg about 150lbs.
> 
> Dorsal gunner. Id wrap a 2m by 90cm deep plate around in a 2/3rds circle about 1m diameter him so he is only exposed forward. I would give him armoured back rest and seat pan and a small shield that rotates with him. There is probably 200lbs there. It will also stop shells that enter the aircraft.
> 
> ...



Did the B-17 have all this?

Only 1 pilot in a Lancaster.

Rear gunner can't be completely protected, because he will need to see out. B-17 rear gunner had more protection, but less field of fire.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Must have been like driving a sports car


Pretty much what the pilots said. They had Merlin 24 engines and had all the radios and lots of other stuff taken out including bomb doors of course. Obviously not like a fighter but a massive change from a standard Lanc. I just read this morning about a pilot whose first mission with 617 sqdrn was to drop one on submarine pens. Dropping the bomb would be dangerous to the crew if they weren't braced for it, the plane leapt 250ft upwards, after that it was like a toy.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 8, 2021)

My favourite daylight Lancaster is below, swap out the Merlins for four blade Griffons. Light up the Dewerts for the sprint over the target. Omit all the guns - or at best keep the tail turret.






With sufficient fighter escort our fast Lanc will be over the target and homebound in a jiff. One challenge is dual fuels.


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

it wouldnt have made it as a day bomber it didnt have the armor of a b17 or b 24 or b25 if the lancaster was jumped by a group of fw 190s or 109e's they wouldnt have made it home


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> it wouldnt have made it as a day bomber it didnt have the armor of a b17 or b 24 or b25 if the lancaster was jumped by a group of fw 190s or 109e's they wouldnt have made it home



So, by inference, every B-17, B-24 and B-25 that WAS jumped by a group of Fw190s or Me109s DID make it home? Is that really what you're suggesting?

As another thread has mentioned, armour won't prevent a bomber being shot down unless the engines and all fuel tanks are protected. Crew protection armour is little more than a comfort blanket when fighters are lobbing cannon shells into the bomber.

And, oh by the way, the Lancaster was used in daylight operations throughout the war...so, clearly, it did "make it".

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> it wouldnt have made it as a day bomber it didnt have the armor of a b17 or b 24 or b25 if the lancaster was jumped by a group of fw 190s or 109e's they wouldnt have made it home


Neither would the types you mentioned. No bomber alone could fight off a group of S/E fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> So, by inference, every B-17, B-24 and B-25 that WAS jumped by a group of Fw190s or Me109s DID make it home? Is that really what you're suggesting?
> 
> As another thread has mentioned, armour won't prevent a bomber being shot down unless the engines and all fuel tanks are protected. Crew protection armour is little more than a comfort blanket when fighters are lobbing cannon shells into the bomber.
> 
> And, oh by the way, the Lancaster was used in daylight operations throughout the war...so, clearly, it did "make it".


im just saying better armored bombers would have a higher chance than the lancaster


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Neither would the types you mentioned. No bomber alone could fight off a group of S/E fighters.


you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave


You are using the present tense, historically groups of unescorted bombers suffered unsustainable losses, as at Schweinfurt, a bomber alone has very little chance, the tail gunner cant make lead fly at more than one target at a time, and those targets have lead of their own.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> im just saying better armored bombers would have a higher chance than the lancaster



That's not what you said. Survivability is based on a whole host of factors and, as noted previously, armour isn't going to stop cannon shells...which is precisely what the Luftwaffe fighters were shooting. Ergo, armour probably doesn't buy you much, except perhaps some goodwill from the crews that are flying the thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> That's not what you said. Survivability is based on a whole host of factors and, as noted previously, armour isn't going to stop cannon shells...which is precisely what the Luftwaffe fighters were shooting. Ergo, armour probably doesn't buy you much, except perhaps some goodwill from the crews that are flying the thing.


maybr but id ranther a heavy armored b17 than a sheet medal lancaster


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave


I'm pretty sure B-17's and B-24's threw plenty of lead at their attackers, I don't see too much evidence of them leaving because it was .50 and no .303, and how would you tell the difference at 500-600mph closing speeds?

"Scheisse Hans... they're shooting fifty caliber bullets at us, vamonos, mach schnell..." said no Luftwaffe pilot ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'm pretty sure B-17's and B-24's threw plenty of lead at their attackers, I don't see too much evidence of them leaving because it was .50 and no .303, and how would you tell the difference at 500-600mph closing speeds?
> 
> "Scheisse Hans... they're shooting fifty caliber bullets at us, vamonos, mach schnell..." said no Luftwaffe pilot ever.


Our 30mm cannon are no match for their huge 0.5s.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Our 30mm cannon are no match for their huge 0.5s.


yalls 30mm mk108 cannon shoots a slower round at a slower fire rate than the us .50


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> maybr but id ranther a heavy armored b17 than a sheet medal lancaster



Take a look at the placement of the armour...see any gaps or chinks in the armour where bullets might get through? 







Enjoy the comfort blanket, 'cos that's all the "heavy armor" in a B-17 provided.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave



Wow, that's some impressive KoolAid you're drinking. 

BTW...how does one "see 50 cal lead flying"? I've shot all sorts of weapons and never yet actually seen a bullet in flight.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Wow, that's some impressive KoolAid you're drinking.
> 
> BTW...how does one "see 50 cal lead flying"? I've shot all sorts of weapons and never yet actually seen a bullet in flight.


i concede i had always heard the b17 was a good bomber armor wise tell everyone i sorry and im sorry i insulted the rafs lancasters

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Wow, that's some impressive KoolAid you're drinking.
> 
> BTW...how does one "see 50 cal lead flying"? I've shot all sorts of weapons and never yet actually seen a bullet in flight.


The bomb aimers on Lancs attacking the Tirpitz could see their main armament air burst shells coming towards them, it was a bit disturbing, they said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> i concede i had always heard the b17 was a good bomber armor wise tell everyone i sorry and im sorry i insulted the rafs lancasters


You didn't insult them, take the sheet metal off a B-17 and you have a very impressive piece of modern art.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> yalls 30mm mk108 cannon shoots a slower round at a slower fire rate than the us .50


And it blows a huge hole in anything it hits.


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> You didn't insult them, take the sheet metal off a B-17 and you have a very impressive piece of modern art.


i dont hate the lancaster anyways i just wouldnt trust it in a broad daylight raid thats all


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> i concede i had always heard the b17 was a good bomber armor wise tell everyone i sorry and im sorry i insulted the rafs lancasters



You'll find that many folk on this forum are willing to examine their preconceptions and engage in robust discussion. The B-17 and the Lancaster were both excellent bombers, each with their strengths and limitations. Those differences are what make discussions interesting. As much as humanly possible, we try to get rid of nationalistic stereotypes and discuss capabilities on their merits.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> i dont hate the lancaster anyways i just wouldnt trust it in a broad daylight raid thats all


Without an escort anything in broad daylight was unsustainable, the first use of B-26 in Netherlands lost all aircraft. The first daylight use of Lancasters in 1942 lost 58% to enemy aircraft and ground fire in Augsberg Bavaria.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave



You are new here, I gather. If an old fart can give a few words:
- flag waving yields no respect on this board
- grammar and punctuation can gain you respect.

Cheers and have fun.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 8, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> You are new here, I gather. If an old fart can give a few words:
> - flag waving yields no respect on this board
> - grammar and punctuation can gain you respect.
> 
> Cheers and have fun.


Just lookited at a thred about camouflage. The Spitfire looks bettir with stars. So there.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Just lookited at a thred about camouflage. The Spitfire looks bettir with stars. So there.


Well observed, stars perform far better on a Spitfire.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Well observed, stars perform far better on a Spitfire.


what is this supoose to mean ?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> what is this supoose to mean ?


The best performance of Stars and Balkenkreuz was always on a Spitfire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 8, 2021)

Hey VA5124,

They are teasing you. It's a reference to the idea that some people think that just because it is an American made aircraft that it outperforms any other nation's aircraft, so obviously anything works better if it has an American star insignia on it.

Don't sweat it.

Welcome to the forum.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The best performance of Stars and Balkenkreuz was always on a Spitfire.
> View attachment 618977


the 190d-9 and me 110 would like a word with you

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2021)

Greyman said:


> More from Harris:
> _... in so far as turrets and guns were concerned, very little had been done between February, 1942, and May, 1945, to improve the defensive armament of heavy bombers and, apart from the Rose turret, no real progress had been made in producing for Bomber Command a turret which possessed the characteristics laid down by this Command in 1942. ... Throughout, those responsible for turret design and production displayed an extraordinary disregard for the requirements of the Command._


I have to admit that this quote doesn't impress me one bit. He was a man of considerable power and know to be not afraid to use it. Had he wanted 0.50 guns sooner he was in a position to make it happen sooner. If he has insisted in late 42 that he wanted twin 0.50 instead of quad 303 I am confident it would have happened.

It tends to smack of a little too much hindsight for me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> the 190d-9 and me 110 would like a word with you


Historical facts cannot be disputed, below you can see the best climbing and turning stars to serve in WW2 (prettiest too)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Historical facts cannot be disputed, below you can see the best climbing and turning stars to serve in WW2 (prettiest too)
> View attachment 618978


the p-51 and p-47 would also like a word


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> the p-51 and p-47 would also like a word


Now they would lose that comparison, at least in climbing and turning which was the original comparison

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> I have to admit that this quote doesn't impress me one bit. He was a man of considerable power and know to be not afraid to use it. Had he wanted 0.50 guns sooner he was in a position to make it happen sooner. If he has insisted in late 42 that he wanted twin 0.50 instead of quad 303 I am confident it would have happened.
> 
> It tends to smack of a little too much hindsight for me.


I agree, they took the front turret off the Halifax for logical reasons but the single gun they put in wasn't a 0.5. There were many things that could have been done to the Lancaster, like making doors bigger, they weren't because at the time more Lancasters was preferred to safer Lancasters.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> the p-51 and p-47 would also like a word


A Spitfire Mk XIV which was the contemporary of the P-51D would outperform both in almost every respect. Welcome to the forum BTW, not all is serious we do have some moments of levity.


----------



## VA5124 (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> A Spitfire Mk XIV which was the contemporary of the P-51D would outperform both in almost every respect. Welcome to the forum BTW, not all is serious we do have some moments of levity.


listen i like the spitfire as much as anyone but i also happen to like the p-51 and p-47 and others and thanks for the welcome


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> listen i like the spitfire as much as anyone but i also happen to like the p-51 and p-47 and others and thanks for the welcome


I like them all, they were what they were, The P-51 is possibly the best WW2 aircraft the British ordered into production, it just needed a decent engine.


----------



## MikeMeech (Apr 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> I have to admit that this quote doesn't impress me one bit. He was a man of considerable power and know to be not afraid to use it. Had he wanted 0.50 guns sooner he was in a position to make it happen sooner. If he has insisted in late 42 that he wanted twin 0.50 instead of quad 303 I am confident it would have happened.
> 
> It tends to smack of a little too much hindsight for me.



Hi

The following is from Bomber Command's 'Despatch on War Operations, 23rd February, 1942 to 8th May, 1945', under Harris's signature, reference guns:

















It should be remembered that when he was in command of 5 Group Hampdens early in the war he got the Rose Company to design a mount to double the VGOs in the dorsal gun positions.
I hope that is of interest.

Mike

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> The following is from Bomber Command's 'Despatch on War Operations, 23rd February, 1942 to 8th May, 1945', under Harris's signature, reference guns:
> View attachment 618979
> ...


Its very interesting and I thank you for it. One comment about the additional guns in the Hampden which may be of interest. I used to belong to a rifle club and one of the members used to be a dorsal gunner in the Hampden and was later a POW after being shot down in a Halifax where he was the rear gunner. He told us of the doubling of the number of guns in the Hampden and pretty well as soon as they were installed he took the extra gun off his mount as without it he had a greater arc of fire.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Apr 8, 2021)

Wow, those pages from Bomber Command's Despatch on War Operations are a mass of contradictions!

They wanted to make the turrets warmer so the guns and gunner would be more effective, but the solution to the visibility problem was to cut a hole in the tail turret big enough for a guy wearing a parachute to jump out of.

It was a priority to put bigger guns into turrets, but by the end of the war they'd only managed to put 180 of those turrets on airplanes. Doesn't sound like it was a very high priority.

If the .303's were that ineffective, instead of giving the tail gunner a bigger window to jump out of, they'd should have made him even safer and let him stay home.


----------



## ClayO (Apr 8, 2021)

If I were a Lancaster top turret gunner, I don't know if I'd feel sorry for the tail gunner shivering in the cold, or be wishing I had an escape hatch to dive out of.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

ClayO said:


> If I were a Lancaster top turret gunner, I don't know if I'd feel sorry for the tail gunner shivering in the cold, or be wishing I had an escape hatch to dive out of.


The top turret could get to the escape hatch quite easily and he had his parachute on, or with him, the rear turret didn't.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

ClayO said:


> Wow, those pages from Bomber Command's Despatch on War Operations are a mass of contradictions!
> 
> They wanted to make the turrets warmer so the guns and gunner would be more effective, but the solution to the visibility problem was to cut a hole in the tail turret big enough for a guy wearing a parachute to jump out of.
> 
> ...


They would be, from Feb 1942 to May 1945 the war changed completely, and had changed as the report was written, even the massively expensive turrets on B-29s that were remotely controlled and 0.5" were removed apart from the tail gun. The Canberra which had no turrets started in design in 1944. BTW many rear gunners removed the Perspex screen from the turret to see better, the turret was always freezing cold, just a question of how easy it was to get out, in some cases, it was impossible.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Just lookited at a thred about camouflage. The Spitfire looks bettir with stars. So there.



Nice try, Rob...but you used correct capitalization. You're not fooling anyone!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Apr 8, 2021)

ClayO said:


> If the .303's were that ineffective, instead of giving the tail gunner a bigger window to jump out of, they'd should have made him even safer and let him stay home.



You have to remember that during night operations the ranges were very close, I have read of bomber crews having night fighters fly right past them with neither seeing each other until the last minute, at those ranges, we are talking under 200m four closely spaced .303's would be very effective against any target, especially if the burst went into the cabin or engine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> You have to remember that during night operations the ranges were very close, I have read of bomber crews having night fighters fly right past them with neither seeing each other until the last minute, at those ranges, we are talking under 200m four closely spaced .303's would be very effective against any target, especially if the burst went into the cabin or engine.


This is a very good point. I have never read or heard about a night fighter of any side, who considered the bombers LMG defences to be ineffective.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> This is a very good point. I have never read or heard about a night fighter of any side, who considered the bombers LMG defences to be ineffective.


Night fighters may have been over their own territory, but if you take a bullet that means you have to bale out or force land, the place below is blacked out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> This is a very good point. I have never read or heard about a night fighter of any side, who considered the bombers LMG defences to be ineffective.



Haven't you heard? The .303 could barely scrape the paint off an enemy aircraft. Conversely, the 50cal could bring down entire formations with a single bullet.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 8, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Haven't you heard? The .303 could barely scrape the paint off an enemy aircraft. Conversely, the 50cal could bring down entire formations with a single bullet.


Clearly I didn't get the memo

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 8, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> 1 Only Pathfinder carried H2S. American bombers also carried H2S, in large numbers, only their version was called H2X and was used for bombing through the clouds...



This statement is false. ALL lancaster aircraft carried H2S, at least from May 1944 onwards and perhaps longer.

Jim


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 8, 2021)

daviemax said:


> The primary reason for the Lancaster not being viable as a day bomber was its low ceiling - 21,500 feet loaded. This was even lower than that of the B-24 (23,500 feet) and far below that of the B-17 (at least 30,000 feet). This low ceiling rendered Lancasters operating in daylight very vulnerable to both flak and fighters. Very late in the war, as the German threat declined, some Lancasters were operated in daylight under heavy escort; however, this was very much an exception. It is good to recall that a major reason why the B-24 began to phase out of the 8th AF from the summer of 1944 was due to its relatively low ceiling. With its even lower ceiling the Lancaster was a non-starter.



Was it unviable? And your source is...what? This is nonsense and not supported by the historical records! The Lancaster Bomber was a fully capable day bomber when escorted. Just as the B-17 and the B-24 were fully capable at night. The records show that losses by both Lancasters and Halifaxes on daylight operations were very low...lower than night operations by the end of the war.

For the record, dad flew 11 daylight operations out of his total of 31, September 1944-March 1945.

The attached document is the 4th page of the Form "B" which outlined the tactics for Dad's daylight to Mannheim, March 1, 1945. Note 6: Fighter cover, 8 Squadrons of Mustangs and 7 Squadrons of Spits. from 11-Group. 3 Squadrons of Thunderbolts from TAF written in Ink. Rendezvous position is 5 degrees 30 minutes east on track.

Jim

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> Was it unviable? And your source is...what? This nonsense and not supported by the historical records! The Lancaster Bomber was a fully capable day bomber when escorted. Just as the B-17 and the B-24 were fully capable at night. The records show that losses by both Lancasters and Halifaxes on daylight operations were very low...lower than night operations by the end of the war.
> 
> For the record, dad flew 11 daylight operations out of his total of 31, September 1944-March 1945.
> 
> ...


As I understand it, the load out of Lancasters and others was based on being below 22,000 ft when loaded, above that height you make vapour trails.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> you dont have to fight them when they see 50 cal lead flying at them they will leave



That isn't borne out by casualty lists, though. Much as I loves me a B-17 (my gramps died in one), German fighters didn't seem very put-off by .197" difference in caliber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The bomb aimers on Lancs attacking the Tirpitz could see their main armament air burst shells coming towards them, it was a bit disturbing, they said.



I've read that about sea battles as well, that the target crew on occasion could see the shells coming at them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 8, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> i dont hate the lancaster anyways i just wouldnt trust it in a broad daylight raid thats all



The premise of the OP includes "escorted".

The -17 and the -24 were both flown unescorted in deep raids, both lost a lot, both were pulled back in the autumn of 43 until the P-51B came online. 

Under competent escort, I see no reason at all why a Lanc couldn't do the same job -- indeed, delivering more tonnage in so doing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 8, 2021)

Glider said:


> I have to admit that this quote doesn't impress me one bit. He was a man of considerable power and know to be not afraid to use it. Had he wanted 0.50 guns sooner he was in a position to make it happen sooner. If he has insisted in late 42 that he wanted twin 0.50 instead of quad 303 I am confident it would have happened.
> 
> It tends to smack of a little too much hindsight for me.



Yeah as MikeMeech's excerpt from Harris alludes to -- it was a battle for years trying to get better turrets for Bomber Command. There were a few battles he had for years that are just as exasperating to read about. The one to get a good cluster projectile springs to mind.

Again, Harris:
_I can recall one civil servant whose whole-hearted devotion to the country and to his work, was worth at least a division to the enemy on every day of the war. But for the human limitations of even his devotion to duty and to an eighteen-hour day he would undoubtedly have been worth two divisions. Luckily he was far from being typical, else should we have perished. Not for nothing was it said in the fighting services that had they only the King's Enemies to deal with -- how easy that would be._

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I've read that about sea battles as well, that the target crew on occasion could see the shells coming at them.


In WW1 when many planes were used as observers and artillery was frequently howitzers lobbing high at (comparatively) short range pilots and observers would see the shells almost come to a halt around them then continue on their parabola downwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 8, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> *Firstly* even radar directed FLAK is more effective when combined with visual sighting and aiming.
> 
> The two main Luftwaffe FLAK radars were Wurzburg-D (3m diameter aerial) and Wurzburg-Riesse (7m diameter aerial) both had conical scan and were capable of accurate blind fire. The smaller Wurzburg-D had a on paper accuracy of 0.2 degrees but is sometimes quoted as 0.3/0.5 which is the 60% accuracy when low to ground and ground plane interference. The Bigger Wurzburg Riesse was about twice as accurate and was also well generally surveyed and aligned, about 0.1 degrees or 0.15/0.2 when low to ground. Range accuracy of both was 16m when pointing up. The Bigger radar was very accurate but rarer (4000 versus 500) and often used to direct fighter aircraft interceptions.
> 
> ...



Please provide your source for this. You are speculating on what the guns could or could not do. Flooding us with performance data tell us nothing about what actually happened in combat. Stick with what the historical records reveal. Oboe directed Mosquitoes flying individually on a straight path for 10-14 minutes, were highly vulnerable to flak, even at 35,000’ at night and in the cloud, because their path could be predicted by radar. So if Mosquitoes could be shot down by predicted flak at 35,000’ I suspect the B-17 was also highly vulnerable. The advantage the individual B-17 had was, the dilution effect of being in a large formation.

The tactic used by Bomber Command against defences was a highly concentrated Bomber Stream. It didn’t matter whether it was flak or fighters. Day or night. The goal was to saturate defences. Furthermore the actual records show (and I can present these) Bomber Command on occasion used rapid descents upon leaving the target to confuse defences. Over the target the aircraft were dispersed in different height bands, so flak crews could not assume that that ranging guns at one height would be effective against all aircraft. Tactics were fluid from one point in the raid to the next and one operation to the next. It was a cat and mouse game. I would be surprised if the USAAF didn’t use similar methods.

All aircraft shot down over Duisburg, October 14, 1944; were shot down by flak. It was predicted flak, i.e. directed by radar. It had to be as the target was covered by 7-10/10’s cloud. 13 aircraft lost of 1,013 despatched. Middlebrook and Everitt speculate that the losses occurred from the earlier waves, before the flak positions were overwhelmed by the bombing. Dad’s logbook records 4 “scarecrows”, these being aircraft exploding midair over the target.

In his audio memoirs, dad discusses the subject of predicted flak. Pilots could tell when they were being predicted and about the actions an experienced pilot could take to avoid it. That might be hard to do when in a tight formation that the USAAF used. But I don’t know because I don’t know much about what the USAAF did or did not do.

And I’m not going to speculate what the capabilities of the B-17 were verses the Lancaster, because each force had their weapon and that was the weapon they used. Everything else is moot.

Jim

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As I understand it, the load out of Lancasters and others was based on being below 22,000 ft when loaded, above that height you make vapour trails.



What you understand is irrelevant. Please provide a source for this, preferably a wartime sources, otherwise it’s just conjecture.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> What you understand is irrelevant. Please provide a source for this, preferably a wartime sources, otherwise it’s just conjecture.


No it isn't. From the very first use of the B-17 in daylight, forming vapour trails was a problem. Forming vapour trails at night in moonlight is only slightly less of a problem. German night fighters, when the bomber stream was in common use used to locate the stream by the turbulence in the air and follow it, it is much easier when that turbulence is coloured white by moonlight. There was no pressure on bomber command to increase height to avoid flak because to do so would put them in a height that made them obvious by eye sight even at night because of vapour trails. I have read this in so many books on the subject I find it strange that you demand a source. 

my first hit from the internet gave this, from here https://www.historylearningsite.co....ampaign-of-world-war-two/bomber-command-1944/ 


using this search* bomber command raids avoidance of vapour trails *



"Nearly 800 bombers were used for the raid. However, for whatever reason, the Luftwaffe had guessed that Nuremburg was to be the target for that night. Within one hour, 59 bombers were shot down by Messerschmitt 109’s and Focke-Wolfe fighters. During the flight towards their target, the bomber crews also experienced a very rare occurrence. Bombers did not usually create a vapour trail below 25,000 feet. For this raid, planes flew below 25,000 feet and some were as low as 16,000 feet. For whatever meteorological reason, the planes gave off vapour trails – clearly indicating to the German fighter pilots where they were. In all, the total loss to Bomber Command on this one mission was 64 Lancaster’s and 31 Halifax’s lost – 670 men."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> No it isn't. From the very first use of the B-17 in daylight, forming vapour trails was a problem. Forming vapour trails at night in moonlight is only slightly less of a problem. German night fighters, when the bomber stream was in common use used to locate the stream by the turbulence in the air...



I don’t disagree with you about the fact that vapour trails are a big deal. And I’ve read Martin Middlebrook’s book on the Nuremberg raid. It’s a superb read. What I disagree with is the assertion that the Lancasters heights and loads were based on the need to avoid vapour trails. So I’d like to see wartime documentation that backs this up, because it’s news to me. I’ve read looked through this document particularly carefully: Operational Research in Bomber Command by Basil Dickens

http://lmharchive.ca/wp-content/uplo...d-ORS-Full.pdf

Its really big, by the way. Nothing showed up on what you report and they looked at fuel and bomb loads of aircraft from soup to nuts.

Jim


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> I don’t disagree with you about the fact that vapour trails are a big deal. And I’ve read Martin Middlebrook’s book on the Nuremberg raid. It’s a superb read. What I disagree with is the assertion that the Lancasters heights and loads were based on the need to avoid vapour trails. So I’d like to see wartime documentation that backs this up, because it’s news to me. I’ve read looked through this document particularly carefully: Operational Research in Bomber Command by Basil Dickens
> 
> http://lmharchive.ca/wp-content/uplo...d-ORS-Full.pdf
> 
> ...


What question do you want me to answer? You say that you agree that vapour trails were a big deal and you want me to prove that they were a big deal because you don't believe they were actually a big deal? Vapour trails and the forming of vapour trails are not a constant. I can guarantee that my wind up model wont form a vapour trail in my garden, I can also guarantee that a formation of B-17s aircraft at 30,000 ft will form a vapour trail. Look at your bomb and fuel loads for Lancasters at 30,000 ft. some could do it, but it is a lighter load with a big white flag saying "here I am" so it wasn't normally done. As per the link I posted the knowledge at the time was that below 25,000 ft you were OK for vapour tails, so missions were constructed around that with a safety margin of a few thousand feet. If you have a bomber stream and the ones at the top of the stream indicate where all those below are you may as well put your lights on to avoid collisions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 8, 2021)

So let me tell you all a little bit about my work. I am researching my father’s wartime operations in detail. I’m using his memoirs of the war. Frankly his recollection isn’t great at times and it’s needs scrutiny. However, he was there and I wasn’t. So I have tried to collect together all of the wartime records of what is known: records of the actual briefings of aircrew, what they were told about the target, locations and gun counts of flak defences, locations of fighters and strength, Pathinder methods, call signs, route turning points, speeds, heights, who was the master bomber (if used), records of the master bombers sortie, Pathfinder records of the raid, ORB entry for my father, his bomb load and heading speed on the bombing run, what markers he bombed, actual records of what he and his crew saw, what other crews experienced and observed, fighter activity, who shot down which aircraft, notable photos of individuals and aircraft, film footage over the target, dad’s strike photos and finally raid assessments by 6-Group and by Bomber Command.

All of this work is based on thousands of pages of wartime documents. Not someone else’s book, (except for Theo Boiten and Rod MacKenzie’s excellent books-researching the original German documents is beyond my capabilities). In other words there is a huge amount of historical information from primary sources with is available. We don’t need to wave our hands in the air.

So it kind of burns my bottom, when I see arguments made on whether this aircraft is better than that aircraft based on technical details that have little relation to what actually happened.

sorry, just my opinion.

Jim

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 8, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What question do you want me to answer?



I want a historical document that says, something to the effect that vapour trails had anything to do with the heights Lancasters operated. Weather conditions, icing conditions and so on. Sure they entered into the planning and operational heights. The aircraft‘s capabilities at altitude. Sure that’s a factor. But also remember the higher route to the target, the sooner radar can pick you up.

At the end of the day, Lancasters operated at the heights they operated and they were effective at those heights. And they were effective at those heights during the day with fighter escorts. And B-17’s were effective at the heights they operated. Both aircraft types were easily spotted during the day if they produced vapour trails. But I have never, ever, seen any wartime documents that give any indication of heights being chosen or rejected based on the expectation of vapour trails at said height. Meteorological forecasts factored prominently but I’ve seen no mention of vapour trails. I think icing conditions figured more prominently than vapour trails, and at least in the case of bomber command likely were a bigger cause of catastrophic failures than vapour trails. But what do I know. I wasn't there. Dad was and he talked about icing conditions a lot in his audio memoirs.

edit: I just want to add one last point. Bomber Command put their scientists to work looking into optimal loading of the aircraft, fuel and bombs at range. And they did so with analysis of losses and trying to correlate those with whether the aircraft had sufficient fuel to return to base. Evidently some stations were erring on the side of caution pertaining to fuel, and skimping on bomb loads, whilst other were loading up on bombs and leaving fate in the hands of the crew. Did the aircraft have sufficient fuel if the tanks were holed by fighters etc. The analysis was quite detailed.

Jim


----------



## PAT303 (Apr 9, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I've read that about sea battles as well, that the target crew on occasion could see the shells coming at them.



Same as navy battles, I've read of radar operators tracking incoming15" 16'' enemy shells, that would have been scary.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Haven't you heard? The .303 could barely scrape the paint off an enemy aircraft. * Conversely, the 50cal could bring down entire formations with a single bullet.*


Only when fired by a Mustang.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> In WW1 when many planes were used as observers and artillery was frequently howitzers lobbing high at (comparatively) short range pilots and observers would see the shells almost come to a halt around them then continue on their parabola downwards.


I remember reading years ago about an RAF pilot flying a Spitfire over the beach on D-Day, now I can't remember what he was doing i.e. I don't think he was spotting for the naval gunfire but perhaps he was? At any rate, he was looking at a British BB (can't remember which one) that had just fired a salvo at a target inland. Apparently he was not only in line with the projectiles but was flying at the apex of their trajectory and the passage of the shells knocked him around quite a bit and claimed he was lucky he wasn't hit by a 15" round.

He did say he saw the shells after they passed and he watched them all the way to the target and explode.

Battleship caliber shells are relatively easy to see in flight, there's many a photo of them cracking off a salvo and you can see the projectiles in the same picture. At Guadalcanal they were very easy to see at night, I've read where the U.S.S. Helena with her fifteen 6" rifles was a veritable firehose of lead. Here's the Missouri firing a six gun salvo (on a shakedown cruise I believe), shells in the upper right.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Only when fired by a Mustang.



Oh no, you're wrong there. As we've seen on this thread, the mighty 50 cal used in heavy bombers forced German fighters to engage at longer stand-off distances, and made heavily armoured American bombers invulnerable to enemy fire, while the flimsy Lancaster fell out of the sky if a German fighter pilot as much as looked at it the wrong way.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Apr 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Oh no, you're wrong there. As we've seen on this thread, the mighty 50 cal used in heavy bombers forced German fighters to engage at longer stand-off distances, and made heavily armoured American bombers invulnerable to enemy fire, while the flimsy Lancaster fell out of the sky if a German fighter pilot as much as looked at it the wrong way.



And they knocked out Tigers by bouncing those big fifty cal powerhouses off the cobble stone roads into their bellies, those Sherman guys with their pip-squeak 75mm's were green with envy

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Take a look at the placement of the armour...see any gaps or chinks in the armour where bullets might get through?
> 
> View attachment 618972
> 
> ...



That looks like a B17F, not the more heavily armoured B17G. Besides steal armor the American bombers had a large amount of paper mache and armour glass. The paper mache absored splinters form FLAK and 20mm hits.

In addition B17s were modified by the USAAF with additional amour behind the instrument panel to help the pilots survive a head on attack, additional armor for the navigator and armour for the bomb aimer. This was all in the light of operational experience.

There is a list of these here:
B-17 Queen of the Sky - B-17G page

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 9, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> Same as navy battles, I've read of radar operators tracking incoming15" 16'' enemy shells, that would have been scary.



Seeing FLAK shells or large naval shells leaving or comming in was not unusual. Radars of the day stared in one direction rather than scanned. The type 285 radar operators on PoW during the battle of Denmark Straights (with Bismarck) could see the 14” inch shells on their scopes leave.


Peter Gunn said:


> I remember reading years ago about an RAF pilot flying a Spitfire over the beach on D-Day, now I can't remember what he was doing i.e. I don't think he was spotting for the naval gunfire but perhaps he was? At any rate, he was looking at a British BB (can't remember which one) that had just fired a salvo at a target inland. Apparently he was not only in line with the projectiles but was flying at the apex of their trajectory and the passage of the shells knocked him around quite a bit and claimed he was lucky he wasn't hit by a 15" round.
> 
> He did say he saw the shells after they passed and he watched them all the way to the target and explode.
> 
> ...



The USAAF determined during the Vietnam war that 5% of its combat pilots could see AAA shells coming up. I’d say that statistic held during WW2.

Incidentally a good SLR camera with a 1/2000th of a second shutter speed could take this photograph easily.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2021)

Ok...lots of people have commented about various types of large calibre shells being visible while in flight. Anyone ever seen a 50 cal round in flight with the naked eye?


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 9, 2021)

Do tracers count?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 9, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Do tracers count?



How do you differentiate .303 tracer from 50 cal tracer?

The comment was made that German pilots, on seeing 50 cal bullets flying, would run away bravely. I still don't see how that would work.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> How do you differentiate .303 tracer from 50 cal tracer?
> 
> The comment was made that German pilots, on seeing 50 cal bullets flying, would run away bravely. I still don't see how that would work.



Easy. The .50 cal scares the air out of the way, while the .303 has to plough through it all the same. That's the easiest tell I know of.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Ok...lots of people have commented about various types of large calibre shells being visible while in flight. Anyone ever seen a 50 cal round in flight with the naked eye?



Interesting discussion here:
Why can’t humans see bullets after their fired? Obviously, I know it’s because bullets are to fast, but what is the scientific explanation? - Quora

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 13, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> I remember reading years ago about an RAF pilot flying a Spitfire over the beach on D-Day, now I can't remember what he was doing i.e. I don't think he was spotting for the naval gunfire but perhaps he was? At any rate, he was looking at a *British BB* (can't remember which one) that had just fired a salvo at a target inland. Apparently he was not only in line with the projectiles but was flying at the apex of their trajectory and the passage of the shells knocked him around quite a bit and claimed he was lucky he wasn't hit by a 15" round.




*USS Arkansas, USS Texas, USS Nevada, HMS Warspite, HMS Ramillies* and *HMS Rodney*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 13, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> But I have never, ever, seen any wartime documents that give any indication of heights being chosen or rejected based on the expectation of vapour trails at said height.



The following excerpt from _Target Berlin_ by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price may be of interest (p.29-30):

_The weather forecasters expected aircraft above 23,000 feet to leave condensation trails; these would make it more difficult for bombers to hold formation and easier for German fighters to find them. To avoid this nuisance bomber formation leaders were ordered to stay below 21,000 feet._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 14, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The following excerpt from _Target Berlin_ by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price may be of interest (p.29-30):
> 
> _The weather forecasters expected aircraft above 23,000 feet to leave condensation trails; these would make it more difficult for bombers to hold formation and easier for German fighters to find them. To avoid this nuisance bomber formation leaders were ordered to stay below 21,000 feet._



When was this raid conducted?


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 14, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> When was this raid conducted?



March 6, 1944 — the first full USAAF daylight raid on Berlin. Mission takeoff commenced at 7:45 am; leading units of the attack formation crossed the Dutch coast at 10:52 am, eight minutes behind schedule due to stronger than forecast headwinds over the North Sea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Apr 14, 2021)

The Lanc was used as a daylight escorted bomber for raids supporting the Normandy Invasion in June 1944. Oddly enough, when they got past the range Spitfires could handle they were escorted by Mosquitoes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 14, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> March 6, 1944 — the first full USAAF daylight raid on Berlin. Mission takeoff commenced at 7:45 am; leading units of the attack formation crossed the Dutch coast at 10:52 am, eight minutes behind schedule due to stronger than forecast headwinds over the North Sea.


Bombing Altitudes: 20,800 ft; 22,000 ft by the 303BG(H)
118.pdf (303rdbg.com)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 14, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Bombing Altitudes: 20,800 ft; 22,000 ft by the 303BG(H)
> 118.pdf (303rdbg.com)



“We put up 812 heavy bombers (504 B-17s and 226 B-24s) and 474 B-17s and 198 B-24s made it to their targets, but the bombing results were not too good. Photo’s indicate that no bombs hit their assigned targets. And the losses were staggering – at least 80 aircraft (53 B-17s, 16 B-24s and 11 fighters), a new 8th Air Force record for any one mission–even greater than Schweinfurt. This may have been due to the fact that we were at a much lower altitude than our usual bombing. But it was necessary as the trip in and out took almost nine hours. Three B-17s and five B-24s were lost to AA fire, 41 B-17s due to enemy aircraft and 4 B-17s and 2 B-24s due to both AA fire and enemy aircraft”

A fairly brutal mission. It confirms the nuisance contrails were but also confirms how much the 8th airforce preferred flying at altitude and only came down when necessary.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 14, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> A fairly brutal mission. It confirms the nuisance contrails were but also confirms how much the 8th airforce preferred flying at altitude and only came down when necessary.



The March 6, 1944, raid on Berlin was the single worst day for heavy bomber losses for the 8th Air Force in the ETO. A total of 69 heavies were lost to enemy action. In addition, one bomber crashed on takeoff and three more which returned were written off. The 100th Bomb Group fared the worst on the day: it put up 35 bombers for the mission, of which 32 penetrated enemy airspace; 16 were shot down.

9 of the 100th's aircraft were lost in a single incident, when their formation found itself the victim of a well-placed head-on attack by German fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Apr 15, 2021)

Would the survivability of the Lancaster improve as a day bomber. At night only an average of one in seven crew would survive.
being shot down. 

What was the survivability of the B17 and B24?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2021)

gruad said:


> Would the survivability of the Lancaster improve as a day bomber. *At night only an average of one in seven crew would survive.*
> being shot down.
> 
> What was the survivability of the B17 and B24?


Where does that figure come from?


----------



## gruad (Apr 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Where does that figure come from?


 Only 25% of airmen safely exited Halifaxes and Stirlings, a mere 15% from Lancasters. From Imperial war museum link below

Life And Death In Bomber Command


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2021)

gruad said:


> Only 25% of airmen safely exited Halifaxes and Stirlings, a mere 15% from Lancasters. From Imperial war museum link below
> 
> Life And Death In Bomber Command


For various reasons I would challenge that interpretation of statistics. edited 
G
 gruad


1 They weren't flying the same missions, The Lancasters first mission was the longest low level daylight raid of the war, if you get hit at low level you dont bale out.
2 The Lancaster was the weapon of choice of 617 squadron, raids on the dams and canals were also at low level and many others involved crossing the coast at low level, you dont survive incidents at that level.
3 As the war progressed raids became longer range, the Stirling and the Halifax were progressively removed from the longest raids, so Lancaster crews were the ones who had furthest to fly back with flack or nightfighter damage.
4 Hitler issued a directive that "terror fleigers" should be killed on sight by the civilian population, this applied mainly in Germany itself and at that time in the war most were Lancaster crew. Statistics only record the crew that baled out and then survived the war, some were executed in between.
5 Harris worked by different metrics. If dropping ten tons of bombs on Berlin requires 1 Lancaster 2 Halifaxes or 5 Stirlings for the same effect you will lose 2 times as many Hallifax crew members and 5 times as many Stirling crew. (these aren't literally exact ratios, just an illustration of a principle).
6 When on the same mission Stirlings and Halifaxes were more likely to be shot down anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 15, 2021)

gruad said:


> Would the survivability of the Lancaster improve as a day bomber. At night only an average of one in seven crew would survive.
> being shot down.



Survivability by crew position:

*Lancaster*

09.6% = pilot
13.8% = navigator
11.9% = wireless operator
12.4% = flight engineer
13.2% = bomb-aimer
08.5% = mid-upper gunner
08.0% = rear gunner

10.9% = overall

*Halifax*

20.8% = pilot
36.2% = navigator
32.5% = wireless operator
34.0% = flight engineer
31.4% = bomb-aimer
27.3% = mid-upper gunner
23.4% = rear gunner

29.0% = overall

*Wellington*

14.6% = pilot
21.0% = navigator
18.5% = wireless operator
18.5% = bomb-aimer
14.6% = rear gunner

17.5% = overall

*Source:*
Bomber Command Headquarters, 'An examination of the emergency escape arrangements from Bomber Command operational aircraft,' 19 May 1945, DHist 181.003 (D4598)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 16, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Survivability by crew position:
> 
> *Lancaster*
> 
> ...


YIKES!!!

Looks like navigator or bomb aimer was the job to have.


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 16, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> YIKES!!!
> 
> Looks like navigator or bomb aimer was the job to have.


I would prefer to be some desk bound clerk. I’d rather risk a paper cut then try bailing out of a burning bomber. I’m not that heroic.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> YIKES!!!
> 
> Looks like navigator or bomb aimer was the job to have.


I think what you have there is the statistical opposite of survivor bias. The statistics are for crews surviving bailing out. If any member of the crew is killed, the pilot can fly the rest home, if the pilot is killed the rest have to jump out if they can.

Prior to the introduction of FIDO to clear fog bound runways the procedure was to point the aircraft out to sea and bail out. Fido started in January 1943. The three emergency landing fields of Carnaby, Manston and Woodbridge, also equipped with FIDO meant that landing, or crash landing as it was previously. Woodbridge opened in Nov 1943 then Carnaby March 1944 and Manston April 1944. While operational 1,400 bombers landed at Carnaby, 4,200 of all types landed at Woodbridge.

There are cases of people jumping with no parachute and surviving, there are cases of crew surviving crash landings at night, there are a few cases of rear gunners surviving after the rear fuselage was cut off, similarly there are cases of crew bailing out over UK without injury and being killed by where they landed. Stats are a biatch.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timmy P3B FCO (Apr 16, 2021)

Hello,

There are numerous web sites that show immense damage to B-17’s that somehow managed to return to Britain after flying/fighting over Europe. Fuselages sliced open, noses completely gone, midair’s with german fighters, huge direct hit flak holes, belly landings.

Are there images of Lancaster's returning with equivalent battle damage? A very imperfect idea to see if the Lancaster could of been an escorted daylight bomber.

Also not having a Co Pilot could possible increase loss rates.



Timmy B


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2021)

Timmy P3B FCO said:


> Are there images of Lancaster's returning with equivalent battle damage? A very imperfect idea to see if the Lancaster could of been an escorted daylight bomber.
> 
> Also not having a Co Pilot could possible increase loss rates.


There are images but not so many, I don't know whether that means they didn't return with damage (actually they certainly did) taking photos was generally frowned upon.

Not having a co pilot on daylight raids probably would increase losses, if forming into a box formation was needed, simply because the raids were so much longer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 16, 2021)

Timmy P3B FCO said:


> Hello,
> 
> There are numerous web sites that show immense damage to B-17’s that somehow managed to return to Britain after flying/fighting over Europe. Fuselages sliced open, noses completely gone, midair’s with german fighters, huge direct hit flak holes, belly landings.
> 
> ...



How about these?



































































Is that enough?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> How about these?
> 
> View attachment 619784
> 
> ...


It is an odd way to judge, because a Stirling would probably take more punishment but you wouldn't choose a Stirling over a Lancaster because of it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 16, 2021)

I've often read photography was a lot more strict on British stations. Succinct bit from the into to the great photo book *Lancaster at War* (Mike Garbett and Brian Goulding):

_Because the British were so notoriously anti-camera during the war -- perhaps understandably so in the earlier years -- there are large gaps in our history. How we envy the historian writing of the Lancaster's American counterparts, the B17 Fortress and B24 Liberator, with a vast, seemingly inexhaustible supply of superb action photographs from which to choose, almost every aircraft in their daylight formations having one or more cameras aboard. We cannot match their formation pictures, their battle scenes, aircraft being hit by flak, crews baling out, combats, contrails, etc. It must also be remembered that the Lancaster operated mainly by night until the last year of the war, giving much less opportunity for photography._​

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2021)

Greyman said:


> I've often read photography was a lot more strict on British stations. Succinct bit from the into to the great photo book *Lancaster at War* (Mike Garbett and Brian Goulding):
> 
> _Because the British were so notoriously anti-camera during the war -- perhaps understandably so in the earlier years -- there are large gaps in our history. How we envy the historian writing of the Lancaster's American counterparts, the B17 Fortress and B24 Liberator, with a vast, seemingly inexhaustible supply of superb action photographs from which to choose, almost every aircraft in their daylight formations having one or more cameras aboard. We cannot match their formation pictures, their battle scenes, aircraft being hit by flak, crews baling out, combats, contrails, etc. It must also be remembered that the Lancaster operated mainly by night until the last year of the war, giving much less opportunity for photography._​


In places like Bletchley park even keeping a diary was an offence under the OSA. Damaged bombers generally returned at night, in the dark, the pilot parked them up away from the main airfield and the crew were taken away to be de briefed and sleep, generally they didn't see the plane again, they got in another one for the next mission.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timmy P3B FCO (Apr 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> In places like Bletchley park even keeping a diary was an offence under the OSA. Damaged bombers generally returned at night, in the dark, the pilot parked them up away from the main airfield and the crew were taken away to be de briefed and sleep, generally they didn't see the plane again, they got in another one for the next mission.



Very tough airframe after looking at pictures and havent seen most of those before

still of opinion that having no Co Pilot increased loses

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2021)

Timmy P3B FCO said:


> Very tough airframe after looking at pictures and havent seen most of those before
> 
> still of opinion that having no Co Pilot increased loses


On most (as in more than 50%) of RAF missions that involved a loss the pilot played no part so two pilots would also play no part. On long missions it is necessary for someone to take over the controls for a while and many RAF crews did that but generally having two pilots would just mean losing more pilots in most cases, on daylight raids the job was to maintain formation, how do two do it better than one?


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think what you have there is the statistical opposite of survivor bias. The statistics are for crews surviving bailing out. If any member of the crew is killed, the pilot can fly the rest home, if the pilot is killed the rest have to jump out if they can..



What is noteworthy is the significant difference between the model of aircraft. The Halifax was close to three times more survivable than the Lancaster if forced to bail out.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> On most (as in more than 50%) of RAF missions that involved a loss the pilot played no part so two pilots would also play no part. On long missions it is necessary for someone to take over the controls for a while and many RAF crews did that but generally having two pilots would just mean losing more pilots in most cases, on daylight raids the job was to maintain formation, how do two do it better than one?


Lancasters had a jump seat where one of the crew could take over if required. With 2 pilots, one pilot flew the a/c while the other would work controls like the throttles and be an extra set of eyes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 17, 2021)

What about a photo with damage to both ...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2021)

Timmy P3B FCO said:


> Very tough airframe after looking at pictures and havent seen most of those before



The Manchester, from which the Lancaster was developed, was designed to be launched by catapult at maximum take-off weight. That would probably account for the strength in the Lancaster's airframe.


----------



## gruad (Apr 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> For various reasons I would challenge that interpretation of statistics. edited
> G
> gruad
> 
> ...




Yes, you are going to use your best aircraft on the most dangerous missions, but 617 and 9 squadron were the exception rather than the rule.

BC evened things up for the Halifax by putting it in the middle of the stream with a much lighter bomb load 30 to 50% of the Lanc.

Again there were deaths from the German population killing baled out crew, but the Luftwaffe were keen to protect crews as they wanted reciprocal treatment.

The Lancaster was a much better aircraft than the Halifax with one flaw, the escape hatch was too small. A young lad took on this problem and eventually got a larger hatch installed but too late for the end of the war.


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 17, 2021)

Someone was on the wrong side of the taxi-way.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 17, 2021)

I have read accounts of both pilot and co-pilot requiring the strength of them both to control a damaged aircraft, as well as accounts of injuries to pilot/copilot requiring one's arms and the other's legs to fly the aircraft.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 17, 2021)

special ed said:


> I have read accounts of both pilot and co-pilot requiring the strength of them both to control a damaged aircraft, as well as accounts of injuries to pilot/copilot requiring one's arms and the other's legs to fly the aircraft.



I'd be really interested in reading those accounts, Ed, if you have any links handy.

The other night my son showed me a Youtube vid he'd found of two -17s, mid-air collision, they converged vertically and got stuck. The two bombers had between them seven working engines, but the lower plane had lost most of its crew. The pilot of the upper bomber realized he couldn't make it back to Merry Olde, so turned back to the Continent to give those left of the crews a chance to bail out over land.

Not only did he manage to turn the Frankenstein around and get to the European coast, allowing six crew to hit the silk, the pilot and co-pilot of the upper bomber stayed with the flying wreckage, and both survived the crash landing. I don't know how many in the lower plane were killed on either air collision or impact.

Here's the computerized vid he showed me. I don't know how accurate the details are.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2021)

Greyman said:


> What about a photo with damage to both ...
> 
> View attachment 619819


Is this called "Harry meets Meghan"?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2021)

special ed said:


> I have read accounts of both pilot and co-pilot requiring the strength of them both to control a damaged aircraft, as well as accounts of injuries to pilot/copilot requiring one's arms and the other's legs to fly the aircraft.


So have I. However it also happened in Lancasters and Halifaxes, other member of the crew helped, they don't have to be pilots. Having two navigators may have helped, we don't know how many didn't make it back because the navigator was killed, same with engineers and wireless operators. In well over half of cases of a plane being lost no one got out, so that is a huge number of extra pilots lost for the few times having two got the plane home. US daylight operations needed two pilots, the forming up process took a long time so missions were longer and flying in close formation is mentally and physically tiring.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2021)

Here's a detailed account of the collision between the two B-17s:
Bizarre B-17 Collision Over the North Sea During World War II

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2021)

gruad said:


> Yes, you are going to use your best aircraft on the most dangerous missions, but 617 and 9 squadron were the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> BC evened things up for the Halifax by putting it in the middle of the stream with a much lighter bomb load 30 to 50% of the Lanc.
> 
> ...


I was just pointing out reasons why the stats are not correct. The cases of Lancasters hitting the ground doing things that Halifaxes were never asked to do are part of it, as are the cases of crews abandoning perfectly good aircraft because they couldn't find an airfield in fog prior to FIDO being used.

Evening things up for the Halifax is why Harris hated it. I don't know that being in the middle of the bomber stream is safer, what I do know is if the Halifax carries half the bomb load, then you are using twice the air crew in Halifaxes as you are in Lancasters and also losing more. 

The LW and German military were not involved in the instruction to kill "terror fliers". I have just read a book on Lancaster crews. One crew all bailed out over Germany and were captured, they were taken to a barn to be executed but two escaped the other five were killed. At approximately the same time a Lancaster crashed and two crew survived, protected by the resistance they were handed over to the Allied forces in Paris after liberation. Out of those two crews, 14 men, only two will appear on the stats of "parachuted safely" though 7 did and in total 4 survived.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> There are images but not so many, I don't know whether that means they didn't return with damage (actually they certainly did) taking photos was generally frowned upon.
> 
> Not having a co pilot on daylight raids probably would increase losses, if forming into a box formation was needed, simply because the raids were so much longer.



The Lancaster was designed so that the pilot had a reduced work load over equivalent USAAF aircraft:

_"The cockpit compartment, like earlier British heavy bombers,
is arranged for a single pilot and a flight engineer, the engineer's
station being directly behind the pilot while the usual co-pilot's
position is primarily a passageway to the bomb aimer's "greenhouse" in
the nose but is provided with a folding jump seat. The layout has been
fully planned for arrangement and simplification that is so desire 
able for night operations. All controls fall readily to hand and are
easily identified. The trim controls operate in the correct plane and
are conveniently located. Many automatic features add to the simplicity
of operations of the Lancaster. The engine radiator shutters are
automatically positioned and the mixture controls have been eliminated
completely by using automatic carburetor settings selected from boost...

D. - Recommendations. 

1. The vision qualities, automatic features, bomb-bay arrangement,
and other excellent items of this airplane should be closely studied by
our engineers for possible improvement of our own equipment_."
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_Eng-47-1658-F.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2021)

On the previously discussed Nuremberg raid of 31 March 1944.
572 Lancasters were used 64 were lost =11.2 %
214 Halifaxes were used 31 were lost =14.4%

A difference of 3.2% may not seem significant but it is, because it applied to every mission, if you have a 3.2% bigger chance of being shot down on one mission, on a tour of 30 missions your life chances are massively reduced and as far as Harris is concerned they are dropping half as many bombs so you can double the wastage of life.
As can be seen by March 1944 the ratio of Lancasters to Halifaxes was 2.7 to 1 on this long range raid, The ratio increased until all were Lancasters because the Halifax just wasn't up to the job, even if you had a better chance of getting out of it, you had a much better chance of surviving the war on Lancasters.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster was designed so that the pilot had a reduced work load over equivalent USAAF aircraft:
> 
> _"The cockpit compartment, like earlier British heavy bombers,
> is arranged for a single pilot and a flight engineer, the engineer's
> ...


When they started putting grand slams on the Lancaster, the radio operator was taken out with his equipment, but radios had moved on, other equipment was carried to allow the pilot to do pretty much the same job.


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 17, 2021)

pbehn said:


> . . . if you have a 3.2% bigger chance of being shot down on one mission, on a tour of 30 missions your life chances are massively reduced . . .



At a constant mission loss rate of 5% of the attacking force, a crew would have about a 60% chance of surviving 10 missions, a 37% chance of surviving 20 missions, and a 21% chance of surviving 30 missions. Of course, in reality loss rates were never constant, but fluctuated over time.

A 5% loss per mission, while sounding small, is actually a huge. Assuming a starting force of 100 bombers, losing 5% of the bombers sent each mission would see that attacking force reduced to 63 bombers after just 9 missions.




pbehn said:


> When they started putting grand slams on the Lancaster, the radio operator was taken out with his equipment, but radios had moved on, other equipment was carried to allow the pilot to do pretty much the same job.



The nose and dorsal turrets were removed and the crew reduced to five in order to lighten the aircraft as much as possible. That helped allow the takeoff gross weight to reach 72,000 lbs on the Lancasters modified to carry the Grand Slam bombs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> At a constant mission loss rate of 5% of the attacking force, a crew would have about a 60% chance of surviving 10 missions, a 37% chance of surviving 20 missions, and a 21% chance of surviving 30 missions. Of course, in reality loss rates were never constant, but fluctuated over time.
> 
> A 5% loss per mission, while sounding small, is actually a huge. Assuming a starting force of 100 bombers, losing 5% of the bombers sent each mission would see that attacking force reduced to 63 bombers after just 9 missions.


Exactly. The Nuremberg raid of 31 March was catastrophic for a big raid, but the difference in loss rates with the Halifax was a constant, for many reasons. An average loss rate of 4% was the maximum that could be sustained by the RAF and USAAF, the difference between the Lancaster and Halifax was almost that in itself, and as I said it frequently carried half the bomb load.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 18, 2021)

Gee, I know of a Halifax that carried 10000 lbs of conventional bombs. Does that mean the Lanc carried 20,000 lb of conventional bombs?


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> An average loss rate of 4% was the maximum that could be sustained by the RAF and USAAF, the difference between the Lancaster and Halifax was almost that in itself, and as I said it frequently carried half the bomb load.



The Halifax III (and later VI and VII) were considerably better than the II and V. The Halifax III could carry 8,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin to the Lancaster's 10,000 lbs. At short ranges, the Halifax III could lug 13,000 lbs to the target and the Lancaster 14,000 lbs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Apr 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think what you have there is the statistical opposite of survivor bias. The statistics are for crews surviving bailing out. If any member of the crew is killed, the pilot can fly the rest home, if the pilot is killed the rest have to jump out if they can.


The pilot's low chance of survival was down to him having to hold the plane steady while the rest of the crew bailed...


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 18, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Survivability by crew position:
> 
> *Lancaster*
> 
> ...



One of the issues with the Lancaster was the position of the "Main Spar" through the centre of the fuselage. Evidently this contributed to the low survivability of crews. Dad mentioned that the escape hatch above the pilot's seat was the escape route for ditching only. The pilot could not escape from this hatch as he would fly back into the mid-upper turret and tail fins, etc. He said escaping from the bomb aimers station was next to impossible as "George" (the auto pilot) was unreliable and he never used it. I suspect the main reason for the overall low survivability had to do with the bomb-load and fuel tank issues, as well as the strength of the aircraft, relative to other types. As quoted above, there were various ORS studies on these issues, and while they tried to come up with fire suppression systems, and other measures, these could only achieve so much.

So why have the main spar go through the centre of the fuselage? One advantage of this arrangement was it provided for a long, continuous bomb bay. Conventional Lancasters could carry, 4,000 lb , 8,000 lb and 12,000 lb HC bombs. Note that the 12,000 HC bomb was 3 cookies put together, i.e. not the Tallboy. The Lancaster was the only aircraft in the European Theatre which could carry bombs of this size.

Jim

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 18, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The following excerpt from _Target Berlin_ by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price may be of interest (p.29-30):
> 
> _The weather forecasters expected aircraft above 23,000 feet to leave condensation trails; these would make it more difficult for bombers to hold formation and easier for German fighters to find them. To avoid this nuisance bomber formation leaders were ordered to stay below 21,000 feet._



This may have been a consideration by the USAAF. As I have said I am quite unfamiliar with this command. What I stressed was, I have never seen any wartime documents that relate to this being a consideration in RAF Bomber Command. As I have said I have examined many of the documents from the Bomber Command "Operations Research Section" and have not come across any discussion of vapor trails being in consideration when detailing routes. You need to examine the wartime documents, as you can easily be misled with assumptions and errors express by other authors.

Jim

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 18, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> The Lanc was used as a daylight escorted bomber for raids supporting the Normandy Invasion in June 1944. Oddly enough, when they got past the range Spitfires could handle they were escorted by Mosquitoes.



I don't have details on 11-Group, (fighters), as to what date they became equipped with Mustangs. They may not have been so-equipped with this aircraft in June, 1944. The Bomber Command Day Raid Sheets record that 11 Mosquitos from 100-Group accompanied the force on the daylight raid to Bergen, October 4, 1944. The weather was really terrible in the north of England and Scotland that day and "day fighters" may not have been able to participate on this raid. There was a particular daylight, I believe in January 1945, where the entire Bomber Force was recalled because the fighter escorts were grounded owing to weather conditions. By late February, 1945, Mustangs were the principal escorts on the daylight operations I have studied, and these were from 11-Group.

Edit: I notice that 7 squadrons of Mustang and 14 Squadrons of Spitfires from 11-Group accompanied the force on the Raid to Munster, November 18, 1944, rendezvousing with the force at 5 degrees 30 minutes, E. on Track.
Jim

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 18, 2021)

gruad said:


> The pilot's low chance of survival was down to him having to hold the plane steady while the rest of the crew bailed...



I would point out the rear gunner had a survivability rate as low as or lower than the pilot, depending on the aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2021)

gruad said:


> The pilot's low chance of survival was down to him having to hold the plane steady while the rest of the crew bailed...


That is true, but also in the Lancaster the escape route out of the plane was difficult, if the plane was unstable as soon as the controls were left it would dive spin or whatever. There was an escape hatch there for ditching but almost impossible use with a parachute attached, a book Ive just read described a pilot getting out and attaching the parachute outside the plane, obviously that wasn't always successful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> That is true, but also in the Lancaster the escape route out of the plane was difficult, if the plane was unstable as soon as the controls were left it would dive spin or whatever. There was an escape hatch there for ditching but almost impossible use with a parachute attached, a book Ive just read described a pilot getting out and attaching the parachute outside the plane, obviously that wasn't always successful.



That was true for the rear gunners as well. The turret was too small for the gunner to wear a parachute. In an emergency the gunner had to line up the turret properly in order to get back into the aircraft, retrieve his parachute, clip it on, then bail out.

ETA: The situation was the same for the ball gunners in the B-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> When they started putting grand slams on the Lancaster, the radio operator was taken out with his equipment, but radios had moved on, other equipment was carried to allow the pilot to do pretty much the same job.





33k in the air said:


> At a constant mission loss rate of 5% of the attacking force, a crew would have about a 60% chance of surviving 10 missions, a 37% chance of surviving 20 missions, and a 21% chance of surviving 30 missions. Of course, in reality loss rates were never constant, but fluctuated over time.
> 
> A 5% loss per mission, while sounding small, is actually a huge. Assuming a starting force of 100 bombers, losing 5% of the bombers sent each mission would see that attacking force reduced to 63 bombers after just 9 missions.
> 
> The nose and dorsal turrets were removed and the crew reduced to five in order to lighten the aircraft as much as possible. That helped allow the takeoff gross weight to reach 72,000 lbs on the Lancasters modified to carry the Grand Slam bombs.



Examination of the ORB for Grand Slam Operations, is confusing. I didn't realize that the WOp position was removed. So that was new information to me. I had thought that the mid-upper turret was removed. But for some sorties the MUG position is identified . Whether the turret was there or not is not certain, but there is definitely a 6th crew member for sorties of some aircraft that carried the Grand Slam. The Grand Slam is given the code name "Special Store" whereas the Tall Boy is identified as such.


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 18, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> That was true for the rear gunners as well. The turret was too small for the gunner to wear a parachute. In an emergency the gunner had to line up the turret properly in order to get back into the aircraft, retrieve his parachute, clip it on, then bail out.
> 
> ETA: The situation was the same for the ball gunners in the B-17.



The rear gunner wore the seat-type parachute later in the war. I'm not certain when that was.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> Examination of the ORB for Grand Slam Operations, is confusing. I didn't realize that the WOp position was removed. So that was new information to me. I had thought that the mid-upper turret was removed. But for some sorties the MUG position is identified . Whether the turret was there or not is not certain, but there is definitely a 6th crew member for sorties of some aircraft that carried the Grand Slam. The Grand Slam is given the code name "Special Store" whereas the Tall Boy is identified as such.


14th March 1945 - First 'Grand Slam' raid | RAF Memorial Flight Club
The standard crew for a B1 Special was five men with no mid-upper gunner and no wireless operator.

Its possible others went because they needed to see the blast or just wanted to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Its possible others went because they needed to see the blast or just wanted to.



Might have been for training purposes. On regular Lancaster missions you can find numerous instances of a second pilot on the crew list; this apparently was for new pilots to a squadron to get some operational experience prior to commanding an aircraft of their own.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The Halifax III (and later VI and VII) were considerably better than the II and V. The Halifax III could carry 8,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin to the Lancaster's 10,000 lbs. At short ranges, the Halifax III could lug 13,000 lbs to the target and the Lancaster 14,000 lbs.





Milosh said:


> Gee, I know of a Halifax that carried 10000 lbs of conventional bombs. Does that mean the Lanc carried 20,000 lb of conventional bombs?


We are not discussing carrying cargo and in terms of bomber command operations Berlin wasn't the furthest, there is a lot of Germany to the east and south and Poland too. The strategy of the bomber stream was for a lot of planes close together overwhelming defences by numbers AND speed. The Halifax had more weight and drag than the Lancaster, so to fly in the same bomber stream you slow down the stream or reduce the weight of the Halifax, increasing power works too but that uses more fuel. The further the mission was the less all bombers could carry eventually you can end up with the bomber carrying nothing. This is how a Stirling and a Mosquito dropped the same load on Berlin (in weight the Mosquito dropped a cookie and the Stirling was dropping proper bombs). The Stirling also carried a huge frame and turrets with crew but its bomb bay was about the same length as a Lancaster and being sub divided couldn't carry as varied a load. As the war progressed long distance raids were done by Lancasters but mixed raids were done up to the end of the war on places like Kiel and Heligoland. Submarine Pen - German Submarine Pens in World War II - The Allied Bombing Offensive.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 18, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> Conventional Lancasters could carry, 4,000 lb , 8,000 lb and 12,000 lb HC bombs. Note that the 12,000 HC bomb was 3 cookies put together, i.e. not the Tallboy.



The 12,000lb HC bomb was not 3 4,000lb HC bombs ("cookie") joined together.

It was modular, but the diameter was 38in vs 30in for the 4,000lb. The 8,000lb was made the same way as the 12,000lb, but with 2 modules instead of 3.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> 14th March 1945 - First 'Grand Slam' raid | RAF Memorial Flight Club
> The standard crew for a B1 Special was five men with no mid-upper gunner and no wireless operator.
> 
> Its possible others went because they needed to see the blast or just wanted to.



Here is the ORB. Make of it what you will.


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The further the mission was the less all bombers could carry eventually you can end up with the bomber carrying nothing. This is how a Stirling and a Mosquito dropped the same load on Berlin (in weight the Mosquito dropped a cookie and the Stirling was dropping proper bombs).



Note that the distance versus load tradeoff applies not only to aircraft but to the individual bomber groups. 6 Group (RCAF), being the furthest north of all the Bomber Command groups, was generally flying the longest distances regardless of the particular aircraft type used by it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 19, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The Halifax III (and later VI and VII) were considerably better than the II and V. The Halifax III could carry 8,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin to the Lancaster's 10,000 lbs. At short ranges, the Halifax III could lug 13,000 lbs to the target and the Lancaster 14,000 lbs.



I don't think this is correct. Yes the III and the VII were superior to the II and V, but I've not found evidence that they carried 8,000 lbs to Berlin. Halifax III's from 578 Squadron (4-Group) carried 3,600 lbs of mixed incendiaries to Berlin on March 24, 1944, which was the last raid by Bomber Command with Main Force Squadrons. Only Mosquitoes participated in raids to Berlin after this date. Similarly on raids to Chemnitz, March 5, 1945 Halifax III's from 578 Squadron carried a mixed load of 6,000 lbs, as compared to 8,600 lbs of bombs by Lancasters of 1-Group to the same target and a full petrol load of 2,154 gallons. I cannot find a record for the fuel loads for 4-Group Halifax squadrons.

On the raid to Chemnitz (above) dad (419 Squadron out of Middleton St. George) carried 7,500 lbs of bombs and a full fuel load of 2,154 gallons of petrol. Halifaxes from 6-Group carried 2429 gallons of petrol and 4,000 lbs of bombs. The total "return route miles" from Middleton on this raid were 1844 miles, not including circuits. To Cologne, March 2, 1945 6-Group Lancasters carried 11,000 lbs of bombs and a petrol load of 1550 gallons. 6-Group Halifaxes carried 8,000 lbs of bombs and a petrol load of 1910 gallons. The total "return route miles" from Middleton on this raid were 1131 miles, not including circuits. Furthermore, Halifaxes did not participate in raids to either Dresden or Dessau, largely because after the distance, they didn't have the lifting capacity to go those distances. Dad maintained that the raid to Dessau was the longest raid undertaken "by force" by Bomber Command during the war but I have not been able to confirm this assertion. I have estimated the route from Middleton St. George to be 1921 miles.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 19, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> I don't think this is correct. Yes the III and the VII were superior to the II and V, but I've not found evidence that they carried 8,000 lbs to Berlin.



I'm going off this footnote on p.831 from _The Crucible of War 1939–1945_ by Brereton Greenhous, Stephen J. Harris, William C. Johnston, and William G.P. Rawling, which is Volume III of the official history of the RCAF.

_Striking power depended on payload as well as numbers. The range of an American Boeing B-17 — the workhorse of the US Eighth Air Force — carrying 4000 lbs of bombs was about 2000 miles. The Avro Lancaster could carry an internal load of 18,000 pounds without modification to the standard bomb bay, while specially modified machines could carry the 22,000-lb 'Grand Slam' over a range of 1500 miles. Even the maligned Halifax III could carry an 8000-lb 'Blockbuster' to Berlin._​
Of course, could carry is a different thing from having actually carried.

The reference to the Halifax III being able to carry the 8,000-lb bomb is interesting, because _Handley Page Halifax_ by Anthony L. Stachiw and Andrew Tattersall also mentions the Halifax being able to carry that size of bomb. But the ORBs I've examined (admittedly a small sample) shows the largest bomb carried being the 2,000-lb size, which is what I recall reading somewhere as the largest size possible due to the particulars of the Halifax's bomb bay design. (Maybe I'm confusing that the Stirling?) Although I did come across one reference to a 4,000-lb bomb being carried by aircraft of 77 Squadron on 25/26 Feb. 1943 to Nuremberg (1 x 4,000-lb, 830 x 4-lb, 32 x 30-lb, for a total nominal weight of 8,280 lbs). It's possible the 4,000-lb bomb size was a typo and it should actually read 2,000 lbs.

The heaviest load carried to Berlin I've come across thus far is 7,160 lbs by a Halifax II of 77 Squadron on 22/23 Nov. 1943. The load consisted of 1 x 2,000-lb, 810 x 4-lb, and 64 x 30-lb bombs.

With the National Archives in the U.K. in recent months having allowed free downloads from much of its digital collection, I've been scooping up many more squadron ORBs in order to eventually make a much more comprehensive examination of actual bomb loads carried.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Is this called "Harry meets Meghan"?


While funny, I believe that's a grievous insult to both the B-17 and the Lancaster.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Apr 19, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> I'm going off this footnote on p.831 from _The Crucible of War 1939–1945_ by Brereton Greenhous, Stephen J. Harris, William C. Johnston, and William G.P. Rawling, which is Volume III of the official history of the RCAF.
> 
> _Striking power depended on payload as well as numbers. The range of an American Boeing B-17 — the workhorse of the US Eighth Air Force — carrying 4000 lbs of bombs was about 2000 miles. The Avro Lancaster could carry an internal load of 18,000 pounds without modification to the standard bomb bay, while specially modified machines could carry the 22,000-lb 'Grand Slam' over a range of 1500 miles. Even the maligned Halifax III could carry an 8000-lb 'Blockbuster' to Berlin._​
> Of course, could carry is a different thing from having actually carried.
> ...



Hi

According to 'The Bomber Command War Diaries' by Middlebrook & Everitt, page 255, an attack on Essen 10/11 April, 1942 resulted in:

"Bomber Command's first 8,000-lb bomb was dropped during this raid by the 76 Squadron Halifax of Pilot Officer M. Renaut, whose aircraft was badly damaged by flak. It is not known where Renaut's bomb fell."

This information is also contained in 'Bombs Gone' by MacBean & Hogben on page 79.

I hope that is of interest.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 19, 2021)

The Halifax I mentioned earlier was a MkIII and was lost without trace on a mission to Essen, late Oct '44. Its bomb load was: 
6 x 500 lb MC bomb
1 x 2000 lb HC bomb
5 x 1000 lb SAP bomb


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 19, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> According to 'The Bomber Command War Diaries' by Middlebrook & Everitt, page 255, an attack on Essen 10/11 April, 1942 resulted in:
> 
> ...



More data is always of interest. 

Unfortunately, the ORBs for 76 Squadron do not list the bomb loads carried. At least, none of the ones I checked did so. (Whether an ORB listed the bomb loads carried is rather hit or miss. Some listed loads consistently, others intermittently, and yet others not at all.)


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 19, 2021)

I have read somewhere that the Halifax could only carry the 8,000 pound blockbuster semi externally. The centre sections of the bomb doors couldn't close over the bombs so they were removed and just the outer door sections closing till they were almost touching the bomb. It must have played hell with range and speed.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 19, 2021)

This claims to be a photo of a Halifax with 2 X 4,000lb bombs

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 19, 2021)

Was the Halifax a tail dragger? That is neither a B-24 nor a B-25. Lockheed Hudson is right out.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 19, 2021)

Yes.
Rc4574148b59e31fdc7c863589b66febb (1600×1067) (bing.com)


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 19, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> More data is always of interest.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ORBs for 76 Squadron do not list the bomb loads carried. At least, none of the ones I checked did so. (Whether an ORB listed the bomb loads carried is rather hit or miss. Some listed loads consistently, others intermittently, and yet others not at all.)



Yes, and they are often incorrect, I have found. When discrepancies come up, I check the ORB’s of similar squadrons within a group. Similarly, the petrol loads are not always listed in some group “Form B’s”. Apparently some groups erred on the side of caution on petrol loads and others tried to maximize bomb loads at the expense of petrol. My sources for this are the ORS information summarized by Basil Dickens.

jim


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 19, 2021)

Milosh said:


> The Halifax I mentioned earlier was a MkIII and was lost without trace on a mission to Essen, late Oct '44. Its bomb load was:
> 6 x 500 lb MC bomb
> 1 x 2000 lb HC bomb
> 5 x 1000 lb SAP bomb


Do you know the Squadron for this a/c? It would be interesting to compare this load with those from other squadrons.

Jim


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 19, 2021)

A photo caption from page 98 96, of Mason's _The Secret Years_:

"_136 Left: Halifax I1 V9985
in February 1943 with
swollen bomb doors to
accommodate the 8,000 lb
'Cookie' bomb. - This
arrangement obviated the
need for conventional doors
to be partially open when
the large bomb was carried;
no significant improvement
in performance resulted.
There is no upper turret, but
beam gun positions are
fitted. Visible in the engine
nacelles are the matrices for
the radiator and oil cooler,
while on the outer panels
can be seen the ice guards
over the air intakes. The
solid-looking Messier
undercarriage supports the
aircraft. Four raid markings
on the nose reflect earlier
Service, probably with No
10 Squadron A&AEE
1127_7"


----------



## wuzak (Apr 19, 2021)

The Lancaster also needed "swollen" bomb bay doors to carry the 38in diameter 8,000lb and 12,000lb HC bombs, as well as the Tallboy (also 38in diameter).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 20, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> Yes, and they are often incorrect, I have found.



Occasionally there are obvious typos, so it's not hard to figure out what it should be. Other times, however, it's not so obvious. (That said, being able to view such records decades after the fact from an ocean away is an amazing aspect of our times.)



JDCAVE said:


> Similarly, the petrol loads are not always listed in some group “Form B’s”. Apparently some groups erred on the side of caution on petrol loads and others tried to maximize bomb loads at the expense of petrol. My sources for this are the ORS information summarized by Basil Dickens.



Can you point to any online sources with such fuel data? I'd be quite interested in seeing such figures. I've only ever come across one site that had that sort of information, which was for 44 Squadron.





wuzak said:


> The Lancaster also needed "swollen" bomb bay doors to carry the 38in diameter 8,000lb and 12,000lb HC bombs, as well as the Tallboy (also 38in diameter).



I read somewhere that eventually about one-third of the Lancasters in Bomber Command were fitted with such bulged bomb bay doors. Does anyone have any hard data on the squadrons which fielded such modified Lancasters and the numbers involved?


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 20, 2021)

Milosh said:


> The Halifax I mentioned earlier was a MkIII and was lost without trace on a mission to Essen, late Oct '44. Its bomb load was:
> 6 x 500 lb MC bomb
> 1 x 2000 lb HC bomb
> 5 x 1000 lb SAP bomb





JDCAVE said:


> Do you know the Squadron for this a/c? It would be interesting to compare this load with those from other squadrons.



Looking at my old file of bomb load data, I see similar loads listed for 51 Squadron for missions to Essen using the Halifax III.

23/24 October 1943: 1 x 2000 lb, 6 x 1,000 lb, 3 x 500 lb
29/30 November 1944: 1 x 2000 lb, 4 x 1,000 lb, 7 x 500 lb


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The Lancaster also needed "swollen" bomb bay doors to carry the 38in diameter 8,000lb and 12,000lb HC bombs, as well as the Tallboy (also 38in diameter).


Putting swollen doors on a Halifax was a different proposition to a Lancaster. www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/RCAFRoyalCanadianAirForceMuseum/HandleyPageHalifax/pages/14HalifaxMainGear.htm


----------



## Milosh (Apr 20, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> Do you know the Squadron for this a/c? It would be interesting to compare this load with those from other squadrons.
> 
> Jim


429


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 20, 2021)

Why did the Halifax have less performance? Which Halifax. Perhaps The Hercules engines which did nothing for the Lancaster II

The B17 could carry 10,000lbs of bomb *internally *but they were armour piercing bombs. For GP bombs 6 x 1000lbs, 12 x 500lbs gave the 6000lbs internal loadout.
B-17G Standard Aircraft Characteristics (wwiiaircraftperformance.org) 
It could do the 10,000lb load at 195 knots for 600 nautical miles, since Berlin was 516 nautical miles from London it was in range. If speed was reduced to 172 knots range increased to 700 nautical miles. If only 6000 lbs was carried range increased markedly


"By the time the Hercules Engined Lancaster Mk II entered service in October 1942, the threat to the Merlin supply was already receding. Initial service tests with No. 61 Squadron early in 1943 reveals one serious limitation – it had an unexpectedly low service ceiling. On its first test, against Essen on 11/12 January, two Mk IIs joined a force of Mk Is. While the Mk I operated at 22,000 feet, the best the Mk II could achieve was an altitude of 18,400 feet, while the second aircraft only reached 14,000 feet!

After tests were complete, the Mk II was issued to No. 115 Squadron, in No. 5 Group. Despite the altitude problems, the Lancaster Mk II was a welcome improvement on their Wellingtons. In service the Mk II was slightly more robust than the Mk I, lacking the extensive liquid cooling systems needed by the Merlins, although at the lower altitude this would be put to the test. An additional aid to survival was the installation of a FN64 ventral turret below the aircraft, although this was sometimes removed to save weight.

A second problem with the Mk II was that it could only carry 14,000 lbs of bombs, compared to the 18,000 of the Mk I. Ironically, the Lancaster Mk II had a performance similar to the Merlin XX powered Halifax Mk II. By the end of 1943 the Lancaster Mk II was being phased out. "


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The B17 could carry 10,000lbs of bomb *internally *but they were armour piercing bombs. For GP bombs 6 x 1000lbs, 12 x 500lbs gave the 6000lbs internal loadout.
> B-17G Standard Aircraft Characteristics (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)
> It could do the 10,000lb load at 195 knots for 600 nautical miles, since Berlin was 516 nautical miles from London it was in range. If speed was reduced to 172 knots range increased to 700 nautical miles. If only 6000 lbs was carried range increased markedly



Those are purely theoretical ranges that bear no relation to operational range. It to a LONG time for the various bombardment groups to get airborne and formate on each other. That process burned a lot of fuel. From everything I've seen, 4,000lbs was the typical B-17 bomb load when hitting Berlin.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Why did the Halifax have less performance? Which Halifax. Perhaps The Hercules engines which did nothing for the Lancaster II
> 
> The B17 could carry 10,000lbs of bomb *internally *but they were armour piercing bombs. For GP bombs 6 x 1000lbs, 12 x 500lbs gave the 6000lbs internal loadout.
> B-17G Standard Aircraft Characteristics (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)
> ...


You have edited the text from here Avro Lancaster Mk II Maybe the answer to this problem is the generic use of the term "Hercules", The first Hercules engines were available in 1939 as the 1,290 hp (960 kW) *Hercules I*, soon improved to 1,375 hp (1,025 kW) in the *Hercules II*. The major version was the *Hercules VI* which delivered 1,650 hp (1,230 kW), and the late-war *Hercules XVII* produced 1,735 hp (1,294 kW).


----------



## Milosh (Apr 20, 2021)

pbehn said:


> You have edited the text from here Avro Lancaster Mk II Maybe the answer to this problem is the generic use of the term "Hercules", The first Hercules engines were available in 1939 as the 1,290 hp (960 kW) *Hercules I*, soon improved to 1,375 hp (1,025 kW) in the *Hercules II*. The major version was the *Hercules VI* which delivered 1,650 hp (1,230 kW), and the late-war *Hercules XVII* produced 1,735 hp (1,294 kW).


And didn't give the reference source, again.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2021)

Milosh said:


> And didn't give the reference source, again.


I was quoting wiki, I didn't selectively edit bits out.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 20, 2021)

Was not referring to you.

This is where Wiki probably got the text, Subject Index: Handley Page Halifax (historyofwar.org)


----------



## Glider (Apr 20, 2021)

Milosh said:


> And didn't give the reference source, again.


If it helps from Janes fighting aircraft of WW2, page 272 
Hercules Vi and XVI 
Take off 1,615hp 
Max economical cruise 1,020 at 7,500ft, 920 at 17,750

Hercules VII and XVII
Take off 1,725hp
Max Economical cruise 1,080 at 7,000ft


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The B17 could carry 10,000lbs of bomb *internally*


The B-17's max. internal capacity was 9,600 pounds (4,800 pounds per side) but could carry up to 12,000 pounds max. if the external racks were used.


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Why did the Halifax have less performance? Which Halifax. Perhaps The Hercules engines which did nothing for the Lancaster II
> 
> The B17 could carry 10,000lbs of bomb *internally *but they were armour piercing bombs. For GP bombs 6 x 1000lbs, 12 x 500lbs gave the 6000lbs internal loadout.
> B-17G Standard Aircraft Characteristics (wwiiaircraftperformance.org)
> It could do the 10,000lb load at 195 knots for 600 nautical miles, since Berlin was 516 nautical miles from London it was in range. If speed was reduced to 172 knots range increased to 700 nautical miles. If only 6000 lbs was carried range increased markedly



Note that generally one to two hours was required for formation assembly before the B-17s (and B-24s) would set off for the target. That's one to two hours not available for cruising toward the target, which naturally shortens the achievable combat radius.

As related in _Target Berlin_, the first aircraft for the 6 March 1944 mission took off at 7:45 AM; it wasn't until 10:01 AM that the leading elements of the raid left the British coast.




buffnut453 said:


> From everything I've seen, 4,000lbs was the typical B-17 bomb load when hitting Berlin.



_Target Berlin_ has the bomb loads for the mission as 5,000 lbs for the B-17s (12 x 500 lb GP, with some aircraft instead carrying 42 x 100 lb incendiaries) while the B-24s carried 6,000 lbs (12 x 500 lb GP, or 52 x 100 lb incendiaries in some aircraft; note that the "100 lb" incendiary actually only weighed about 70 lbs). 

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be anywhere near the same amount of digitized USAAF squadron reports like there are for RAF squadrons, but from the few squadrons I've been able to examine, B-17 bomb loads were usually 5,000 or 6,000 lbs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 20, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Note that generally one to two hours was required for formation assembly before the B-17s (and B-24s) would set off for the target. That's one to two hours not available for cruising toward the target, which naturally shortens the achievable combat radius.
> 
> As related in _Target Berlin_, the first aircraft for the 6 March 1944 mission took off at 7:45 AM; it wasn't until 10:01 AM that the leading elements of the raid left the British coast.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the clarification on B-17 bomb loads. I'll admit I seem to have slightly underestimated the weight of ordnance. Regardless, the details you provided still destroy the myth that the B-17 could carry 10,000lbs to Berlin under operational conditions.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 20, 2021)

This should give a general indication what other bomber carried, 303rd BG Combat Missions and Reports


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 20, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Thanks for the clarification on B-17 bomb loads. I'll admit I seem to have slightly underestimated the weight of ordnance. Regardless, the details you provided still destroy the myth that the B-17 could carry 10,000lbs to Berlin under operational conditions.



The maximum weight of internal load for the B-17 was 12,800 lbs consisting of 8 x 1,600 AP bombs. Needless to say, armor piercing bombs are of limited value in attacking industrial sites. According to Roger Freeman's works on the 8th AF, the external racks on the B-17 were only used on a few missions. The additional drag and handling penalties associated with the external ordnance was judged to outweigh the benefit of the additional striking power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 20, 2021)

Milosh said:


> This should give a general indication what other bomber carried, 303rd BG Combat Missions and Reports



This is one of the (few, unfortunately) sites with USAAF bomb load data. Here are some others I've come across. Some of these sites have additional material, such as the actual mission reports showing flight paths, mission details, etc.

91st Bomb Group (B-17) - download the "Dailies" PDF files for the three squadrons listed from the menu on the left side
398th Bomb Group (B-17) - details for only one specific aircraft
451st Bomb Group (B-24)
458th Bomb Group (B-24)

320th Bomb Group (B-26, MTO)
340th Bomb Group (B-25, MTO)
416th Bomb Group (A-20 and A-26)


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 20, 2021)

Many of the Bomb weights were actually nominal weights. The actual weight could be quite a bit less. The RAF MkI 4,000lb Cookie HC blast bomb actual weight was 3,930lbs.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 20, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> A photo caption from page 98, of Mason's _The Secret Years_:
> 
> "_136 Left: Halifax II V9985
> in February 1943 with
> ...



P. 96 in my copy. The bulged bomb doors were not often used operationally on the Halifax; I dunno if they entered operational service at all, most likely because of the nature of the modification. The Halifax bomb doors were significantly more complex than the Lancaster's. The latter had two doors, one each side, the former had eight, four each side. The Halifax doors were divided both longitudinally and vertically. There was an upslope in the contour of the lower fuselage that warranted the doors to be segmented with two distinct sections, but each of those comprised four doors apiece. upper and lower. The upper doors on opening slid against the outer fuselage side, but the lower, curved doors slid inside the bomb bay to sit against the inner wall. Fitting bulged doors was no mean feat because of this; they would have taken up valuable space in the bomb bay. How the experimental bulged doors worked I don't know, but they weren't put into common use - Halifaxes in service had to carry the big diameter bombs with their doors open, as per the picture on an earlier page. This induced drag and lowered the type's performance. The Halifax II Series Ia was the first of the type modified to carry the 4,000 lb 'Cookie' with the doors left hanging in the breeze, in 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> A second problem with the Mk II was that it could only carry 14,000 lbs of bombs, compared to the 18,000 of the Mk I.



The Lanc II gets a bit of a bad rap because of its lower altitude, but in fairness, actual test data by the A&AEE shows that yes, it did have lower altitude at which its cruise speed was at its most efficient, different types of Hercules engines fitted redressed the balance somewhat compared to the Halifax at least. The Lanc II had a faster rate of climb and better handling than the Merlin engined Lanc Mk.I and maintenance-wise required less time spent on its engines. On introduction into service the Lanc II also had a greater maximum take-off weight compared to the standard Lancaster I (unmodified for carrying the special ordnance, which required a raft of modifications and made the type a dog to fly). During trials the main issues encountered were flame damping and inadequate cooling of the engines. The Lanc II with the Herc VI had a service ceiling of 21,000 ft and a maximum speed of 273 mph during trials, but with the Herc XVI its ceiling was less, but climb was quicker and performance marginally increased. The Lanc III performance was superior still.


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 20, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Many of the Bomb weights were actually nominal weights. The actual weight could be quite a bit less. The RAF MkI 4,000lb Cookie HC blast bomb actual weight was 3,930lbs.



Indeed. Even a different explosive filling can change the actual bomb weight. I've downloaded several munitions documents and they all list slightly different actual weights even for the same bomb type. (I presume there must be some degree of natural variation.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 20, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> P. 96 in my copy. The bulged bomb doors were not often used operationally on the Halifax; I dunno if they entered operational service at all, most likely because of the nature of the modification. The Halifax bomb doors were significantly more complex than the Lancaster's.



The Halifax also had wing bomb bays, although these were limited to a maximum bomb size of 500 lbs. (A total of 6 x 500 lb bombs could be carried in the wing bomb bays.)


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 20, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The Halifax also had wing bomb bays, although these were limited to a maximum bomb size of 500 lbs. (A total of 6 x 500 lb bombs could be carried in the wing bomb bays.)



Over time these weren't so commonly used owing to the problem suffered from the doors not sitting flush with the lower wing surfaces and sagging in the slip stream in flight, which caused drag. Again, it wasn't until the Halifax II Series Ia that this was cured. They could only carry 500 pounders.

The early Merlin engined Halifaxes suffered from poorer than predicted performance and load-carrying capability caused by high drag and heavier than predicted weights, which affected operations.


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 20, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The Halifax also had wing bomb bays, although these were limited to a maximum bomb size of 500 lbs. (A total of 6 x 500 lb bombs could be carried in the wing bomb bays.)



I sent you a pm on Petrol Loads.

Jim


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 21, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> I read somewhere that eventually about one-third of the Lancasters in Bomber Command were fitted with such bulged bomb bay doors. Does anyone have any hard data on the squadrons which fielded such modified Lancasters and the numbers involved?


Some of the early Lancaster X’s delivered to 419 Squadron had bulged doors when delivered however I don’t think these a/c ever carried any of the 8,000 bombs. Later I think they switched these doors out. Certainly photos reveal slimmer a/c. I’m not certain but wonder if the bulged doors affected the signal from the H2S. Also, I had heard these doors were plywood, but cannot confirm. I’ll drag out the colour photo of KB.712. Dad flew a “sea-search” on this a/c October 16,1944. Here she is, looking a little plump!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 21, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> Some of the early Lancaster X’s delivered to 419 Squadron had bulged doors when delivered however I don’t think these a/c ever carried any of the 8,000 bombs. Later I think they switched these doors out.



The Bomber Command Museum of Canada has a page with information on all the Lancaster X's which were built: Canadian-built Avro Lancasters

According to that, the first 155 were constructed with the bulged bomb bay doors (KB700-854) and the option for the fitting of the mid-under turret (not sure if was fitted as standard armament). Starting with KB855, normal bomb bay doors were fitted, and the dorsal turret fitted was a U.S. Martin model armed with two .50-cal machine guns. (This heavier turret necessitated it being moved forward to just behind the trailing edge of the wings.)




JDCAVE said:


> I’m not certain but wonder if the bulged doors affected the signal from the H2S.



That's what I've read. Bulged bomb bays interfered with H2S, so it wasn't fitted on such aircraft.




JDCAVE said:


> I sent you a pm on Petrol Loads.



I knew there was something I had forgotten to do today! Yes, I saw that, thanks. Will send a reply tomorrow.


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 21, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> That's what I've read. Bulged bomb bays interfered with H2S, so it wasn't fitted on such aircraft.



But nearly all of these aircraft carried H2S. So did they switch these door out?

jim


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 21, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> But nearly all of these aircraft carried H2S. So did they switch these door out?



I would presume so, but I don't know for certain. I've only seen general comments on the degree to which H2S was fitted to Bomber Command aircraft; another area where it would be great to have hard data on the numbers of aircraft in each squadron so equipped on a monthly basis.

Some of the Halifax squadrons in 6 Group had the mid-under Preston-Green turret fitted; these turrets were eventually removed and H2S mounted instead.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 21, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Without an escort anything in broad daylight was unsustainable, the first use of B-26 in Netherlands lost all aircraft. T


That's a LIE! It was the second mission. Everybody got back the first time. But then they thought it would be a good idea to go back the next day...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 21, 2021)

It looks like somewhere between 10% and 30% of Lancasters were fitted with the bulged doors for the 38" diameter bombs.

". . . this involved constructing a bulge in the bomb doors. It was later found out that this interfered with the installation of radar equipment so only 10% of Lancaster's were to be modified to carry the 8000 lb high capacity bomb, but by this time the material for the doors had already been ordered so a compromise of 30% was made."

There were ~1150x 8000 lb HC bombs produced beginning with 32 delivered to BC in 1942

There were only 170x 12,000 lb HC bombs produced from 1944.

AVIA 46/285, AVIA 46/163

"http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php"


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 22, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Many of the Bomb weights were actually nominal weights. The actual weight could be quite a bit less. The RAF MkI 4,000lb Cookie HC blast bomb actual weight was 3,930lbs.



Seventy pounds here, seventy pounds there, pretty soon we're talking real sterling.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 23, 2021)

Concerning modifications of the Lancaster to accommodate the Grand Slam: Transcript of Syd Grimes WOp with 617 Squadron:

"AG: They checked me in they thought I had better be legitimate. So I, I was with 617 from the September ’44 through ‘til April 1945. We had been flying the Barnes Wallis Tall Boy bomb which was 12000 pounds. And then he came up with a much bigger invention, the Grand Slam which was 22000 pounds. In order to accommodate the big bomb they had to take the bomb doors off, and they took the mid upper turret off, and they took all the armour plating out. They really did a modified Lancaster which only took a crew of five. Took all the wireless equipment out except for a VHF transmitter, RT. *So I was surplus so I said to the flight commander. ‘ I have only got three more trips to do can I fly in the astrodome as a fighter observer or something like that?’ He said. ‘Under no circumstances, we are trying to find reasons for loosing weight.’ *And he said. ‘You want to go and fly.’ He wouldn’t let me and the crew got shot down on the very next trip. So they got hit by and anti aircraft shell on the port wing and it shot it completely away. So they were on the bombing run at that time which was the dicey part of the trip. Because eh, the special bomb sight that we had, we had to fly straight and level. It was gyroscopically controlled, so you had to fly very accurately with height, speed and all the outside temperatures. And all that kind of thing which you fed in to this computer. So they was, the squadron flew in what was called a gaggle. A geese gaggle you know? The way that they fly in the sky."

Interview with Syd Grimes · IBCC Digital Archive (lincoln.ac.uk)

For clarification, the ORB records that PD.117 carried a Tall Boy bomb to the target Dreys [sic, actually Dreye] hit by flak in the target area and exploded on the ground.

Jim

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 24, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Note that the distance versus load tradeoff applies not only to aircraft but to the individual bomber groups. 6 Group (RCAF), being the furthest north of all the Bomber Command groups, was generally flying the longest distances regardless of the particular aircraft type used by it.


Reading this on the Halifax, the most produced MkIII version may have been on par with a Lancaster but it only started being produced in late 1943 issued to squadrons and operational early 1944, but by then there were a huge number of jobs that needed doing and squadrons that needed old planes to be replaced. This gives an idea of the problems with the Halifax early in its life Halifax Bomber


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 25, 2021)

Milosh said:


> And didn't give the reference source, again.



Everyone is saying the Halifax is crap. When I ask why I get crickets. When I suggest the inferiority of the Hercules (high drag, poor altitude performance) I hear crickets. and folks attack me for no quoting a mainstream internet source. I'm not writing academic papers.

Why did the Halifax have inferior performance.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 25, 2021)

It might just be that the Lancaster was so good, sometimes a sweet spot is hit with a design that's just better than any other similar aircraft. Without the Lancaster the Halifax might have been known as the best night bomber of the war (apart from the B29).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 25, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Everyone is saying the Halifax is crap. When I ask why I get crickets. When I suggest the inferiority of the Hercules (high drag, poor altitude performance) I hear crickets. and folks attack me for no quoting a mainstream internet source. I'm not writing academic papers.
> 
> Why did the Halifax have inferior performance.



Depends on the mark number, but;

'Aerodynamic vices' that 
- effected manoeuvrability and made violent evasive action risky
- only allowed small gap between maximum cruising speed and stall speed at operational heights
Poorly designed engine intakes
Faulty automatic mixture control (I've only seen one reference to this)
Inadequate exhaust flame damping 
There were many others but I think those were the main ones.


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 25, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Everyone is saying the Halifax is crap. When I ask why I get crickets. When I suggest the inferiority of the Hercules (high drag, poor altitude performance) I hear crickets. and folks attack me for no quoting a mainstream internet source. I'm not writing academic papers.
> 
> Why did the Halifax have inferior performance.



No crickets here. I apologize for the long-winded reply, but as always the devil is in the details and the chronology.

Halifax vs Lancaster

Randall Wakelam, The Science of Bombing, summarizes the research done by ORS (Operational Research Section) on the issues with the Halifax Bomber. The summary of this research is also available in a extant document by Basil Dickens, the lead scientist of ORS “Operational Research in Bomber Command.”

The study is complicated and responses evolved over time. ORS offers the following:


When the force was a mixed group of aircraft types, the Lancaster had a lower loss rate than the Stirling and Halifaxes.
When the Lancaster was operating on its own, the raid was often to a more difficult target and the loss-rate increased by 50%. This was considered in part due to lower saturation of defences due to the smaller force. BUT “it seems very likely that the lower losses of the Lancaster on general operations was due partly to the presence of lower performance and more visible aircraft in the force.”
The issue wasn’t entirely due to aircraft type. In 1943, Halifax crews in 6-Group had a higher rate of loss than those in 4-Group. This was determined to be due inexperience and difficulties due to the formation of new squadrons (in 6-Group) and conversion to Heavy Bombers, which reduced the amount of training done and instruction given within the individual squadrons. Appropriate steps were taken to remedy the situation.
No. 4-Group believed that their higher rate of loss might be because they were in the final wave of attacks. Analysis by ORB indicated that later Halifaxes had a higher rate of loss than those same aircraft in the earlier waves, but in both cases Halifaxes had a higher rate of loss than Lancasters. The main differences loss rates between Halifaxes and Lancasters could not be attributed to their allotted place in the attack.
Wakelam dives deeply into the controversy. First, Harris did not like the Halifax and he was at odds with the Air Ministry for continuing the contracts with Handley Page, in the manufacture of the type. He wanted the factories to retool and build more Lancasters. In 1942 it was determined that:


Halifaxes were more easily visible at 1600 feet astern because of the glow from the exhausts.
There was concern about the stability of the fully loaded Halifax during evasive turns, possibly due to lack of reserve speed. ORS in October 1942 recommended: “all possible means of improving performance and stability of the Halifax be given urgent priority.
When exhaust covers were added they caused excessive drag, further exacerbating handling and performance.
They recommended that pilots gain more experience on the type before becoming operational. Harris responded grumpily: “He (AOC, 4-Group) can try it. It is the aircraft not the crews that require improvement.
Four issues had been raised with Sir Handley Page. 1) The Lancaster was outperforming the Halifax in speed and operational ceiling. 2)The rudders were of concern. 2)The known rudder-stall problem was believed to contribute to losses both directly, 3) and indirectly owing to lack of confidence in an ability to make a particular manoeuvre in the machine. 4) The issues with exhaust flame dampening. Dickens was not satisfied with Handley Page: “I was left with a feeling that Handley Page organization has said its last word in the Halifax III. We should therefore press on with consideration of the best results obtained with this type in order to see if they promise that the machine will meet future operational requirements. If they do not then we know we have little more to expect from the Halifax and must act accordingly…With regard to the new fin and rudder I feel that we should immediately attempt to get the trial installation machine at present under test at Boscome Down flight tested in an operational Squadron. If test promise well, the greatest possible pressure should be brought to bear in order in order to speed up the introduction of this modification. Otherwise I fear that the promised introduction in August [1943] may be somewhat deferred.” A/Cdre Roach was in agreement with Dickens “the boffin had been given exactly the sort of ‘guff’ a stranger could expect…from that firm and I don’t think I can answer the minute better than to use the C.in C.’s [Harris] own words: ‘I don’t believe one word of the firm’s statement and I have no faith in any promises made’”.
500 modification kits had been ordered for the rudder modification of existing operational aircraft but it would take 8 man-hours each to install and would create a huge engineering bill on the units.
70 Halifax III’s per month would be produced beginning in October 1943 and by April 1944, only this type would be produced by the firm.
On the modification of the tail assembly, in February 1944, the ORS scientists had concluded there had been no appreciable reduction in losses as a result of its installation.
The results of a study reported in October 1943, showed the Lancaster as the clear winner in tonnes of bombs dropped per missing aircraft: Lancaster 112.6, Halifax 45.4, Mosquito 29.8. A further study by the Air Ministry in April 1944 the Lancaster cost 20 man-months per tonne dropped, the Halifax 60, and the Mosquito 20. While the figures were intended to show the relative value of the Mosquito, it was a damning indictment of continuing to use the Halifax as a front-line bomber.
In February, 1944, the scientists had completed a study comparing the Halifax III with the Lancaster III. While the sample size was small, they had concluded that the Lancaster type had 40% lower losses. Dickens reported this to Harris, who replied “Very Interesting”. Updating this in March, 1944, Dickens was able to report that owing to the 30% lower loss-rate and the larger bomb-load, the relative usefulness of the aircraft was 1:2.6, in favour of the Lancaster. Harris used this information in a letter to the Air Chief Marshall Wilfred Freeman (March 28, 1944): “We now have sufficient experience with the Halifax III to make a firm comparison between it and the Lancaster.” He restated ORS’s comments. Harris further noted that Lancaster crews were forced to provide a shield around Halifaxes, with less protection than the Halifaxes in the centre of the stream. In addition, Lancasters were obliged to conform to the Halifaxes routing requirements which were driven to a large extent on their range limitation. (Note that the fuel requirements of the Halifax were almost 275 gallons greater than the Lancaster). “On the whole, therefore it is apparent that the Halifax III will be in the same position next Autumn [1944] as the Stirling and Halifax II and V are today, shows every indication of coming true.”
At the end of the day, the conclusions should be based on the weight of bombs dropped over the operational life of an aircraft during the entire course of the war. This is difficult for us to do so we must rely on what ORS found. You cannot just focus on the final variants of the type (Halifax III’s and VII’s). That is irrelevant to the families whose sons were lost due to the deficiencies of the Halifax II’s and V’s. There was no doubt in Harris’s mind, or those of the scientists that the Halifax III was not the aircraft that the Lancaster was.

Jim

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 25, 2021)

Harris to the Secretary of State for Air on Handley Page:

_... always weeping crocodile tears in my house and office, smarming his unconvincing assurances all over me and leaving me with a mounting certainty that nothing whatever ponderable is being done to make his deplorable product worthy for war or fit to meet those jeopardies which confront our gallant crews. Nothing will be done until H.P. and his gang are kicked out, lock, stock and barrel. Trivialities are all they are attempting at present, with the deliberate intent of postponing the main issue until we are irretrievably committed ..._​​_Unless we can get these two vital factors* of the heavy bomber programme put right, and with miraculous despatch, we are sunk. We cannot do this by polite negotiation with these crooks and incompetents. In Russia it would long ago have been arranged with a gun, and to that extent I am a fervid Communist! If I write strongly it is because I feel strongly, as I know you do, for the jeopardy my gallant crews and the compromising of our only method of winning this war._​
*EDIT*: *two vital factors = Stirling and Halifax

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 25, 2021)

Whether through bad luck or lack of fore sight on behalf of the Halifax designers and good fore sight for the Lancaster the Halifax just wasn't as good at being a heavy bomber, it was better at carrying troops and cargo though. The bombs that the Halifax had difficulty being adapted to carry weren't in the original design brief. The propeller issues mentioned in the other link werent experienced by any other aircraft that I know of, I dont know whether that is even a Handley Page design issue, or why the Lancaster didnt have the same issue.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 25, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> 70 Halifax III’s per month would be produced beginning in October 1943 and by April 1944, only this type would be produced by the firm.




A great post but I think this part is the most significant, production of the one variant that was equal to the Lancaster in most respects only started in late 1943 and only became full production in April 1944. It takes many months from starting to produce an aircraft to it getting in service, most of the 2000+ Halifax IIIs that were produced took to the air on operations when much of the fighting was done and disposition of aircraft and missions was pretty much sorted.


----------



## ClayO (Apr 26, 2021)

pbehn said:


> They would be, from Feb 1942 to May 1945 the war changed completely, and had changed as the report was written, even the massively expensive turrets on B-29s that were remotely controlled and 0.5" were removed apart from the tail gun. The Canberra which had no turrets started in design in 1944. BTW many rear gunners removed the Perspex screen from the turret to see better, the turret was always freezing cold, just a question of how easy it was to get out, in some cases, it was impossible.



Agreed. You've probably seen this, but for those who haven't, there's a gripping description of the conditions for the Lancaster crew in _Inferno: The Fiery Destruction of Hamburg, 1943_. According to the author, when a fighter first came into range, it would be the size of a speck of dirt on the screen. It would be impossible to keep any part of an airplane spotlessly clean, so the tail gunners would remove the Perspex.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Apr 26, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> No crickets here. I apologize for the long-winded reply, but as always the devil is in the details and the chronology.
> 
> Halifax vs Lancaster
> 
> ...



The Mosquito was probably the same margin better than the Lanc as the Lanc was better than the Hx 3.

The same operational research revealed that stopping Hx production and retooling for Lancs would not be as effective as phasing out the Hx while increasing production of the Lancaster.

Other advantages were:

Cost - a L lot cheaper than Hx.
Maintenance - modular construction allowed reuse of crashed planes. The level of ground crew skill required was lower.

The labour required for production was less skilled.

People tend to think Lanc and Hx on a par though.

For US planes the myth is reversed.

Surprisingly the B24 was close in performance to the B17, each better at different things, when the B24 is regarded as the Wildebeest of the skies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 26, 2021)

I will point out again the one point in favour of the Halifax: its crews stood a nearly three times better chance of successfully surviving being shot down.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 26, 2021)

Perceptions of the B-24 are based on experience over Europe. In the Pacific, B-17s were phased out in early 1943 in favor of the longer ranged B-24. Over Europe, the B-17's survivability far outshined the B-24. I believe it was General Quesada, who said that had the Germans perfected the proximity fuse, the B-24 would have had to be withdrawn completely from the European Theater

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 26, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> Perceptions of the B-24 are based on experience over Europe. In the Pacific, B-17s were phased out in early 1943 in favor of the longer ranged B-24. Over Europe, the B-17's survivability far outshined the B-24. I believe it was General Quesada, who said that had the Germans perfected the proximity fuse, the B-24 would have had to be withdrawn completely from the European Theater



I bet it really depended on where a -24 was hit. An 88 in the wing would stand a good chance of being fatal. In the fuselage, possible but less-likely (especially after bombs had been dropped). While the Pacific was the better theater for a more-fragile airplane, my understanding is that -17s were replaced by -24s was due to range, rather than concerns about survivability, though the latter was a good benefit (not much flak over open ocean).

A German proximity-fuse would likely have done terrible carnage to both those bomber types.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Apr 27, 2021)

I think a lot of the favorable view of the B-17 over the B-24 is based on pilots' perceptions. The B-24 was a heavy fuselage suspended from a long narrow set of wings, which made it stable on long flights, but heavy on the controls. Even though the B-17 was slower and shorter range, many pilots preferred it because it was easier to fly. 

The B-24 was difficult to ditch; if done wrong, the 'garage door' style bomb bay doors would collapse on impact with the water, turning the rear lip of the bomb bay into a giant sea water scoop. The water pressure would snap the airplane in two pieces, both of which would quickly sink. That knowledge would tend to play in a person's mind during a long flight over water. 

The B-17 was also solidified in the public's mind by the movies, such as 12 O' Clock High and the wartime documentary Memphis Belle. I don't know of any movies featuring the B-24.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 27, 2021)

From his book on the subject, Arthur Harris. 1947. Bomber Offensive.

"The Lancaster was so far the best aircraft we had that I continually pressed for its production and at the expense of other types; I was even willing to lose nearly a year’s industrial production from the Halifax factories while these were being converted to produce Lancasters."

Page 103.

Jim

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 27, 2021)

ClayO said:


> The B-24 was difficult to ditch; if done wrong, the 'garage door' style bomb bay doors would collapse on impact with the water, turning the rear lip of the bomb bay into a giant sea water scoop.



It's hard to imagine doing a water-landing _right_ in that thing.


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 27, 2021)

Some Cdo values
Lancaster B MK I/III____.0302
Lancaster B MK II_____ .0325
Halifax B MK II Srs 2___.0347

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 27, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's hard to imagine doing a water-landing _right_ in that thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 27, 2021)

ClayO said:


> I think a lot of the favorable view of the B-17 over the B-24 is based on pilots' perceptions. The B-24 was a heavy fuselage suspended from a long narrow set of wings, which made it stable on long flights, but heavy on the controls. Even though the B-17 was slower and shorter range, many pilots preferred it because it was easier to fly.
> 
> The B-24 was difficult to ditch; if done wrong, the 'garage door' style bomb bay doors would collapse on impact with the water, turning the rear lip of the bomb bay into a giant sea water scoop. The water pressure would snap the airplane in two pieces, both of which would quickly sink. That knowledge would tend to play in a person's mind during a long flight over water.
> 
> The B-17 was also solidified in the public's mind by the movies, such as 12 O' Clock High and the wartime documentary Memphis Belle. I don't know of any movies featuring the B-24.


The movie "Unbroken" features the B-24. I've never seen it myself so I don't know how much the plane is featured other than getting shot down.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Apr 27, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The movie "Unbroken" features the B-24. I've never seen it myself so I don't know how much the plane is featured other than getting shot down.



That's right. I should have said that I don't know of any movies of that era that featured the B-24. By the time Unbroken came out, the reputations of the two planes were pretty well established.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Apr 27, 2021)

Milosh said:


>




According to the narration, this is part of a longer training film. I don't know the year. Note that the narrator says not to enter the water nose-high like this pilot did, but I have to think that the pilot knew that nose-high was the safer option. The narration also says to land along the waves in high seas, but doesn't say why. I suspect that having the waves not smash into the bomb bay was a factor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Apr 27, 2021)

Back to the Halifax: here's a new YouTube extolling the virtues of the plane from a self-proclaimed fan. I haven't finished watching it yet, but the first part is pretty interesting, with shots of the interior and descriptions of what it was like to be in the crew. It's telling that even one of the plane's boosters calls the Mk I a "deathtrap."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2021)

Pilots in the North Sea had difficulty finding an impressive bridge to ditch in front of. There are times when the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean are as smooth as that, but they are rare indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Apr 27, 2021)

I wonder how the 24 would behave when trying to ditch it with 1 or 2 engines out, no flaps, and with holes in the wings or fuselage? The point I want to make is that it was one to ditch an aircraft with everything operational, and another with a battle damaged ship.

just my 2 cents worth.

eagledad

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Apr 27, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> From his book on the subject, Arthur Harris. 1947. Bomber Offensive.
> 
> "The Lancaster was so far the best aircraft we had that I continually pressed for its production and at the expense of other types; I was even willing to lose nearly a year’s industrial production from the Halifax factories while these were being converted to produce Lancasters."
> 
> ...


Thankfully Harris respected Operational Research and didnt implement his preference.

Admittedly this decision was not as critical as him deciding not to follow the directives against Oil and Transport that could have ended the war 4 to 6 weeks early


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 27, 2021)

gruad said:


> Thankfully Harris respected Operational Research and didnt implement his preference.
> 
> Admittedly this decision was not as critical as him deciding not to follow the directives against Oil and Transport that could have ended the war 4 to 6 weeks early



For some reason, there is an oft repeated statement that Harris did not attack oil targets. Nothing can be further from the truth and in fact attacked these targets as he could do so. I’m not going to go through the evidence in this short post but I intend to do so in the coming days, probably in a separate thread, because the oil targets that Harris actually attacked can easily be summarized. I will lay out my argument for this in a forth coming post.

jim


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 27, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> For some reason, there is an oft repeated statement that Harris did not attack oil targets. Nothing can be further from the truth and in fact attacked these targets as he could do so. I’m not going to go through the evidence in this short post but I intend to do so in the coming days, probably in a separate thread, because the oil targets that Harris actually attacked can easily be summarized. I will lay out my argument for this in a forth coming post.



The British Bombing Survey has this to say about the tonnages of bombs dropped on oil targets by Bomber Command, 8th Air Force, and 15th Air Force. Figures are shown in that order.

1943 = . . . . 61 --- . 1,514 --- . . . . 0
1944 = 48,285 --- 62,297 --- 45,552
1945 = 52,117 --- 19,879 --- . 8,602

Percentage of total tonnage dropped against oil targets by year.

1943 = 03.9% -- 96.1% -- 00.0%
1944 = 30.9% -- 39.9% -- 29.2%
1945 = 64.7% -- 24.7% -- 10.7%

Clearly, in 1944 Bomber Command was dropping its fair share of tonnage against oil targets, and in 1945, it dropped the majority directed at such targets.


Going further, I would say there is the idea that the only thing Bomber Command did was incendiary raids on urban areas. That too is not borne out by the data. While it is true that Bomber Command did much more of it than the USAAF, in reality the peak year of incendiary bomb usage against urban areas, both in terms of actual tonnage dropped and percentage of total tonnage dropped, was 1943.

Tonnage of incendiary bombs dropped against urban areas by year. The figures in parentheses is the percentage of total tonnage dropped against urban areas.

1942 = 18,759 -- (47.0%)
1943 = 72,928 -- (49.5%)
1944 = 60,611 -- (29.7%)
1945 = 22,414 -- (30.7%)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 27, 2021)

gruad said:


> Admittedly this decision was not as critical as him deciding not to follow the directives against Oil and Transport that could have ended the war 4 to 6 weeks early



Oil has been addressed already, but in terms of railway targets, there too Bomber Command did its fair share in 1943 and 1944. Tonnage of bombs dropped against transportation targets in the order of Bomber Command, 8th Air Force, and 15th Air Force.

1943 = 003,223 -- 005,098 -- 00 156
1944 = 105,440 -- 123,738 -- 47,582
1945 = 027,342 -- 117,158 -- 53,256

Percentage of total tonnage dropped against transportation targets.

1943 = 38.0% -- 60.1% -- 01.8%
1944 = 38.1% -- 44.7% -- 17.2%
1945 = 13.8% -- 59.2% -- 26.9%


If you want to pick on Harris for abandoning a campaign that could have shortened the war, look at Bomber Command's 1943 campaign against the Ruhr. This is documented in Adam Tooze's book _The Wages of Destruction_, which explores in detail the German economy prior to and during the war. Citing German records, the attacks against the Ruhr actually had a huge impact on German war production. Armaments production, as measured by Speer's ministry index of such production, essentially stagnated for about nine months afterward, from June 1943 through February 1944. It doesn't begin exhibiting a sustained climb until March of 1944 (and peaks in July of that year, and thereafter drops rapidly). There was a critical shortage of vital subcomponents for months after the Ruhr campaign.

Had Harris continued the Ruhr attacks, it could have been decisive in crippling German production. (Although to be fair losses were considerable due to the heavy defences of the Ruhr area.)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 27, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I bet it really depended on where a -24 was hit. An 88 in the wing would stand a good chance of being fatal. In the fuselage, possible but less-likely (especially after bombs had been dropped).



There is famous newsreel footage of a B-24 in the PTO being hit by flak during a raid.. It was struck in the left wing near the wing root. It immediately bursts into flame and the wing buckles. It looks on first viewing that the aircraft was struck by bombs dropped from above it, but if one watches carefully that was not the case.

B-24 Liberator Bomber Shot Down In Carolines Raid In WWII (1945)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 27, 2021)

I've read both versions, flak hit or bomb drop. I'll take a good look at that now that I have the tech to pause the the film.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2021)

The oil plan was one of many, as was transportation. There were all issues to do with the battle of the Atlantic which took priority. There was support for D-Day support of the breakout from Normandy. Attacks against V weapons. Laying of mines, pretending to lay mines to trigger Enigma signals. Glider towing, destroying dams battleships ports engine factories, steel plants. Harris didnt run the RAF, there were people above him giving him a never ending list of high priority targets.


----------



## SplitRz (Apr 27, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> This may have been a consideration by the USAAF. As I have said I am quite unfamiliar with this command. What I stressed was, I have never seen any wartime documents that relate to this being a consideration in RAF Bomber Command. As I have said I have examined many of the documents from the Bomber Command "Operations Research Section" and have not come across any discussion of vapor trails being in consideration when detailing routes. You need to examine the wartime documents, as you can easily be misled with assumptions and errors express by other authors.
> 
> Jim




Taken from BBC - WW2 People's War - Experiences in Bomber Command - Part 2 (packed with fascinating stuff) - recollections by Brian Soper on Lancaster Operations

"_It was a clear moonlit night as we were climbing to bombing height. We realised that we were all showing heavy vapour trails. Most of the weather forecast, including wind-speed, was apparently wrong. There were many night fighters about and we saw several aircraft blow up. Because it was so light we also saw aircraft where the crews were bailing out. We had seen Lancs blow up before, but never in so much detail. *The pilots changed height several times to try to lose the vapour trails because the night fighters were just sitting above and picking them off from the vapour trails*. ...._"

Didn't their met briefings also include expected heights for vapour trails...? :/

Interestingly, given the earlier discussion (row!) about the relative merits of Halifax versus Lancaster, he had this to say:

"_Although we felt sorry for them, we were happier when Halifaxes & Stirlings were also flying. ‘Halis’ rarely got above 18,000ft, which we felt took some of the flak: this was really only wishful thinking. However, later when some of the Halifaxes were fitted with radial engines, the roles were reversed & they could get higher than we could_...."

(note, the above recollection may relate to Halifax IIIs with reduced bombloads mentioned earlier?)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 27, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I've read both versions, flak hit or bomb drop. I'll take a good look at that now that I have the tech to pause the the film.



Go frame by frame. The bombs can clearly be seen passing behind the bomber. At normal speed it's hard to spot.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Apr 27, 2021)

The only Halifax variant that could get above the Lancaster on a regular basis was the late war Halifax B Mk VI (Hercules 100 engines) which had a Vmax of 312 mph at 22,000 ft. (Data from Air Ministry ADS dated 1945)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 27, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The oil plan was one of many, as was transportation. There were all issues to do with the battle of the Atlantic which took priority. There was support for D-Day support of the breakout from Normandy. Attacks against V weapons. Laying of mines, pretending to lay mines to trigger Enigma signals. Glider towing, destroying dams battleships ports engine factories, steel plants. Harris didnt run the RAF, there were people above him giving him a never ending list of high priority targets.



Bomber Command percentage of total tonnage dropped by major target type for 1943, 1944, and 1945 (in that order), according to the British Bombing Survey.

01.1% -- 03.9% -- 00.6% = Aircraft targets
05.6% -- 02.3% -- 08.7% = Dock and port areas
01.0% -- 15.8% -- 12.7% = Military installations
01.1% -- 12.8% -- 00.0% = Long-range weapon installations
00.0% -- 08.5% -- 26.2% = Oil targets
04.5% -- 02.3% -- 01.1% = Industrial targets
83.5% -- 35.7% -- 36.8% = Towns
01.8% -- 18.5% -- 13.8% = Transportation targets
01.5% -- 00.1% -- 00.1% = Miscellaneous

Aircraft targets includes aircraft factories, airfields, and radar installations.
Dock and port areas include harbours, shipping, U- and E-boat bases, and the shipbuilding industry.
Military installations include army HQs and barracks, hutted camps, military and government buildings, Gestapo HQs, and towns destroyed as part of battle (i.e. to cause road blocks, etc.).
Oil targets include oil plants and equipment and fuel dumps.
Industrial targets include ball-bearing plants, ordnance targets, power targets, steel and coke, and other industries.
Transportation targets include railway centres, bridges and viaducts, waterways, etc.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 27, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Go frame by frame. The bombs can clearly be seen passing behind the bomber. At normal speed it's hard to spot.


You're right.


----------



## gruad (Apr 27, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> For some reason, there is an oft repeated statement that Harris did not attack oil targets. Nothing can be further from the truth and in fact attacked these targets as he could do so. I’m not going to go through the evidence in this short post but I intend to do so in the coming days, probably in a separate thread, because the oil targets that Harris actually attacked can easily be summarized. I will lay out my argument for this in a forth coming post.
> 
> jim



Ok, I should say Harris did attack the directed targets but not in the intensity that he should have done.

When BC attacked the oil and transport targets it was very effective having larger bombs than the US and the low level marking worked really well. 

If the precision attacks had been the main focus then the Nazi capacity to wage war would have been disabled. Of course there conditions when area bombing had to be used.

The irony was that when BC had become a precision force for D Day targets, Harris wasted those skills by returning to his obsession of area bombing effectively disobeying orders.

Portal nearly fired Harris for insubordination but feared public opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Apr 27, 2021)

gruad said:


> Ok, I should say Harris did attack the directed targets but not in the intensity that he should have done.



Harris was an ideologue, wedded to the prewar theories of air power. He really should have been replaced by the fall of 1944, if not perhaps sooner. But the political will to do so didn't exist.




gruad said:


> When BC attacked the oil and transport targets it was very effective having larger bombs than the US and the low level marking worked really well.



Had the Ruhr campaign been continued in 1943, instead of switching to flattening Hamburg (more on that in a moment), and later, Berlin, that could have been decisive in itself.

Regarding Hamburg, that came the closest to realizing the idea that national morale could be broken by aerial attack. The initial reaction to the destruction of Hamburg was shock. It scared a number of the leading Reich officials. Speer, for one, said that had Bomber Command been able to do to another half-dozen German cities what it had done to Hamburg, war production would have collapsed, as the population gave up. But firestorms such as the one which devastated Hamburg could not be created at will (indeed, there were perhaps only two more in Europe during the rest of the war), and so the fighting went on.




gruad said:


> The irony was that when BC had become a precision force for D Day targets, Harris wasted those skills by returning to his obsession of area bombing effectively disobeying orders.



The peak year against area targets, in terms of percentage of total tonnage dropped, was 1943, according to the tonnage figures listed by the British Bombing Survey.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 27, 2021)

SplitRz said:


> Didn't their met briefings also include expected heights for vapour trails...? :/



They are called meteorologists due to their training, and pilots sometimes call them weather guessers from experience. I don’t know how many times I received a weather brief at base operations, by a weatherman, and it’s like he never looked outside. Contrails altitudes are a guess even today. Generally enroute to the airspace we would send number 4 up to check the con level. As soon as one of us noticed and called “marking”, he would reply with altitude and rejoin the formation. On low moon illumination nights this was almost worthless until the advent of NVGs. Then it was only slightly above worthless as the goggles weren’t that great. On high illum nights it was something good to know.

Also realize that one doesn’t have to go far to cross a weather boundary / or front, and the weather can vary from marginally to drastically different. Launching in the UK to go several hundred miles deep into enemy territory, via a round about route, could see a crew go through several weather fronts prior to dropping.

Cheers,
Biff

PS: I would tease my weather buds that they could be continuously wrong about the forecast and still get promoted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 27, 2021)

ClayO said:


> The narration also says to land along the waves in high seas, but doesn't say why. I suspect that having the waves not smash into the bomb bay was a factor.



I would imagine also that concern about landing into a rising swell factored in as well, especially in a -D model with greenhouse nose. At 8.35 pounds per gallon and virtually no compressibility with water, landing into a wave at landing speed (into the wind as the narrator advised) would put a lot of water at the front of the plane, right below where the crew was assembled. Whatever wasn't smashed would be weighed down by water and make egress more difficult.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 27, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> There is famous newsreel footage of a B-24 in the PTO being hit by flak during a raid.. It was struck in the left wing near the wing root. It immediately bursts into flame and the wing buckles. It looks on first viewing that the aircraft was struck by bombs dropped from above it, but if one watches carefully that was not the case.
> 
> B-24 Liberator Bomber Shot Down In Carolines Raid In WWII (1945)



I've seen that footage, it's in so many doccos about strategic bombing. The speed at which the wing fails catastrophically is stunning.

I'd imagine that lower wing-loading would help the wing be more resilient (due to less forces operating upon it), but mind all, I'm not an engineer of any sort and my opinion must be qualified by that ignorance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Apr 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I've seen that footage, it's in so many doccos about strategic bombing. The speed at which the wing fails catastrophically is stunning.
> 
> I'd imagine that lower wing-loading would help the wing be more resilient (due to less forces operating upon it), but mind all, I'm not an engineer of any sort and my opinion must be qualified by that ignorance.



It's all tradeoffs. To lower wing loading, they needed to reduce the weight (payload) or make the wings bigger, and for an airplane designed for long range, that means longer, so the plane would have been even less maneuverable. They could have made the wings stronger, but that would have meant more of the weight would go into the airplane and less into the payload. 

There's a good discussion of wing aspect ratio and the tradeoffs in this article.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 28, 2021)

ClayO said:


> It's all tradeoffs. To lower wing loading, they needed to reduce the weight (payload) or make the wings bigger, and for an airplane designed for long range, that means longer, so the plane would have been even less maneuverable. They could have made the wings stronger, but that would have meant more of the weight would go into the airplane and less into the payload.
> 
> There's a good discussion of wing aspect ratio and the tradeoffs in this article.



Much appreciate the link, I'll dig into it after I unwind a little from work.

I figure, comparing the wings of the two American bombers, the -17 has a wider chord, shorter span, and probably more metal between engines no. 1 and 4. Again, not an engineer, but that spells, to me, better torsion resistance, meaning it's more durable. But I'm pretty sure a direct hit from an 88 (I don't know what Japanese gun fired the shot) between engine 2 and fuselage (as the famous B-24 shootdown footage shows) would probably kill any bomber of the era.

ETA: nice, short article, clear explanations, thanks. If you've ever watching pelicans hunting offshore, you can see them tucking wing as well for a quick turn-and-dive onto their prey. This helps make sense to a layman. Thanks!


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 28, 2021)

B-24s had very bad ditching characteristics The shoulder mounted wing and the deep fuselage meant that the force of impact was absorbed by the lower fuselage, which as previously mentioned often meant failure of the bomb bay doors. the resultant inflow of water would often tear the rear half of the aircraft away. The fuselage also tended to rupture at the cockpit, with the top turret crushing the roof.
The B-17 with its low mounted wing could often hydroplane with the impact spread over more of the lower surface of the wings and fuselage.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 28, 2021)

A poster here who works (worked) on B-24s in a museum said the bomb doors/slats of a B-24 cannot take the weight of a person.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I bet it really depended on where a -24 was hit. An 88 in the wing would stand a good chance of being fatal. In the fuselage, possible but less-likely (especially after bombs had been dropped). While the Pacific was the better theater for a more-fragile airplane, my understanding is that -17s were replaced by -24s was due to range, rather than concerns about survivability, though the latter was a good benefit (not much flak over open ocean.


I've worked inside #2 nacelle wheel well on Collings' B24 right near where the wing spar passes through. The (single) spar is a sheet metal web with heavy cap strips top and bottom. A structure like that is lightweight and relatively strong against bending straight up and down, but depends for torsion resistance on its web and the stiffening effect of the D tube formed by the spar, the leading edge ribs, and the heavy leading edge skin. It's a lightweight, stiff structure formed almost entirely out of sheet metal. Now explode a 90MM fragmentation shell inside that D tube near the wing root where the stress is greatest and you've just excavated most of the sheet metal, and what do you think is going to happen?
Now anyone who has seen photos of B17 production lines knows the 'Fort has a main and a secondary wing spar, that both of them are constructed of a trusswork of U-shaped, thick, aluminum segments riveted to heavy L-bracket capstrips riveted back to back to form a "T". Also the two spars are stiffened against tortion by robust diagonal struts running between them. A fragmentation shell could explode in there without tearing things up so much.
The science of all metal monocoque cantilever monoplane construction was in its infancy when the 'Fort and the Dakota were designed, the B17 was the B52 of its time, and it and the 'Three were over-built just to be on the safe side. I know which bomber I'd rather take in harm's way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> A poster here who works (worked) on B-24s in a museum said the bomb doors/slats of a B-24 cannot take the weight of a person.



I know Ambrose is a doubtful source in some instances, but he did report that McGovern said the same thing about the bomb-bay doors.

And plenty of modern jets have "no-step" surfaces redlined off for fuelies/maintenance crews, too. We're not talking a lot of sheet-metal.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Apr 28, 2021)

i cant really comment on the Liberator, except that dad was briefly attached to 224 Squadron in Coastal Command in 1943. He flew the aircraft on an operation doing a grid search for U-Boats. He said the aircraft was very heavy on the controls, I.e. it flew like a cow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Apr 29, 2021)

The high aspect-ratio wing would also mean that the lifting force on the wing tip would have a lot more leverage on the wing root. You can see that when you look out of the window of a modern jet airliner: on the ground, the wing tip is a little above eye level, but to see the wing tip in the air, you have to crunch down in your seat and peer out of the top of the window.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Apr 29, 2021)

My grandfather's next door neighbour flew B-24's for the RAAF. He mentioned that the only reason it took off was the curvature of the earth.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (May 1, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I've worked inside #2 nacelle wheel well on Collings' B24 right near where the wing spar passes through. The (single) spar is a sheet metal web with heavy cap strips top and bottom. A structure like that is lightweight and relatively strong against bending straight up and down, but depends for torsion resistance on its web and the stiffening effect of the D tube formed by the spar, the leading edge ribs, and the heavy leading edge skin. It's a lightweight, stiff structure formed almost entirely out of sheet metal. Now explode a 90MM fragmentation shell inside that D tube near the wing root where the stress is greatest and you've just excavated most of the sheet metal, and what do you think is going to happen?
> Now anyone who has seen photos of B17 production lines knows the 'Fort has a main and a secondary wing spar, that both of them are constructed of a trusswork of U-shaped, thick, aluminum segments riveted to heavy L-bracket capstrips riveted back to back to form a "T". Also the two spars are stiffened against tortion by robust diagonal struts running between them. A fragmentation shell could explode in there without tearing things up so much.
> The science of all metal monocoque cantilever monoplane construction was in its infancy when the 'Fort and the Dakota were designed, the B17 was the B52 of its time, and it and the 'Three were over-built just to be on the safe side. I know which bomber I'd rather take in harm's way.





Snautzer01 said:


> U.S. Army WWII Photograph of Army Air Force Soldiers with B-24 Bomber in Warton | eBay
> 
> View attachment 581181



...but don't tell that to these guys.


----------



## SaparotRob (May 1, 2021)

Somewhere under all those feet there's got to be a "NO STEP" warning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 1, 2021)

Then someone's going to have to buff out all the scuff marks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 1, 2021)

ClayO said:


> ...but don't tell that to these guys.


Just about the ideal static weight distribution!


SaparotRob said:


> Somewhere under all those feet there's got to be a "NO STEP" warning.


They're all sitting on the D-tube leading edge, which is the main stress bearing part of the wing and pretty thick skinned.


Greg Boeser said:


> Then someone's going to have to buff out all the scuff marks.


See above. EXCEPTION: If the deice boots have already been installed, they're going to have to be inspected and tested again. If this plane was destined for PTO, it might not have boots at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (May 1, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Just about the ideal static weight distribution!
> 
> They're all sitting on the D-tube leading edge, which is the main stress bearing part of the wing and pretty thick skinned.
> 
> See above. EXCEPTION: If the deice boots have already been installed, they're going to have to be inspected and tested again. If this plane was destined for PTO, it might not have boots at all.



The caption says it's the inspection dept., Warton, England - that's incoming inspection, guessing that these guys wouldn't climb all over a plane they've already inspected and make more work for themselves. I thought it might be one that had done its missions and was being retired, but the paint's not worn on the edges of the cowlings, so it's definitely a new plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (May 1, 2021)

B.A.D. 2 (Base Air Depot #2) Warton Aerodrome

1 of 2 primary incoming inspection and modification centers for American aircraft sent to England.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------

