# Best overall bomber ww2



## jonesfuk (Jan 26, 2010)

Hi Al,l my friend and i were having a debate about the best overall bomber of ww2 i say B29, my friend says Avro Lancaster, we are both British so no sentiment aloud just pound for pound better plane, can some one settle this debate. Thanks---Fred


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2010)

B-29 was the more advanced and more capable bomber. There is no argueing it.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 26, 2010)

jonesfuk said:


> ...can some one settle this debate


What debate?
The B-29 could haul a greater bombload further, faster and higher
It could also absorb more damage


...and take that ridiculous shirt off


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2010)

Yup. However to make this competition fair you need to match aircraft by a specific time period. 

The Lancaster entered service during 1942 and was effective almost immediately. 

Like the German He-177, the B-29 was rushed into service before serious mechanical problems were worked out. Arguably it was ineffective prior to 1945.

IMO one could argue the He-177 held the "best heavy bomber" title during 1944. By 1944 most of the He-177 mechanical problems had been fixed. The B-29 was not yet ready.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2010)

i'm with davebender, B-29 it's superiour but it's (very) late war bomber, He 177 it's sure the second (after trouble fixed) but it's a late war bomber, Lancaster had over half war in operation and for a four engined it's long time (no four engined bomber fightning for all the war, the B-17 was the only in service from start to end (but don't start operation before of summer '41 so more late of stirling and halifax)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2010)

I agree that the two should no be properly compared. Comparing the B-29 to the Lancaster is like comparing the F-15 to the F-4. It does not change the fact that the B-29 is superior, but it is not a contemperary of the Lancaster.

It would be better to compare the Lancaster to the B-17. In that debate, I would have to side with the Lancaster.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It would be better to compare the Lancaster to the B-17. In that debate, I would have to side with the Lancaster.



If I had to command a force that was charged with a strategic bombing mission, I'd rather have the Lancaster.

If I had to FLY the missions of that force, I'd rather have the B17.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 26, 2010)

I agree with Adler on his comparison. Both 4 engine bombers? Yes. But it's not really comparing apples to apples.

If you compare early to mid war 4 engine bombers, your choices would be the B-17, B-24, Lancaster, Sterling, and the Halifax. Did I forget any?

Without getting into the details, I'd pick the Lancaster over the B-24, then the B-17, IMO.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2010)

foget Pe 8


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 26, 2010)

True Vincenzo. Sorry about that. However, the Pe-8 was no where near a major player in the war. After all, less than 100 were even built. Would you place the Pe-8 above any of the aircraft I listed? I sure wouldn't.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2010)

Pe 8 was surely more advanced plane of Stirling...


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 26, 2010)

Then the question needs to be fielded more clearly

best bomber of WWII was the B-29 hands-down. Best bomber of its generation would depend on which generation we are talking about, the Hampden/Whitley/Wellington, the B-17/B-24/Lancaster et al or the next-generation strategic bombers like the B-29/He177.


----------



## jonesfuk (Jan 26, 2010)

Thanks for your replies chaps, i have read a lot of previous posts on this subject and the debate will proberbly go on for many a year.
And Colin about my shirt, you must be a Liverpool fan from M40 corridor, enough said.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2010)

Built in few number (fewer of Pe 8 ) but also the Piaggio P-108 was a middle war bomber (first mission is around 3 months later of Lancaster)


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 26, 2010)

jonesfuk said:


> And Colin about my shirt, you must be a Liverpool fan from M40 corridor, enough said.


Good lord man
try a Newcastle fan from the A1(M) corridor...


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 26, 2010)

When the first dummy A-bombs were produced, the B29 was unable to carry them. The USAAF conducted the first A-bomb drop tests using borrowed RCAF Lancasters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> When the first dummy A-bombs were produced, the B29 was unable to carry them. The USAAF conducted the first A-bomb drop tests using borrowed RCAF Lancasters.



And that makes the Lancaster more superior how?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> When the first dummy A-bombs were produced, the B29 was unable to carry them. The USAAF conducted the first A-bomb drop tests using borrowed RCAF Lancasters.


*I'm going to put it bluntly - I think this is 100% bullsh!t and if proven wrong I will fully apologize.*

The ONLY WW2 unit to train to drop the atomic bomb was the 509th Composite Group and in their squadron history they NEVER used any other bomber type but B-29s. Operation Silverplate modified B-29s so they could carry the atomic bombs and that program started in 1943.

Although I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, they do have a good page on the 509th. There is NO mention of any Lancaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/509th_Composite_Group

Here's a page on the dummy atomic bombs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpkin_bomb


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

And a bit more....

The first drop tests of a prototype atomic bomb was done on August 13, 1943 when a 14/23 scale model atomic bomb was dropped from *A US NAVY TBM AVENGER AT DAHLGREN NAVAL PROVING GROUND!!!!! *

"The making of the atomic bomb By Richard Rhodes," PAGE 478.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 26, 2010)

This site mentions the possible use of the Lancaster for the A-bomb drops:
Operation Silverplate
but I'm certain I read that the first test drops were done with a Lancaster. I'll keep looking till I find it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> This site mentions the possible use of the Lancaster for the A-bomb drops:
> Operation Silverplate



Lancasters were mentioned as they and the B-29 were the only allied aircraft able to carry the atomic bombs internally "WITH MODIFICATIONS." Had the Lancaster been used, it woo would have had to be modified.



dunmunro1 said:


> but I'm certain I read that the first test drops were done with a Lancaster. I'll keep looking till I find it.


Please do.

BTW...

_"Ramsey quickly concluded that there were only two Allied bombers capable of carrying both weapons: the Boeing B-29 (if suitably modified) and the Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster had ample room internally, and it was a prodigious weight lifter; it almost won the contest. In fact, Ramsey traveled to Canada in October 1943 to meet with Roy Chadwick, the Lancaster's chief designer. As luck would have it, Chadwick had crossed the Atlantic to view Lancasters being built at the Avro Canada works in Toronto, and Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the gun and the implosion weapon casings. *Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed, but he was well-used to wartime secrecy; Chadwick did not ask why the weapons had such unusual shapes*."_

As far as I know the USAAF NEVER had a Lancaster in its inventory for any reason and IF it was to be used, it would have been used by the 509th, and you clearly see they never used any other bomber aircraft but the B-29.

"Prior to the decision to use the B-29 *serious* *consideration had been given to using the British Avro Lancaster to deliver the weapon, which would have required much less modification, but the idea was vetoed by General Groves who thought it "beyond comprehension to use a British plane to deliver an American A-bomb"*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 26, 2010)

However, if the first drops were with an RCAF flown Lancaster, then it wouldn't be recorded in the 509th history.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> However, if the first drops were with an RCAF flown Lancaster, then it wouldn't be recorded in the 509th history.



Perhaps not, but I still challenge you to find a source comfirming your claim.


* IF *that was true, it would have been an obvious mention in the development in the atomic bomb and B-29 history. Even IF an RCAF crew did do this drop, where would it have been done? More than likely Wendover, right at the 509th's backyard or at Alamogosa New Mexico.

The first airdrop of an atomic bomb (model) was done in August 1943 (as shown)

The first Silverplate aircraft were delivered in October 1944

The first "pumpkin bombs" were used in training in early 1945

The first live pumkin was dropped in July 1945

When "would have" an RCAF Lancaster been used or needed??? The first full size pumpkins weren't developed until 1945, by that time there were at least 20 or 30 silver plate aircraft available.


Sorry dunmnro, you're grasping at straws. I've studied this subject matter fior years and even had an uncle who flew in B-29s and was briefly stationed at Wendover, no RCAF Lancaster was ever used to do anything with the development for the atomic bomb.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 26, 2010)

Thanks for thiose quotes FlyboyJ. I had no idea the Lanc came so close to actually being used for the A bomb. I remember a discussion quuite a long time ago on here where some members (inc me) said the Lanc 'could have', many other members said 'don't be daft'. I'd have loved that info then 

I am currently reading Leo Mckinstry's history of the Lancaster and I've seen no mention of A bomb tests in the index


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Thanks for thiose quotes FlyboyJ. I had no idea the Lanc came so close to actually being used for the A bomb. I remember a discussion quuite a long time ago on here where some members (inc me) said the Lanc 'could have', many other members said 'don't be daft'. I'd have loved that info then
> 
> I am currently reading Leo Mckinstry's history of the Lancaster and I've seen no mention of A bomb tests in the index



Thanks Waynos - be rest assured if a Lancaster would have found its way on the Manhattan Project, it would have been just as well documented and well photographed as the Enola Gay.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 26, 2010)

Operation Silverplate

Some factoids:

initial acceptance date for a-bomb modded B-29 was to be Jan 15 1944.

this was delayed by mod and engine difficulties until Feb 20 1944

first drop test March 06 1944 - resulted in failure

B-29 recommended to be modded to "British method of suspending heavy bombs by a single lug"

Test resumed June 14th 1944

In mid-October (1944), the first three of the new SILVERPLATE aircraft batch (42-65209, -216, and -217) were accepted from the Martin-Omaha facility. Unlike 42-6529, the original PULLMAN airplane, they were fitted with a single-point bomb release modeled after the British 'Type F' heavy bomb mechanism and mounted on an improved frame fitted in the forward bomb bay.

So the 509th's B29s ended up with a bomb bay that was compatible with the Lancaster...


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 26, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Thanks for thiose quotes FlyboyJ. I had no idea the Lanc came so close to actually being used for the A bomb.



Nor did I....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Operation Silverplate
> 
> Some factoids:
> 
> ...







All they did was use the same bomb release mechanism. Your point?!?!?

A lancaster would have still needed to be modified to carry the atomic bomb, this is a mute point....

Your initial quote...

"*When the first dummy A-bombs were produced, the B29 was unable to carry them. The USAAF conducted the first A-bomb drop tests using borrowed RCAF Lancasters."*

*No Lancaster EVER dropped any dummy atomic bomb....*


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 26, 2010)

assuming the Lanc would have been a MK X I checked all the serial numbers out for MK X's and only one went to the US 
KB 805
This aircraft was sent to the United Statets for trials of the American-built Emerson remote gun control system; flown to England Nov.44; held at #5MU, Kemble, Glos.; retained in England following the war; used by Tactical Fighter Unit (TFU); storage at various RAF M.U.'s; SOC 3.7.47


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> assuming the Lanc would have been a MK X I checked all the serial numbers out for MK X's and only one went to the US
> KB 805
> This aircraft was sent to the United Statets for trials of the American-built Emerson remote gun control system; flown to England Nov.44; held at #5MU, Kemble, Glos.; retained in England following the war; used by Tactical Fighter Unit (TFU); storage at various RAF M.U.'s; SOC 3.7.47



Thanks for the info - it seems however that this aircraft was never turned over to the USAAF.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ
All they did was use the same bomb release mechanism. Your point?!?!?
A lancaster would have still needed to be modified to carry the atomic bomb said:


> How would they know that the Lanc bomb release mechanism was superior for that specific bomb?
> 
> Seems like the Lanc was pretty much ready for the job when it rolled out of the factory.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> How would they know that the Lanc bomb release mechanism was superior for that specific bomb?
> 
> Seems like the Lanc was pretty much ready for the job when it rolled out of the factory.



You're grasping at straws again.

The bomb release mechanism has NOTHING to do with the aircraft and is a "bolt on component" that is considered more of as assessorary that could have been fitted to any other aircraft of its type. Yes, they used the RAF bomb rack as a "pattern" based on your own post.



With that said *the Lancaster lacked the range, speed, altitude and systems to ever compete with the B-29 and the B-29 as a whole was a generation a head of the Lancaster*.

*IF THE LANCASTER WAS EVEN CLOSE TO THE B-29, WHY DID THE BRITISH USE THEM IN THE LATE 1940s, EARLY 1950s WHEN THEY STILL HAD LANCASTERS AVAILABLE????*







The B-29 was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 hands down. The Lancaster was a distant second.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thanks for the info - it seems however that this aircraft was never turned over to the USAAF.


I know but that is the only one that didn't go overseas or be converted to transport during that time period, on a high note I found out KB889 the Lanc at Duxford I think used to be my playground . We used to sneak into it as little kids when it was at the Old Museum of flight in town


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> I know but that is the only one that didn't go overseas or be converted to transport during that time period


Still don't show it in the USAAF inventory and I'd bet dollars to donuts it never made it any where close to Wendover or New Mexico.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Still don't show it in the USAAF inventory and I'd bet dollars to donuts it never made it any where close to Wendover or New Mexico.


It was never SOC from the RCAF but I also agree that it had nada to do with any A bomb tests , its probable I would think somebody checked out the bomb bay but that might be about that


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> It was never SOC from the RCAF but I also agree that it had nada to do with any A bomb tests , its probable* I would think somebody checked out the bomb bay but that might be about that*



And that even might be a stretch of the imagination.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 hands down. The Lancaster was a distant second.



I'm not sure why you have to shout. The suitability of the Lanc or Lincoln as a post war nuclear bomber doesn't really apply to WW2 where the ability of the aircraft to perform a variety of missions, with a variety of bombs is key.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> I'm not sure why you have to shout. The suitability of the Lanc or Lincoln as a post war nuclear bomber doesn't really apply to WW2 where the ability of the aircraft to perform a variety of missions, with a variety of bombs is key.



I shout for several reasons - 1. You posted a claim that was utter bullshit. 2. You have provided no technical information to back up any of your clams.

A bit of advice - if you're going to post on this forum, come armed and know what you're talking about because there are some on this forum who have actually worked around some of this stuff and its very hard to bamboozal us with half cocked claims.

Now do you need me to technically demonstrate that the B-29 was a superior and more advanced bombing platform than the Lancaster?!?!?!?


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I shout for several reasons - 1. You posted a claim that was utter bullshit. 2. You have provided no technical information to back up any of your clams.
> 
> A bit of advice - if you're going to post on this forum, come armed and know what you're talking about because there are some on this forum who have actually worked around some of this stuff and its very hard to bamboozal us with half cocked claims.
> 
> Now do you need me to technically demonstrate that the B-29 was a superior and more advanced bombing platform than the Lancaster?!?!?!?



I will continue to look for where I read this, but if I'm wrong, I'll say so.

Lots of people make mistakes, including me, but I don't think that's any reason to use profanity, or question someone's integrity, if the mistake was an honest one and not an attempt to deceive. The Lanc was considered for the A-bomb, and some of it's features ended up in the B-29 and this occurred after the designer of the Lanc was consulted on the project. The B-29 Silverplate mod program was behind schedule, and the Lancaster was in production in Canada, and I'll leave it at that for now, pending more research.

The Me-262 was "a superior and more advanced" fighter, but that certainly doesn't qualify it as the" best overall" fighter, IMHO, because of it's late introduction and limited overall impact on the war.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now do you need me to technically demonstrate that the B-29 was a superior and more advanced bombing platform than the Lancaster?!?!?!?



I'm not trying to be an a$$, but I would like for you to tell me why, but only because I want to know. I would like to know why it was better, and not just because the B-29 was faster, had longer range, had a heavier payload, and could fly higher. To me, a superior and more advanced bombing platform simply means it could deliver the bombs where they were intended to land.

They already proved that the higher the B-17s flew, that the accuracy was absolutely terrible, even with the Norton bombsite. Did they improve this in the B-29?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> I will continue to look for where I read this, but if I'm wrong, I'll say so.


You do that!!!!


dunmunro1 said:


> Lot's of people make mistakes, including me, but I don't think that's any reason to use profanity, or question someone's integrity, if the mistake was an honest one and not an attempt to deceive.


Did I use profanity? No - oh wait, by calling your statement bullshit??? Because it was. Please gow a pair!!! 

I have no problem with some minor error or some one's lack of knowledge on a certain subject but I at this point by even coming up with a comment as you did with nothing substantiating your claim is a question of your integrity!!! Why don't you just come out and say that Lancasters were launched off the Hornet in 1942?!?!?



dunmunro1 said:


> The Lanc was considered for the A-bomb, and some of it's features ended up in the B-29 and this occurred after the designer of the Lanc was consulted on the project. The B-29 Silverplate mod program was behind schedule, and the Lancaster was in production in Canada, and I'll leave it at that for now, pending more research.


Yes, the Lanc was considered for the bomb - totally irrelevant in this discussion. As far as the designer of the Lancaster being consulted on the design of the B-29? - Please show a reference, but its funny - The B-29 was designed in 1939. Something smells funny!!!! 


dunmunro1 said:


> The Me-262 was "a superior and more advanced" fighter, but that certainly doesn't qualify it as the" best overall" fighter, IMHO, because of it's late introduction and limited overall impact on the war.


The B-29 carried the fighter right to the Japanese and this claim that it entered the war late is another baseless argument. It participated in WW2, just about crushed Japan into submission and was around for the next war. So far you have produced nothing to back up your first statement or any other of your gibberish.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2010)

Thorlifter said:


> I'm not trying to be an a$$, but I would like for you to tell me why, but only because I want to know. I would like to know why it was better, and not just because the B-29 was faster, had longer range, had a heavier payload, and could fly higher. To me, a superior and more advanced bombing platform simply means it could deliver the bombs where they were intended to land.


And the B-29 was more than capable of doing that although it did have problems in the beginning. It was able to enter a bomb run higher and faster as well as better defend itself from fighters. Its fire control system was probably one of the most advanced airborne gunnery platforms of WW2, and the placement and roles of the crew set the precedence for manned bombers for the next 20 years.


Thorlifter said:


> They already proved that the higher the B-17s flew, that the accuracy was absolutely terrible, even with the Norton bombsite. Did they improve this in the B-29?


Yes, with a simple thing called radar. The B-29 was able to effectively bomb with radar. Now the Lancaster could do this to but not at the speeds, altitudes, ranges and payloads (although close) as the B-29


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You do that!!!!
> Did I use profanity? No - oh wait, by calling your statement bullshit??? Because it was. Please gow a pair!!!
> 
> I have no problem with some minor error or some one's lack of knowledge on a certain subject but I at this point by even coming up with a comment as you did with nothing substantiating your claim is a question of your integrity!!! Why don't you just come out and say that Lancasters were launched off the Hornet in 1942?!?!?
> ...



I think you need to grow up. 

I stated:
_
The Lanc was considered for the A-bomb, and some of it's features ended up in the B-29 and this occurred after the designer of the Lanc was consulted on the project. And Chadwick was consulted:
_


_*Ramsey quickly concluded that there were only two Allied bombers capable of carrying both weapons: the Boeing B-29 (if suitably modified) and the Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster had ample room internally, and it was a prodigious weight lifter; it almost won the contest. In fact, Ramsey traveled to Canada in October 1943 to meet with Roy Chadwick, the Lancaster's chief designer. As luck would have it, Chadwick had crossed the Atlantic to view Lancasters being built at the Avro Canada works in Toronto, and Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the gun and the implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed, but he was well-used to wartime secrecy; Chadwick did not ask why the weapons had such unusual shapes.*_
Operation Silverplate


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And the B-29 was more than capable of doing that although it did have problems in the beginning. It was able to enter a bomb run higher and faster as well as better defend itself from fighters. Its fire control system was probably one of the most advanced airborne gunnery platforms of WW2, and the placement and roles of the crew set the precedence for manned bombers for the next 20 years.
> Yes, with a simple thing called radar. The B-29 was able to effectively bomb with radar. Now the Lancaster could do this to but not at the speeds, altitudes, ranges and payloads (although close) as the B-29



Isn't it a fact that high altitude bombing with the B29 was a failure, and LeMay then switched to low altitude area night bombing raids?

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Isn't it a fact that high altitude bombing with the B29 was a failure, and LeMay then switched to low altitude area night bombing raids?



And they burned out nearly all of Japans urban area, even before the two A-Bombs were dropped.

And that doesn't count the mining of the inland seas that effectively shutdown the coastal commerce that japans economy depended on.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> I think you need to grow up.


Another crack like like and I'm kicking your dumb ass into cyber space....

In your last post you have just repeated what was already known and now I'm going to call you out - you're a bullshitter. You made two claims and have provided NOTHING to back up your claims. In all honesty its quite evident that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Here's the evidence....

_*"When the first dummy A-bombs were produced, the B29 was unable to carry them. The USAAF conducted the first A-bomb drop tests using borrowed RCAF Lancasters."*_

This is a total pile of BS and you have provided NOTHING to substantiate this claim.


*"The Lanc was considered for the A-bomb, and some of it's features ended up in the B-29 and this occurred after the designer of the Lanc was consulted on the project."*

The only "feature" that was used was a "single-point bomb release *modeled* after the British 'Type F' heavy bomb mechanism, which is a "bolt on" and could be used on a number of aircraft. *NOTICE THE WORD MODELED*. 

*THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM THE TEXT YOU POSTED!!! *

*AND THE LANCASTER WOULD HAVE HAD TO MODIFIED AS WELL, NOT TO THE EXTENT OF THE B-29, BUT IT STILL NEEDED MODIFICATION TO CARRY AN ATOMIC BOMB.*

Its quite evident you have come on here trying to bamboozal us with BS and I'm telling you, more of this crap will ensure you're visit here will be short as I'm starting to believe you're to stupid too be on this forum. I suggest you take your lumps and walk away and not try to BS your way through these topics.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-29 was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 hands down. The Lancaster was a distant second.



imho was third, second place for me tHe 177


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> imho was third, second place for me tHe 177



Compare...

General characteristics Avro Lancaster

Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners 
Length: 69 ft 5 in (21.18 m) 
Wingspan: 102 ft (31.09 m) 
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m) 
Wing area: 1,300 ft² (120 m²) 
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg) 
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each 
Performance

Maximum speed: 240 kn (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m) 
Range: 2,700 nmi (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load 
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m) 
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.082 hp/lb (130 W/kg) 
Armament


Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations 
Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000 lb (6,300kg) or 22,000 lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay. 

General characteristics He 177

Crew: 6 
Length: 22 m (72 ft 2 in) 
Wingspan: 31.44 m (103 ft 1¾ in) 
Height: 6.40 m (20 ft 11¾ in) 
Wing area: 101.99 m² (1,097.918 ft²) 
Empty weight: 16,800 kg (37,038 lb) 
Loaded weight: 27,200 kg (59,966 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 31,000 kg (68,343 lb) 
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 610 24-cylinder liquid-cooled inline piston engines, 2,900 PS (2,133 kW) each 
Performance

Maximum speed: 565 km/h at 6,000 m (351 mph at 19,685 ft) 
Stall speed: 135 km/h (84 mph) 
Combat radius: 1,540 km (957 mi) 
Ferry range: 5,600 km (3,480 mi) 
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,840 ft) 
Rate of climb: 190 m/min (623 ft/min) 
Wing loading: 303.9 kg/m² (62.247 lb/ft²) 
Armament

1 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine gun in nose 
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in forward ventral gondola position 
2 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine guns in rear ventral gondola position 
2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine guns in remotely controlled forward dorsal barbette 
1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in aft dorsal turret 
1 × 20 mm MG 151 cannon in tail position 
Up to 6,000 kg (13,227 lb) of disposable stores internally or 7,200 kg (15,873 lb) externally or up to 3 Fritz X or Henschel Hs 293 radio-guided munitions

On paper it looks like the 177 takes it but when you consider all the operational problems it had, I think it knocks it out of the running. Let's face it, it had minimal effect on the outcome of the war.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Compare...
> 
> General characteristics Avro Lancaster
> 
> ...



afaik the problems were solved, and also early B-29 had problems.

max load internal it's 7,000 kg (2*1800 and 2*1700) there is a load scheme somewhere in this forum


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2010)

I dont think so but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, its the proof of the pudding that counts. Using this criteria the He177 failed on all counts. It had huge potential on that I totally agree but it didn't deliver.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Glider said:


> I dont think so but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, its the proof of the pudding that counts. Using this criteria the He177 failed on all counts. It had huge potential on that I totally agree but it didn't deliver.



Agree....


----------



## timshatz (Jan 27, 2010)

One point nobody has seemed to have posted (I might have missed it), but the B29 was the first bomber bird that was pressurized for the crew. All the other bombers listed were open to the elements. 

It might not seem like much to us but crew comfort is a big event to the crew. A comfortable crew is more effective for a longer period. Also, a working temperature of 70-60F at 30K is a lot better than -30+ at the same atltiude (to say nothing of the affects of pure oxygen and lower pressure on the body for extended periods).

A point about the B29 that is not often pointed to but is a huge factor in making it effective.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 27, 2010)

what's "its the proof of the pudding that counts"?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

timshatz said:


> One point nobody has seemed to have posted (I might have missed it), but the B29 was the first bomber bird that was pressurized for the crew. All the other bombers listed were open to the elements.
> 
> It might not seem like much to us but crew comfort is a big event to the crew. A comfortable crew is more effective for a longer period. Also, a working temperature of 70-60F at 30K is a lot better than -30+ at the same atltiude (to say nothing of the affects of pure oxygen and lower pressure on the body for extended periods).
> 
> A point about the B29 that is not often pointed to but is a huge factor in making it effective.



Agree 100% This was brought up on another thread.

Several other things.

1. Tricycle landing gear - take offs and landings were made easier.

2. pilot cockpit configuration - better "Cockpit Resource Management (CRM)" I wonder how many Lancasters were needlessly lost while shooting instrument approaches because that second set of eyes weren't in the cockpit.

3. Air-cooled engines negated the need for a cooling system, another liquid system to leak and get shot up.

4. Round engines - a lot more durable than in line

I could go on and on....



Vincenzo said:


> what's "its the proof of the pudding that counts"?



The He-177 operationally was a dismal failure despite its potential and having its problems allegedly fixed. I believe the he-177 would not have been able to achieve the mission capable rates of the Lancaster, B-17 or B-24 if flown operationally like those aircraft, just due to its complex systems.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2010)

Glider said:


> I dont think so but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, its the proof of the pudding that counts. Using this criteria the He177 failed on all counts. It had huge potential on that I totally agree but it didn't deliver.



I agree. I think that the He 177 had the potential to be an amazing bomber, but it was never realized due to a number of reasons (which is a whole other discussion). Because of this, the aircraft can not even be considered the best.



timshatz said:


> One point nobody has seemed to have posted (I might have missed it), but the B29 was the first bomber bird that was pressurized for the crew. All the other bombers listed were open to the elements.
> 
> It might not seem like much to us but crew comfort is a big event to the crew. A comfortable crew is more effective for a longer period. Also, a working temperature of 70-60F at 30K is a lot better than -30+ at the same atltiude (to say nothing of the affects of pure oxygen and lower pressure on the body for extended periods).
> 
> A point about the B29 that is not often pointed to but is a huge factor in making it effective.



The He 177 was pressurized as well.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 27, 2010)

So how was the pressurized cabin affected by gun/cannon fire? Did it cause a rapid depressurization and the crews had to scramble for air/coats/gloves/boots or did it have something similar to a self sealing fuel tank to close up the holes?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Thorlifter said:


> So how was the pressurized cabin affected by gun/cannon fire? Did it cause a rapid depressurization and the crews had to scramble for air/coats/gloves/boots or did it have something similar to a self sealing fuel tank to close up the holes?


It did when it was hit at altitude. Rapid decompression is not like it appears in movies and sometimes a small hole in the "pressure vessel" will not even be noticed. Larger holes will be noticed and can suck things out. At the same time these holes can be plugged.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2010)

I would like to say I made a mistake. The He 177 was not pressurized. There were varients and prototypes that were pressurized, but no production varients were built with pressurized cockpits.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It did when it was hit at altitude. Rapid decompression is not like it appears in movies and sometimes a small hole in the "pressure vessel" will not even be noticed. Larger holes will be noticed and can suck things out. At the same time these holes can be plugged.



Sometimes, the stuff in the area that is being depressurized (maps, gloves, hats, ect.) will plug the hole if the depressurization is violent enough (and the hole is small enough). Same principle as water going down a drain. That's one of the problems the movies have with people getting sucked out of airplanes when they depressurize. The first dude to hit the window will probably plug it solid.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 27, 2010)

Thanks Tim and Joe....


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 27, 2010)

If I recall, they used to issue wooden dowels as an emergency means to plug small holes. Certainly can't imagine that being too effective operationally.

I've stood right next to the outflow valve in the E/E bay of an a 747-400 at altitude (FL310 if I recall). Certainly didn't suck me out. Did make me dizzy however. Explains everything about my duplicate posts.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 27, 2010)

Thorlifter said:


> So how was the pressurized cabin affected by gun/cannon fire? Did it cause a rapid depressurization and the crews had to scramble for air/coats/gloves/boots or did it have something similar to a self sealing fuel tank to close up the holes?



I asked the B29 veterans about what they did when their AC was holed by flak or bullets. 

They said they were issued wooden plugs (yes, wooden) that they could place into holes as needed. 

They also said that on combat runs, everyone was suited up for high altitude. If you have to bail out, you need to be ready! Of course, later in the war they were bombing from low altitudes, so the wooden plugs and high altitude flight suits were not needed.

One of the airmen told us that when a big enough hole did appear and the outrushing air was of sufficient volume, it certeinly brought up a lot of coral dust that had accumulated in the fuselauge.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Thanks Sys


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Another crack like like and I'm kicking your dumb ass into cyber space....
> .



Please ban me, so I won't be tempted to post here anymore. I didn't realize what an ******* you really are.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The He-177 operationally was a dismal failure despite its potential and having its problems allegedly fixed. I believe the he-177 would not have been able to achieve the mission capable rates of the Lancaster, B-17 or B-24 if flown operationally like those aircraft, just due to its complex systems.



That the impact on war of He 177 was low i think all are agree, but if B-29 it's the more advanced (heavy) bomber of war sure the 177 was the second, the engine trouble were fixed, the dive bomber role was abbandoned, idk what are the ready % of Lancaster, B-17, B-24, B-29 177, you know it? please post it. the difference on % ready planes can depend not only on trouble on planes but also of different organization of air forces


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Please ban me, so I won't be tempted to post here anymore. I didn't realize what an ******* you really are.



With pleasure! And as a departing gift, you get a complementary avatar. Wear it in good health and maybe someday when you either stop bullshitting or get an education you could come back and stare at all the photos in that section.

This should have been posted after your first post in this section


----------



## timshatz (Jan 27, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Please ban me, so I won't be tempted to post here anymore. I didn't realize what an ******* you really are.



This will not end well.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 27, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> I asked the B29 veterans about what they did when their AC was holed by flak or bullets.
> 
> They said they were issued wooden plugs (yes, wooden) that they could place into holes as needed.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info Sys, interesting to know the real deal instead of what all the books say. Didn't know about the plugs, had the same thing in the USN for the reason of keeping the water out (as apposed to the air in). They had all sorts of fun thing to plug holes. Some of them pretty ingenious. Some, pretty simple, like the wooden plugs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> That the impact on war of He 177 was low i think all are agree, but if B-29 it's the more advanced (heavy) bomber of war sure the 177 was the second, the engine trouble were fixed, the dive bomber role was abbandoned, idk what are the ready % of Lancaster, B-17, B-24, B-29 177, you know it? please post it. the difference on % ready planes can depend not only on trouble on planes but also of different organization of air forces



All "Ifs" Vincenzo. The He-177 was very advanced and very troublesome to maintain, it still held on to the out dated tail wheel and i doubt it could be as easily produced as the B-29 or Lancaster


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> That the impact on war of He 177 was low i think all are agree, but if B-29 it's the more advanced (heavy) bomber of war sure the 177 was the second, the engine trouble were fixed, the dive bomber role was abbandoned, idk what are the ready % of Lancaster, B-17, B-24, B-29 177, you know it? please post it. the difference on % ready planes can depend not only on trouble on planes but also of different organization of air forces



If you make all those changes, you end up with a totally different aircraft a bit like the Manchester compared to a Lancaster. No one would claim that the Manchester was a success because it led to the development of the Lancaster.
Like the Manchester, the He 177 was a dead end.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 27, 2010)

Glider said:


> If you make all those changes, you end up with a totally different aircraft a bit like the Manchester compared to a Lancaster. No one would claim that the Manchester was a success because it led to the development of the Lancaster.
> Like the Manchester, the He 177 was a dead end.



I'm not talking of eventually change, only of actual change, the engine trouble was solved, the dive bomber role abbandoned... 

Flyboy also your are "ifs" if trouble not solved, if troublesome in maintenance, if it's difficult to product.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 27, 2010)

The problem was not that much of the Heinkel's as a design, at least not after the very earliest prototypes back in 1939.. the problem was almost entirely engine related, and it was not the fault of the aircraft, or the engine layout. The DB 605s had serious troubles of their own up until the automn of 1943 (oil system being badly designed), and it caused problem in all aircraft, ie. Bf 109G, Bf 110G too. 

I have several documents on those engine testings, the engine  troubles were fixed by the late summer of 1943, and the aircraft was fine and reliable, well suited for operations. An early problem was that the units that received it often did not have properly trained personell, experience nor suitable shops or equipment for a bomber so much larger than the usual medium bombers they were used to... this contributed greatly to the problems, but again this was not a problem with the aircraft itself, but the lack of proper supply chain.

Its operational impact was indeed low, but the real reason behind it was that it came in an unfortunate time. Heinkell 177 production was insignificant until late 1943, and so were the number of these heavy bombers operational. Obviously a few such planes would make little impact alone. It became more and more widespread from late 1943, and was in service in substantial numbers by mid-1944 (some 250 with units of them IIRC). Tough luck for the Greif again, as the Allies just whacked the synthetic fuel refineries at the time, and almost all Luftwaffe bombers got grounded as a result... the aircraft never got the chance to prove itself. But it doesn't detract from that it was a very advanced aircraft with great operational capacity, being very fast, having a good service ceiling, great range and huge bomb carrying capacity; the defensive armament was also very advanced with lots of firepower.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> I'm not talking of eventually change, only of actual change, the engine trouble was solved, the dive bomber role abbandoned...
> 
> Flyboy also your are "ifs" if trouble not solved, if troublesome in maintenance, if it's difficult to product.



Well in the end the He-177 was not able to prove itself and I believe it was because of its poor gestation period and by Luftwaffe doctrine and politics. Although every heavy bomber had some kind of development problem, I believe something like 7 He-177s were lost during the development stage. Had that happened to the B-29, the program would have been cancelled. By the time all the bugs have been worked out of it, most bombers serving in the LW were grounded because of the continual bombing of Germany.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2010)

The B-29 was far from trouble free itself.

One basic "measure" of a bomber is it's installed take-off power. 

Since any plane is a series of compromises, one can compare take-off power and see what a designer or group/staff writing a requirement had to work with.

Using twin 1000hp engines you could get a fast small bomber, with short range a small bomb load or you could get a larger, slow bomber that could carry a much larger bomb load quite a bit farther or you could try for a medium speed bomber and medium load over a medium range. The more power available the more performance that could be had in one of those three categories (or the more defensive guns could be stuck on the plane).

With 8000-8800hp the B-29 simply out powered anything else. Combine that with more advanced aerodynamics and more advanced systems and there is no WW II bomber that saw squadron service that could perform the missions the B29 could.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well in the end the He-177 was not able to prove itself and I believe it was because of its poor gestation period and by Luftwaffe doctrine and politics. Although every heavy bomber had some kind of development problem, I believe something like 7 He-177s were lost during the development stage. Had that happened to the B-29, the program would have been cancelled. By the time all the bugs have been worked out of it, most bombers serving in the LW were grounded because of the continual bombing of Germany.



you are sure that were loss 7 177 in development stage, and a so heavy loss had would cancelled a US program?


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2010)

It also performed poorly over Britain in the Little Blitz in the first quarter of 1944, as did all the German bombers taking part. This despite the main target London being only approx 60 miles from the French coast.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> you are sure that were loss 7 177 in development stage, and a so heavy loss had would cancelled a US program?



Yes - and with one B-17 (Boeing 299) and one B-29 crash during their development, both programs were almost cancelled. I believe in the first 40 or so built (7 or 8 prototypes and the rest pre production ships) 7 aircraft crashed, beginning the bad reputation the -177 attained.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> The B-29 was far from trouble free itself.
> 
> One basic "measure" of a bomber is it's installed take-off power.
> 
> ...



All true, and when all the "bugs" were really worked out, you got the B-50


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 27, 2010)

Aside from the exchanges of heavy artillery with Dunmunro, this has been an interesting thread. I think we all (ok, most of us) agree that "best bomber of WWII" is largely predicated on when it entered service. Undoubtedly, the B-29 was the supreme manifestation of the heavy bomber for the entire war but it was also the culmination of many thousands of hours' experience (and personnel losses) on other types. I'd have to put the Lanc up there as the best bomber from the first half of the war. The mere fact that the Lancaster was even considered as an alternative to the B-29 for the atomic raids speaks volumes about its overall performance. 

However, all of the discussion to-date has focussed on heavy bombers (strategic-end stuff). There was also a valid role for tactical bombers doing things the heavy bombers were less suited to accomplish - obviously, I'm thinking here of the Mosquito, B-25 (another truly great aircraft in my book), B-26 (highly under-rated but very capable), A-20, Ju-88, Heinkel 111, and even dive bombers (although these have been covered in another thread). While not the ultimate expression of bomber force, they still fulfilled vital roles so, in addition to the time caveat, perhaps we need to recognise the distinction between roles??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

Agree on all points - we actually had a "best medium bomber" thread started a while ago.

Comment on the Lanc and the atomic bomb.

I believe that when the Lancaster was considered, it centered around its availability and the size of its bomb bay. In the end the B-29 did win out and I think when you consider all the aspects of the mission, choosing the B-29 was by far the right decision.

And that's not taking anything away from the Lancaster.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 27, 2010)

If the Lanc was selected to carry the bomb, its bases would have to be Okinawa. And there is the question of whether the Lanc could have gotten far enough away from the blast as to escape the shockwave.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 27, 2010)

Entirely agree. For its time, the lifting capacity of the Lanc was phenomenal but the B-29 was the right plane for the atomic job (including the political angle you alluded to in an earlier post). That said, derivatives of the Lanc were still operational into the 1990s (but that's a whole different story) - and yes, I know the Lincoln and Shacklebomber were very different aircraft but one only has to look at the centre-section and tail areas to realise how closely related they are to the Lanc. 

I obviously missed the "Best Medium Bomber" thread - must have been hibernating that month.


----------



## Jimmy Limma (Jan 28, 2010)

I never generalize.

I usually divide them into categories, and then, I make my selection.
Strategic bomber, dive bomber, heavy bomber, light bomber, and there it goes.

What makes a bomber necessarily be the best??

The effectiveness of the missions? The amount manufactured or produced versions? The operational history or length of service?

Is a ward question to reply. 

For example, is a absurd compare the Ju87 and the B29...


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 28, 2010)

Jimmy Limma said:


> I never generalize.



Generally, neither do I!


----------



## Juha (Jan 28, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:” the defensive armament was also very advanced with lots of firepower.”

The armament of late He 177A-3 and -5 was powerful but very advanced? The remote controlled dorsal turret (twin MG 131) at the B-1 position was advanced but at the B-2 position there was a single MG 131 in DL 131/1 C turret, which was according to Price less advanced than the British dorsal turrets. Other positions were equipped with hand held weapons only, the tail and lower nose positions had powerful 20mm single MG 151 each but both positions had limited views and fields of fires. The upper nose position had excellent view and reasonable field of fire but only a single 7,92mm MG 81. The rear gondola C-position had a MG 131 but only two small windows to look out. IMHO He 177 had lots of defensive firepower but generally not very advanced gun positions.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes - and with one B-17 (Boeing 299) and one B-29 crash during their development, both programs were almost cancelled. I believe in the first 40 or so built (7 or 8 prototypes and the rest pre production ships) 7 aircraft crashed, beginning the bad reputation the -177 attained.




afaik 6 prototypes of 177 crashed, and an other 8 planes of 0 series were loss (2 to enemy action, the 0 series were send to school and after upgrade to combat unit) but how many time need for so heavy loss?
P-80 program had heavy lossi in the prototypes, P-47 had very heavy loss in first production block


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Kurfürst
> Quote:” the defensive armament was also very advanced with lots of firepower.”
> 
> The armament of late He 177A-3 and -5 was powerful but very advanced? The remote controlled dorsal turret (twin MG 131) at the B-1 position was advanced but at the B-2 position there was a single MG 131 in DL 131/1 C turret, which was according to Price less advanced than the British dorsal turrets. Other positions were equipped with hand held weapons only, the tail and lower nose positions had powerful 20mm single MG 151 each but both positions had limited views and fields of fires. The upper nose position had excellent view and reasonable field of fire but only a single 7,92mm MG 81. The rear gondola C-position had a MG 131 but only two small windows to look out. IMHO He 177 had lots of defensive firepower but generally not very advanced gun positions.
> ...



probably was compared at other LW bombers, and you actually think that the 3 turrets of lancaster give a best protection?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> P-80 program had heavy lossi in the prototypes, P-47 had very heavy loss in first production block



They were fighters committed for production and those losses IMO were considered acceptable. Its when you crash a large and "expensive" bomber with several people on board that gets the attention of the politicians spending the money on these programs.


----------



## Juha (Jan 28, 2010)

Hello Vincenzo
Quote:"and you actually think that the 3 turrets of lancaster give a best protection? "

a best? Probably not because vast majority of Lancs had only rifle calibre mgs. But the rear turret was good for a night bomber, with clear vision panel the gunner probably had better chances to see a attacker than the gunners of He 177. And that was the critical point. But of course in He 177 one had 2 gunners, even if both had rather restricted views, to scan the most dangerous sector, low rear, which was a plus. On the other hand those few Lacs with Village-Inn rear turret were clearly superior.

On daytime IMHO the situation was other way around, only those few Lancs with FN82 or Rose rear turret had reasonable effective rear defences, both had rather weak front defences because IMO the lower nose 20mm in He 177 was intended more as an offensive, for strafing merchant ships, than defensive weapon because the gunner's view was so restricted. But anyway, neither He 177 or Lanc didn't have much chance against enemy fighters if unescorted in daytime in MTO or ETO.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2010)

He 177s did well in the eastern front against soviet fighters primarily because the soviets didn't have tactics on how to attack a large bomber.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Vincenzo
> Quote:"and you actually think that the 3 turrets of lancaster give a best protection? "
> 
> a best? Probably not because vast majority of Lancs had only rifle calibre mgs. But the rear turret was good for a night bomber, with clear vision panel the gunner probably had better chances to see a attacker than the gunners of He 177. And that was the critical point. But of course in He 177 one had 2 gunners, even if both had rather restricted views, to scan the most dangerous sector, low rear, which was a plus. On the other hand those few Lacs with Village-Inn rear turret were clearly superior.
> ...



I'm agree the weaponry of 177 was not enough, but as you told the lancaster not has a best. 


So in what the Lancaster was superiour, not in defence, not speed, not in load, not in range?


----------



## Juha (Jan 28, 2010)

Hello Vincenzo
first of all Lanc was more reliable, even in early 44 during Oper Steinbock He 177 was not very reliable, for whatever reason.

On bomb load, have you any info on loads carried in operations by He 177s. According to Price's He 177 Profile, during attacks on London in Spring 44 the more experienced crews flew 177s loaded with 2x1800kg+2x1000kg bombs, ie with 5600kg bomb load; the remainder flew with 4x1000kg bomb load. On the other hand on 3/4 May 44 during the attack on Mailly-le-Camp in France, some 80mls E of Paris, Lancs carried 5219 or 5446kg loads, depending on the distance of their bases to the target, so the difference wasn't big, average load of Lanc might well have been bigger.

And as I wrote, it is difficult to say which had better armament as night bomber, IMHO probably Lanc, mainly because of the better view for the rear gunner, but neither had much chance if picked up by a night fighter, or during day by a fighter.

Juha


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2010)

I suspect that at nighttime, whomever had the best rearward view had the upperhand. 

Maybe Erich can tell us.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 28, 2010)

Juha said:


> On bomb load, have you any info on loads carried in operations by He 177s.
> 
> Juha



Maximum bombload of the Lancester was about 5,6 tons, maximum bombload of the He 177 was 7,2 tons. End of story... 

7 tons could be certainly carried internally, though it may have been possible that it could carry 7,2 tons, internally too (4 x 1800 kg, two SC 1800 certainly fitted in the bomb bay, but I am not 100% sure if four did, and it may have been an external 2x1800 on wings + 2x1800 kg in bomb bay set up). 

I agree the Lanc had probably better armament for night missions (i.e. wider firing angles of the turrets, and generally high volume of small caliber fire was probably more effective at close ranges). OTOH during the night missions are somewhat moot point as most bombers shot down never get the chance of firing their guns, and the Lanc had a huge blind gap in the firing fields from attacks from beneath, which the Germans fully exploited (Schraege Musik et all).

During daylight missions, apart from heavier guns and better defensive angles, its worth noting that the chief gun positions on the He 177 were armored (hence the relatively small windows needed for armored glass), as was the practice on German bombers, while the Lancester positions to my best knowledge were not at all and the gunners could be taken out easily.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Vincenzo
> first of all Lanc was more reliable, even in early 44 during Oper Steinbock He 177 was not very reliable, for whatever reason.
> 
> On bomb load, have you any info on loads carried in operations by He 177s. According to Price's He 177 Profile, during attacks on London in Spring 44 the more experienced crews flew 177s loaded with 2x1800kg+2x1000kg bombs, ie with 5600kg bomb load; the remainder flew with 4x1000kg bomb load. On the other hand on 3/4 May 44 during the attack on Mailly-le-Camp in France, some 80mls E of Paris, Lancs carried 5219 or 5446kg loads, depending on the distance of their bases to the target, so the difference wasn't big, average load of Lanc might well have been bigger.
> ...




i'm not 100% sure but i think the explanation on not reliability in Steinbock was already writed in this forum.

The choice of load for a mission it's a different thing of possible load, the possible load of 177 it's a bit larger of that lancaster (7000 kg vs 14000 pds). 

better view but as you tell the 177 has two position for rear. back on 177 defence i think that weak spot it's not frontal (there is only a short window where enemy planes was attacked only from mg 81, if they are at same height or down can be attacked from nose gun and they came from down also from gondola, if they are enough height can be attacked to dorsal turrets) but flank from down. 

Cruising at highest speed give more difficult the interception


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 28, 2010)

BTW does anyone have a performance chart of the Lanc? Max speed at altitude, curising speeds and such, max. ceiling when loaded etc?


----------



## Juha (Jan 29, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
now have you info that 177s really carried that 7tons load on short range missions regularly? That's my point. 

London was a rather short range target, on longer range targets, for ex while bombing railway targets around Velikiye Luki from East Prussia, 177s carried only one ton (4xSC250s) while Lancs could carry 5tons Tallboys a little over twice more distance targets.

BTW by the time 177 began operate, many tail turrets of Lancs were armoured.

Juha

LATER ADDITION: and standard load of Lanc in early 44 in attacks on Berlin, again clearly more distant target than that of 177s when raiding Velikiye Luki, was 8000lb (1x4000lb + 8x500lb), in fact that might be an understatement because the average bomb load for 103Sqn/1 Group Lancs during the six attacks on Berlin in early 44 was 9317lb and for 57Sqn/5 Group 8986lb.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 29, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Kurfürst
> now have you info that 177s really carried that 7tons load on short range missions regularly? That's my point.



I consider your point irrevelant - the He 177 could carry higher bombloads to either short range and long range missions than the Lancaster. 



Juha said:


> BTW by the time 177 began operate, many tail turrets of Lancs were armoured.



Interesting. Details and sources perhaps?


----------



## Glider (Jan 29, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> I consider your point irrevelant - the He 177 could carry higher bombloads to either short range and long range missions than the Lancaster.


A couple of questions
A) You can of course support that statement?
B) Why is the point irrelevant?


----------



## Juha (Jan 29, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:"I consider your point irrevelant - the He 177 could carry higher bombloads to either short range and long range missions than the Lancaster."

IMHO it's just opposite, in war and in fact in real life generally ,what matters is what can be done not what might be theoritically possible. Odd that 177 seems to have carried well under its theoretical max bomb loads in every case I have info on the exact loading. Difficult to understand why in early summer 44 Germans sent 87 He 177s to bomb Velikiye Luki with 4 SC250 per plane. If they could have carried say 12 SC 250s each it would have been much more fuel economical to sent only 30 He 177s with that load, same tonnege with much less fuel consumed or the all 87 with that load and much more tonnage dropped. Difficult to see the logic of German actions if 177 really could easily carry loads advertaised.

On turret armour, look for ex R. Wallace Clarke's British Aircraft Armament Vol. 1

Juha


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Maximum bombload of the Lancester was about 5,6 tons, maximum bombload of the He 177 was 7,2 tons. End of story...



You've never heard of the Grandslam, 22000lb bomb!!!

Lancaster range with bomb load
Range
2530 miles with 7000 pound bomb load
1730 miles with 12,000 pound bomb load
1550 miles with 22,000 pound bomb load 

Avro Lancaster Specifications

Here's a bomb load matrix:
Bomb Loads
loads of 13500 to 14000lbs were common.

Regarding a hypothetical A-bomb Lancaster, a Lancaster could have taken off from Tinian and landed at Okinawa, or alternatively, the Lancaster could have used air to air refueling:
Unreal Aircraft - Flying Forever - In-Flight Refuelling, WW2
as the RAF had perfected this technique at this time. Most speeds given for Lancasters are with bomb loads and full armament. Aircraft of WW2 by Chant,p36, states a top speed of 345 mph for a Mk VI with all armament except the tail turret removed.

Regarding importance to the war effort, the Lancaster dropped " 608,612 tons of bombs in 156,000 sorties" considerably more than the B-29, as the total tonnage dropped on Japan was "159,862 tons of bombs " . 
HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 1], p256.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2010)

The He-177 falls under catagory of "undecided, not enough info".

We know the performance of the Lanc, B17, B24 and B29 because they each had 100's of thousands of sorties, under many different conditions and missions. We know what they could do and what their war record is.

The -177 has to many question marks against it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Regarding importance to the war effort, the Lancaster dropped " 608,612 tons of bombs in 156,000 sorties" considerably more than the B-29, as the total tonnage dropped on Japan was "159,862 tons of bombs " .
> HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 1], p256.


Still doens't make the Lancaster the better and more technically advanced aircraft.

BTW The B-29 dropped 159,862 tons of bombs on Japan - look at how far that had to go to do it. Comparing mission times and hazards of flight (weather and flying over vast oceans) ETO round trip missions were "milk runs" compared to what the B-29 had to fly...


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 29, 2010)

I can't decide
whether it's emotional bonds, romanticising or just national pride but attempting to compare the Lancaster with the B-29 is just ridiculous. There was nothing wrong with the Lancaster design, it was a superbly adaptable platform and could even arguably have been the pioneer of hedge-hop strategic bombing (the Dam raids); I doubt you could flick a B-29 around the mountains surrounding the targets like you could with the Lancaster but the B-29 represented the next generation in that method of bombing, the Lancaster couldn't touch it, it's like comparing a Spitfire Mk Ia favourably with the P-51D, the Spitfire will probably cut him up in a knife-fight but the P-51's got him everywhere else.


----------



## renrich (Jan 29, 2010)

My source gives performance of Lancaster B Mk I as follows:

VMax at normal weight- 271 mph at 6250 feet
Vmax at normal weight- 281 mph at 11000 feet
Max weak mixtrue cruising speed-227 mph
Most economical cruising speed-216 mph
Time to climb to 20000 feet-41.6 minutes
service ceiling at max weight-20000 feet
service ceiling at mean weight-24500 feet
range with standard fuel and 10000 pound bomb load-1040 miles
range with one auxliary fuel tank and 7000 pound bomb load-2680 miles
empty equipped weight-36900 pounds
max takeoff weight-72000 pounds
bombs-14 one thousand pound bombs or one 4000 pound bomb and six 1500 pound bombs or six two thousand pound bombs and three 250 pound bombs or one 12000 pound bomb or one 8000 pound bomb and six 500 pound bombs or one 4000 pound bomb, six 1000 pound bombs and two 250 pound bombs.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

The title of the thread is "best overall bomber", or am I missing something?

VE day was May 07 and the Lancaster's tonnage total is all prior to this date. On May 07 the B-29s had dropped much less than their VJ day total. You compare the P51d with a Spitfire IA, but the Lancaster to B-29 comparison is not fair unless you compare the operational versions of each aircraft against the other, so the comparison might better stated as a Spitfire V against a P51A. The B-29 was not really ready for prime time until it went through much development, at a time when the Lancaster was hammering Fortress Europa. The Lancaster could have provided the USAAF with an aircraft to carry out their strategic bombing of Japan, but the B-29 could not have done the same for the RAF/RCAF in Europe. 

Yes, the B-29 was more advanced, etc, but it came too late to be "best overall".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The title of the thread is "best overall bomber", or am I missing something?


Yes you are - it's the B-29


RCAFson said:


> VE day was May 07 and the Lancaster's tonnage total is all prior to this date. On May 07 the B-29s had dropped much less than their VJ day total. You compare the P51d with a Spitfire IA, but the Lancaster to B-29 comparison is not fair unless you compare the operational versions of each aircraft against the other, so the comparison might better stated as a Spitfire V against a P51A. The B-29 was not really ready for prime time until it went through much development, at a time when the Lancaster was hammering Fortress Europa. The Lancaster could have provided the USAAF with an aircraft to carry out their strategic bombing of Japan, but the B-29 could not have done the same for the RAF/RCAF in Europe.
> 
> Yes, the B-29 was more advanced, etc,* but it came too late to be "best overall*".


And VJ day was August 15th, when WW2 Ended - and the B-29 still flew continually beyond that

I disagree - over 150 tons of bombs, 1000 aircraft operated and arming 2 air divisions (the 20th and 21st Air Force) doesn’t constitute "being too late." The B-29 accomplished over Japan in one year what it took the allied bombing effort to accomplish in three and the trip there was more complicated and more hazardous. Part of that was due to tactics and I'm not even bringing up the atomic bomb missions.


----------



## Glider (Jan 29, 2010)

I admit this topic keeps popping up but they should be titled, Most advanced bomber B29 now lets decide what comes second.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

Germany had the densest concentration of radar directed flack in the work, backed up by a deadly and efficient night fighter force. Compared to Germany, Japan had very weak air defences, and the biggest threat to B-29s was the weather. The Luftwaffe must have flown many, many more defensive sorties, just for night fighters, than the Japanese home defence fighters flew day and night. The Japanese didn't really even have a coherent centralized air defence system. I knew a lotta guys who flew lancasters and they had to be prepared for attack from fighters from the moment they took off, until the moment they landed. I don't want to take anything away from the B29 crews, but they simply didn't face the same calibre of opposition, both from fighters and flak, and German targets were simply harder to destroy. Best bomber should go the last versions of the B29, but "best overall" belongs to the Lancaster, IMHO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, the B-29 was more advanced, etc, but it came too late to be "best overall".



What does that have to do with it?

Answer these questions?

1. Could the B-29 carry a larger bomb load a further distance?

2. Did the B-29 have better performance?

3. Was the B-29 a better design?

4. Was the B-29 more advanced?

Answer these questions honestly and you will see what the better bomber was.



Glider said:


> I admit this topic keeps popping up but they should be titled, Most advanced bomber B29 now lets decide what comes second.



Ditto...


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Germany had the densest concentration of radar directed flak in the world, backed up by a deadly and efficient night fighter force. Compared to Germany, Japan had very weak air defences, and the biggest threat to B-29s was the weather. The Luftwaffe must have flown many, many more defensive sorties, just for night fighters, than the Japanese home defence fighters flew day and night. The Japanese didn't really even have a coherent centralized air defence system. I knew a lotta guys who flew lancasters and they had to be prepared for attack from fighters from the moment they took off, until the moment they landed. I don't want to take anything away from the B-29 crews, but they simply didn't face the same calibre of opposition, both from fighters and flak, and German targets were simply harder to destroy


You seem to be implying that the best overall bomber was defined by environment. That is nonsense, best overall bomber was defined by specifications and performance. One only has to plug the B-29 into the Lancaster's ETO environment to see that it would have fared better. If the B-29's biggest threat in the PTO was the weather, how do you think the Lancaster would have managed flying those distances into the teeth of a jet stream?


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 29, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> You seem to be implying that the best overall bomber was defined by environment. That is nonsense, best overall bomber was defined by specifications and performance. One only has to plug the B-29 into the Lancaster's ETO environment to see that it would have fared better. If the B-29's biggest threat in the PTO was the weather, how do you think the Lancaster would have managed flying those distances into the teeth of a gulf stream?


with one pilot , the Lanc was one heck of a dump truck but to put it in the same league as the B29


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> You seem to be implying that the best overall bomber was defined by environment. That is nonsense, best overall bomber was defined by specifications and performance. One only has to plug the B-29 into the Lancaster's ETO environment to see that it would have fared better. If the B-29's biggest threat in the PTO was the weather, how do you think the Lancaster would have managed flying those distances into the teeth of a gulf stream?



You really have to read this carefully:

HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 5]

here's one snippet:

_The next three months (November 1944 through January 1945) were frustrating, to say the least. Schools worked hard to train the lead crews, determined to improve bombing accuracy. Enormous efforts were made to upgrade maintenance. The depot had to start all over again, and in the meantime the air supply from Sacramento had to be improved. More missions were run against Japanese engine and aircraft factories. But the weather was a terrible opponent, and there was no intelligence of its movements. *Japanese fighter opposition was desperate but not deadly, at least in comparison with German fighters. *Air kamikaze-ramming tactics were tried with some success. Morale was a critical problem. The airplane engines were still unreliable_



Paper stats and operational performance are often two different things. Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that a bomber that was not operationally significant until 1945, and achieved it's reputation against an almost defenceless opponent deserves the title "best overall" bomber. I knew too many Lancaster crew to let this one go without a fight. The B-29 would have had a very tough time in Europe, except for the fact that by the time it was really operationally ready, the battle had already been won.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Germany had the densest concentration of radar directed flack in the work, backed up by a deadly and efficient night fighter force. Compared to Germany, Japan had very weak air defences, and the biggest threat to B-29s was the weather. The Luftwaffe must have flown many, many more defensive sorties, just for night fighters, than the Japanese home defence fighters flew day and night. The Japanese didn't really even have a coherent centralized air defence system. I knew a lotta guys who flew lancasters and they had to be prepared for attack from fighters from the moment they took off, until the moment they landed. I don't want to take anything away from the B29 crews, but they simply didn't face the same calibre of opposition, both from fighters and flak, and German targets were simply harder to destroy. Best bomber should go the last versions of the B29, but "best overall" belongs to the Lancaster, IMHO.



There was this small lake called the Pacific Ocean that B-29 had to fly over, though typhoons and the jet stream - ever hear of it?

If you go through this forums threads you will find that this subject has been discussed several times before. There is no denying the B-29 was plagued with numerous teething pains during its introduction and yet despite the problems, the USAAF managed to deploy it and turn it into an effective airborne weapons system that had no equal in WW2. General LeMay almost accomplished what Bomber Harris wished he could have accomplished - the complete defeat of an axis combatant by airpower alone. Look at what the B-29s did to Japan in the year and a half they were deployed. Prior to that the Japanese mainland was unscathed, and in that short time just about every major Japanese city felt the B-29's wrath. I doubt the Lancaster or Lincoln could have done the same amount of damage to Japan in the same amount of time.

Comparing it to the Lancaster, the Lanc was outdated in it's landing gear configuration (a tail wheel that offered difficulty in take off and landings in high crosswinds) it's cockpit configuration as the single pilot was an operational risked weighed against the necessity of getting the mission accomplished, and finally systems - hydraulics, electrical, defensive armament - there is no doubt which airframe is more superior.

As far as how the B-29 would have done in Europe? It would have never saw the European Conflict - that was for the B-32, I suggest some reading about that aircraft. But with that said, comparing the B-29 to the SECOND best bomber aircraft of WW2, that being the Lancaster, you were looking at a larger bomb load at higher altitude delivered at higher speeds if deployed to accomplish night saturation bombing. Do the math to see how much more the B-29 "could have" been than the Lancaster.

We are well aware of the formidable air defenses Germany fielded against the allies, but I don't think you realize the hazards and dangers B-29 crews faced just flying to and from their targets which I'll state again, would make European long range bombing missions look like milk runs. I know for a fact that former B-17 and B-24 crews that later served in the Pacific felt as times the weather they faced flying to and from the target was just as hazardous as the opposition they faced over Germany. The B-29 had to close the door to the last chapters of WW2 and without it the war in the pacific might have gone on for 2 or 3 more years including the participation of the Lancaster AND Lincoln.

Best "overall" bomber? Maybe that's your way of coming up with a consolation prize, but there is no doubt the B-29 was the best Bomber of WW2 and superior to the Lancaster. If that was not the case, 5 years after the war you would have never seen this....


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 29, 2010)

Uh oh... someone is diggin in his heels. B-29 v Lanc. Seriously RCAF?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

Some better data from the USSBS:

_The total tonnage of bombs dropped by Allied planes in the Pacific war was 656,400. Of this, 160,800 tons, or 24 percent, were dropped on the home islands of Japan. Navy aircraft accounted for 6,800 tons, Army aircraft other than B-29s for 7,000 tons, *and the B-29s for 147,000 tons*. By contrast, the total bomb tonnage in the* European theater was 2,700,000 tons of which 1,360,000 tons were dropped within Germany's own borders*.

Approximately 800 tons of bombs were dropped by China-based B-29s on Japanese home island targets from June 1944 to January 1945. These raids were of insufficient weight and accuracy to produce significant results.

*By the end of November 1944, 4 months after seizure of the islands, the first of the long-range bomber bases in the Marianas became operational. The number of planes originally available was small and opposition was significant. Losses on combat missions averaged 3.6 percent. The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated only 7,180 tons although increasing month by month. The planes bombed from approximately 30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped which hit the target areas averaged less than 10 percent.* Nevertheless, the effects of even the relatively small tonnage hitting the selected targets were substantial. During this period, attacks were directed almost exclusively against aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets. The principal aircraft engine plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently to convince the Japanese that these plants would inevitably be totally destroyed. The Japanese were thereby forced into a wholesale and hasty dispersal program. The continuing pressure of immediate military requirements for more and more planes during the campaigns in the Pacific had prevented any earlier moves to disperse. When dispersal could no longer be avoided, the necessary underground tunnels, dispersed buildings, and accessory facilities such as roads, railroad spurs and power connections were not ready. As a result the decline in aircraft engine production, which shortages in special steels requiring cobalt, nickel and chrome had initiated in mid-1944, became precipitous.

*On 9 March 1945, a basic revision in the method of B-29 attack was instituted. It was decided to bomb the four principal Japanese cities at night from altitudes averaging 7,000 feet. Japanese weakness in night fighters and antiaircraft made this program feasible.*_

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War)

Sorry, but the B29 campaign against Japan doesn't even come close to being comparable to the air war over Europe. However, the Lancaster could have duplicated the B29 campaign through in-flight refuelling from Tinian and by operations from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, had the USAAF began producing the Lancaster in lieu of the B29. Again, the Lancaster could have replaced the B-29, but not the other way around.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> However, the Lancaster could have duplicated the B29 campaign through in-flight refuelling from Tinian and by operations from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, had the USAAF began producing the Lancaster in lieu of the B29. Again, the Lancaster could have replaced the B-29, but not the other way around.



In flight refueling?!?! LOL!!! OMG you're grapsing at staws! Effective inflight refueling was at least 2 or three years away. Where were you going to get the tankers from?? Train the crews??? Develop the technique??? What do you think, pilots just hook up to a tanker as simple as flying a pattern at a local airport??!? By the time this would have been accomplished, the Lancaster could of helped out in the Korean War!!!!The B-29 was more than capable of performing the Lancaster's mission and then some. just look at the photo I posted. If the Lancaster was any way close to being superior to the B-29, why did the RAF operate them into the 1950s while pulling their Lancasters and Lincolns out of front line service?????


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

I have no problem in stating that the last versions of the B29, produced during WW2 were "better" than the Lancaster. But overall the Lancaster was a better plane, operationally.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In flight refueling?!?! LOL!!! OMG you're grapsing at staws! Effective inflight refueling was at least 2 or three years away. Where were you going to get the tankers from?? Train the crews??? Develop the technique??? What do you think, pilots just hook up to a tanker as simple as flying a pattern at a local airport??!? By the time this would have been accomplished, the Lancaster could of helped out in the Korean War!!!!The B-29 was more than capable of performing the Lancaster's mission and then some. just look at the photo I posted. If the Lancaster was any way close to being superior to the B-29, why did the RAF operate them into the 1950s while pulling their Lancasters and Lincolns out of front line service?????




The first inflight refueling was done well before WW2. The USAAF could easily have had a tanker fleet ready by Nov 1944, had they chosen to go down that route:

_Tiger Force air-to-air refuelling
I have often wondered about what was actually planned for the “Tiger Force” RAF Lancasters and haven’t really found anything (any references out there ?)

There is a recently published book “History of Air-to-Air Refuelling” (which isn’t what it says, but is really a TECHNICAL history of Flight Refuelling Limited).

Here is a summary of what it says about the Tiger Force Lancasters and flight refuelling (there are pages and pages of technical drawings and explanations showing how the system worked) from pages 24 to 34.

Following on from the successful pre-war "looped-hose" system, in 1942 the US Army Air Corps placed an order for a set of tanker and receiver equipment for a B-24 tanker and B-17 receiver aircraft. These conversions were completed and flight trials commenced in April 1943. The B-17’s range being “increased to 5,800 miles with full bomb load”. It was planned to take off from the Aleutians and land in China. These plans seem to have come to naught because of the time required to convert the aircraft and train crews and the coming of the B-29.

In the “latter part of 1943” there were plans made for the RAF to bomb Japan from bases in Burma. By 1944 it was decided that these were to be Lancasters equipped with the pre-war looped hose system (as were the B-17 and B-24). In January 1944 three different designs had been prepared, the third of which was adopted. In this the hose-drum and equipment was placed towards the front of the aircraft and the fuel supply consisted of two 640 imperial gallon (2,880 litres) tanks in the bomb bay.

50 sets of equipment were ordered for development and training. It was then intended to convert a total of 500 tanker and receiver aircraft to mount the long-range operations.

Originally the force was to be called “The Long-Ranged Force”

The prototype tanker (PB.972) and receiver (ND.648) aircraft had both been successfully flown by November 1944.

Not only were the two bomb bay tanks available, but also the Port and Starboard Inboard wing tanks (580 gallons [2,880 litres] in each)

The average fuel transfer rate was “better than100 imperial gallons (450 litres) per minute”.

AND;

“The trials for the Tiger Force operation were carried out with the prototype Lancaster tanker PB.972 and receiver ND.648, using the equipment described, and it proved that refuelling could be carried out at an indicated airspeed of 160 mph at any reasonable altitude, over or in cloud and at night, there being no difficulty in illuminating the receiver’s hauling cable.

Then, due to ”progress made in the Pacific Theatre” the whole programme of the Tiger Force was cancelled.
_

Tiger Force air-to-air refuelling [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2010)

I guess, to carry this argument to it's illogical conclusion, that no late war aircraft could ever be the BEST because they didn't have the time/missions flown to rack up the totals of bombs dropped or enemy planes shot down. And going on, since no late war aircraft is better than n mid-war aircraft, no progress was made for several years in airframe design, propulsion, aircraft systems or avionics. I never would have known.

I believe the title of the thread was "best over all bomber". 

Not " bomber that contributed the most"

Or " bomber with the best record"

The answers to those might be different.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I have no problem in stating that the last versions of the B29, produced during WW2 were "better" than the Lancaster. But overall the Lancaster was a better plane, operationally.



The last versions???? You know little about the aircraft! Some of the "first" aircraft produced were still around during the Korean War! Operation Silverplate aircraft (Nuke Bombers, some of the first B-29s built) served into the 1960s!!! Better operationally?!? How??? The B-29 (and yes, even the early ones) were faster, higher flying, carried a superior bomb load, had a greater range and were better armed (the B-29's fire control system was one of the most advanced optical gunnery systems ever designed.)

Just so you know, the B-29 was never produced in any variant (B-29A, B, etc.) There were production line and field mods that produced B-29As' but they had the same performance as the "first" B-29s off the line. The only variant was to be the B-29D which later became the B-50.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The last versions???? You know little about the aircraft! Some of the "first" aircraft produced were still around during the Korean War! Operation Silverplate aircraft (Nuke Bombers, some of the first B-29s built) served into the 1960s!!! Better operationally?!? How??? The B-29 (and yes, even the early ones) were faster, higher flying, carried a superior bomb load, had a greater range and were better armed (the B-29's fire control system was one of the most advanced optical gunnery systems ever designed.)
> 
> Just so you know, the B-29 was never produced in any variant (B-29A, B, etc.) There were production line and field mods that produced B-29As' but they had the same performance as the "first" B-29s off the line. The only variant was to be the B-29D which later became the B-50.



The early production versions might have had the same type number, but they were not the same aircraft. I know that you are well aware of the endless litany of teething problems that the B-29 had, when it first entered service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The first inflight refueling was done well before WW2. The USAAF could easily have had a tanker fleet ready by Nov 1944, had they chosen to go down that route:]



100% Not true!!! That whole article is all "speculation." Crews had to be trained and pilots delivering and receiving fuel would have to be trained and that really wasn't discovered until the first B-29s were modified as tankers. One of the hardest operational tasks any pilot could do is hook up with a tanker. the hardest is landing on a carrier.

And from your post - _"Then, due to ”progress made in the Pacific Theatre” the whole programme of the Tiger Force was cancelled"_

Maybe that was because half of Japan was incenerated (and this before Aug. 6)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The early production versions might have had the same type number, but they were not the same aircraft. I know that you are well aware of the endless litany of teething problems that the B-29 had, when it first entered service.



Errr no, they were the same aircraft - modified in the field, like any WW2 aircraft (Including the Lancaster) but in the end still the same basic aircraft.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I guess, to carry this argument to it's illogical conclusion, that no late war aircraft could ever be the BEST because they didn't have the time/missions flown to rack up the totals of bombs dropped or enemy planes shot down.
> .



No, that's not the issue. The Lancaster performed brilliantly, with high operational readiness right from the first versions. The early B-29s were little better than flying prototypes and had severe problems. If the B-29 had entered service in Mid 1944 and been a paragon of reliability with high operational readiness rates, then I would have no problems with accepting it as the "best overall bomber", but alas, that was not the case.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I guess, to carry this argument to it's illogical conclusion, that no late war aircraft could ever be the BEST because they didn't have the time/missions flown to rack up the totals of bombs dropped or enemy planes shot down. And going on, since no late war aircraft is better than n mid-war aircraft, no progress was made for several years in airframe design, propulsion, aircraft systems or avionics. I never would have known.
> 
> I believe the title of the thread was *"best over all bomber". *
> 
> ...



You nailed it. And its evident where the B-29 stands. As a matter of fact, some still fly today....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> No, that's not the issue. The Lancaster performed brilliantly, with high operational readiness right from the first versions.


After the Manchester debacle right???


RCAFson said:


> The early B-29s were little better than flying prototypes and had severe problems. If the B-29 had entered service in Mid 1944 and been a paragon of reliability with high operational readiness rates, then I would have no problems with accepting it as the "best overall bomber", but alas, that was not the case.



Well let's see, despite the problems, by April 1945 almost every major city in Japan was burned to the ground. Within 10 months the problems were either solved or dealt with. By August 1945, the B-29 was in the high 80s to low 90s on their MC rate - so much for "flying prototypes."

Oh wait! And the B-29 was around for the "next war" too! Although it was evident that technology had caught up with them, they still served in the Jet Age.

Again, answer my initial question - If the Lanc was so superior, Why did the RAF use the B-29????


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2010)

If the Lanc was to be used in operations over Japan, the earliest it could do anything would be May 1945. 

By that time, the B29's were already into some semblance of strategic operations for almost a year.

If the B29 was used in the ETO, it would not have been invulnerable the LW, but its performance would have been enough to make things more complicated for fighter intercepts. It also would have exceeded the Lanc's performace by a large margin, and would have had been the perfect bomber for night operations. 

Ask your self these things:
1) Which bomber had the best defensive firepower?
2) Which bomber had all the extra performance and interior space to allow the ever more increasing defensive and offensive avionics?
3) Which was more versatile? Low altitude dam busting is a stunt. Carrying large anti-shiping mines 1600 miles from base is something not sneeze at.
4) Which was the easier to land and takeoff? Tail dragger or tricycle gear?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

_When the first units deployed to Saipan six weeks later, the crews had averaged less than a hundred hours of total flaying time in the B-29. The average high-altitude formation flying experience was under twelve hours. Moreover, the B-29's engines developed a mean tendency to swallow valves and catch fire. The magnesium crankcases burned with a fury defying all extinguishing. Besides, gunsighting blisters were either blowing out at high altitude or frosting up so badly that the gunners could not see through them. But there was not time to fix them properly.

The burning out of exhaust valves was finally solved by fitting a goosenecked pipe that sprayed cool air directly on the valve housing, and by putting cuffs on the props to pump more air through the engine cowling: Oil flow through the exhaust valve housing was also improved. The other problems -- frosting of panes in the cockpit and of plastic bubbles at gunners' scanning stations -- were solved by running hot air hoses to the affected areas. With the cockpit blanked out, it obviously would have been impossible to keep formation. And with the scanning bubbles clouded, the gunners could not see to shoot. These problems were solved at literally the eleventh hour. _
HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]

No wonder that high altitude bombing was abandoned in March 1945.

If the USAAF had built Lancasters under license, they could have had a reliable delivery system right from the get go, and since the USA had the smarts to build an atomic bomb by 1945, then I suspect that they could have also developed in-flight refueling deployed sufficient numbers of Lancaster tankers by late 1944 to have matched or exceeded the B-29's tonnage dropped on Japan. The resources expended on the B-29 would have permitted the USAAF to have deployed the Lancaster in larger numbers and ultimately drop more tonnage than the B-29.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _When the first units deployed to Saipan six weeks later, the crews had averaged less than a hundred hours of total flaying time in the B-29. The average high-altitude formation flying experience was under twelve hours. Moreover, the B-29's engines developed a mean tendency to swallow valves and catch fire. The magnesium crankcases burned with a fury defying all extinguishing. Besides, gunsighting blisters were either blowing out at high altitude or frosting up so badly that the gunners could not see through them. But there was not time to fix them properly.
> 
> The burning out of exhaust valves was finally solved by fitting a goosenecked pipe that sprayed cool air directly on the valve housing, and by putting cuffs on the props to pump more air through the engine cowling: Oil flow through the exhaust valve housing was also improved. The other problems -- frosting of panes in the cockpit and of plastic bubbles at gunners' scanning stations -- were solved by running hot air hoses to the affected areas. With the cockpit blanked out, it obviously would have been impossible to keep formation. And with the scanning bubbles clouded, the gunners could not see to shoot. These problems were solved at literally the eleventh hour. _
> HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]
> ...



No - it was abandoned because of General LeMay...

_"LeMay finally switched to low-altitude, nighttime incendiary attacks on Japanese targets, a tactic senior commanders had been advocating for some time. Japanese cities were largely constructed of combustible materials such as wood and paper. Precision high-altitude daylight bombing was ordered to proceed only when weather permitted or when specific critical targets were not vulnerable to area bombing.

LeMay commanded subsequent B-29 Superfortress combat operations against Japan, including the massive incendiary attacks on 64 Japanese cities. This included the the firebombing of Tokyo on 9–March 10, 1945, the most destructive bombing raid of the war.[2] For this first attack, LeMay ordered the defensive guns removed from 325 B-29s, loaded each plane with Model E-46 incendiary clusters, magnesium bombs, white phosphorus bombs, and napalm and ordered the bombers to fly in streams at 5,000–9,000 feet over Tokyo.

The first pathfinder planes arrived over Tokyo just after midnight on March 10. Following British bombing practice, they marked the target area with a flaming 'X.' In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing some 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city. Aircrews at the tail end of the bomber stream reported that the stench of burned human flesh permeated the aircraft over the target"_





RCAFson said:


> If the USAAF had built Lancasters under license, they could have had a reliable delivery system right from the get go, and since the USA had the smarts to build an atomic bomb by 1945, then I suspect that they could have also developed in-flight refueling deployed sufficient numbers of Lancaster tankers by late 1944 to have matched or exceeded the B-29's tonnage dropped on Japan. The resources expended on the B-29 would have permitted the USAAF to have deployed the Lancaster in larger numbers and ultimately drop more tonnage than the B-29.


Yep they had the smarts to buld the atomic bomb and an advanced aircraft to carry it.

*RAF deployed 88 B-29s in the late 40's despite having hundreds of Lancasters at their disposal - WHY???*


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 29, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> If the Lanc was to be used in operations over Japan, the earliest it could do anything would be May 1945.
> 
> By that time, the B29's were already into some semblance of strategic operations for almost a year.
> 
> ...



Defensive firepower:

_ Problems Faced by XXI Bomber Command

Our new equipment presented some technical problems affecting combat operations. I asked for three fixes which were attempted at Wright Field but did not materialize in time to be useful. They pertained to gunnery, weather penetration, and rescue at sea.

The gunnery equipment of the B-29 was new, formidable, and complex. Experience in operating without fighter escort in Europe had made defensive gunfire important. I had been instrumental in changing the top turret of the B-29 from a two-gun, .50-caliber pair to a set of four such guns, to meet the most dangerous of fighter attacks -- those from the front. All the guns were remotely operated from sights placed in transparent sighting blisters. A master gunner operated from a master-gunner's position in a top blister from which all the guns except the two tail guns could be controlled and fired. The gunsights and controls were ingenious and sophisticated, but highly complex. The sight was swiveled by the left-hand grip control, both laterally and in height. The range of the approaching fighter was automatically fed into the sight computer by a right-hand grip control by which the gunner sought to keep an illuminated ring in the sight adjusted to the wingspan of the approaching fighter. Each hand had to work simultaneously with, but independently of, the other. To complicate the problem further, the messages fed into the computer were accepted in terms of "rate." The "rate of turn" of the controls established the velocity, rate of turn, and rate of approach of the target. If a gunner failed to manipulate his sight smoothly and moved with a series of jerks, these rapid jerks told the computer that the velocity of the target was accelerating or decelerating wildly.

I asked that a device be designed to determine range and rate of approach by radar and feed it directly into the sight computer. Such a device was available for the tail guns which had a somewhat limited field of fire. This would have relieved the gunner of at least half his burden. Actually, it would have provided far more relief than that. It certainly is far easier to do one thing at a time than to do two separate things simultaneously. _

Great system, if it works...and the USAAF basically decided to strip out the armament and go for area night bombing which really tells us something. 

_Which bomber had all the extra performance and interior space to allow the ever more increasing defensive and offensive avionics?_

See area night bombing above.

_3) Which was more versatile? Low altitude dam busting is a stunt. Carrying large anti-shiping mines 1600 miles from base is something not sneeze at._

Yeah, the Germans thought that too...and they laughed even harder at the 800+ tallboy and Grandslam bombs dropped on them. AS mines are not that large (1000 to 2000lb), but the total weight might have been depending on the number carried per sortie.


_4) Which was the easier to land and takeoff? Tail dragger or tricycle gear? _

Which required the shorter runway to get off the ground? The Lancaster could operate from shorter strips and could take off from a 5000ft runway.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Defensive firepower:
> 
> _ Problems Faced by XXI Bomber Command
> 
> ...



The only reason why the armament was removed was to carry more bombs over a greater range - a range that the Lancaster could NEVER touch



RCAFson said:


> _Which bomber had all the extra performance and interior space to allow the ever more increasing defensive and offensive avionics?_



*Well it wasn't the Lancaster - it it was the RAF would not have received 88 B-29 in the late 40s!*

BTW - After the night bombing offensive, the fire control system was reinstalled.

*"102 Japanese planes were destroyed, 87 probably destroyed, and 156 seriously damaged in air combat"*
Not bad for that "poor" system - Oh and let me not forget at least one MiG-15 in Korea as well.

102 Japanese planes were destroyed, 87 probably destroyed, and 156 seriously damaged in air combat
See area night bombing above.




RCAFson said:


> _4) Which was the easier to land and takeoff? Tail dragger or tricycle gear? _
> 
> Which required the shorter runway to get off the ground? The Lancaster could operate from shorter strips and could take off from a 5000ft runway.



Depending on bomb load, the B-29 could take off and land from a 5000' runway (I have to pull up the -1 for specifics). 

A tail dragger was a configuration of the past and it became an operational hazard. Just that alone doomed the Lancaster to early obsolescence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

B-29s SET SPEED, ALTITUDE, DISTANCE RECORDS
*451.9 mph, 47,910 ft. ALT, 10,000 MILES DISTANCE*
B-29s SET SPEED, ALTITUDE, DISTANCE RECORDS

And the Lancaster?


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 29, 2010)

I say the B-29. By the way for the guy who posted this, the B-29 isn't british.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> I say the B-29. By the way for the guy who posted this, the B-29 isn't british.



The British operated 88 of them in the late 40s


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 29, 2010)

I know that, but they are american built. Since they were our allie, we gave(sold) them 88 B-29s. I never said the brits never used them, I just said they didn't build them or that B-29s did not originate in britian.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> I know that, but they are american built. Since they were our allie, we gave(sold) them 88 B-29s. I never said the brits never used them, I just said they didn't build them or that B-29s did not originate in britian.



10-4!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

Let's see......

*Arvo Lancaster*

General characteristics

Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners 
Length: 69 ft 5 in (21.18 m) 
Wingspan: 102 ft (31.09 m) 
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m) 
Wing area: 1,300 ft² (120 m²) 
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg) 
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each 
Performance

Maximum speed: 240 kn (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m) 
Range: 2,700 nmi (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load 
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m) 
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.082 hp/lb (130 W/kg) 
Armament
Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations 
Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000 lb (6,300kg) or 22,000 lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay. 

*Boeing B-29*

General characteristics
Crew: 11 (5 officers, 6 enlisted): (A/C)Airplane Commander, Pilot, flight engineer, bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar operator, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner 

Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m) 
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m) 
Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m) 
Wing area: 1,736 sqft (161.3 m²) 
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg) 
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg -- 135,000 lb plus combat load (144,000 lb on record[18])) 
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, *2,200 hp *(1,640 kW) each 
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241 
Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²) 
Aspect ratio: 11.50 
Performance

Maximum speed: *357 mph *(310 knots, 574 km/h) 
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h) 
Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h) 
Combat range:* 3,250 *mi (2,820 nmi, 5,230 km) 
Ferry range: *5,600 *mi (4,900 nmi, 9,000 km, (record 5,839 mi, 5,074 nmi, 9,397 km[18])) 
Service ceiling:* 33,600 *ft (10,200 m) 
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s) 
Wing loading: *69.12 lb/sqft *(337 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg) 
Lift-to-drag ratio: *16.8 *

Armament
Guns:
*10× .50 in* (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets 
2 x .50 in and* 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position *(the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service ) 
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard. 
Bombs: *20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout *

*I REST MY CASE!!!!*


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 29, 2010)

Dang FLYBOYJ, u know your stuff about planes!!


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 29, 2010)

Hey, FLYBOYJ, Im new 2 this site, how do u post a new thread??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> Dang FLYBOYJ, u know your stuff about planes!!



Just know where to get the info!



Zniperguy114 said:


> Hey, FLYBOYJ, Im new 2 this site, how do u post a new thread??



Just sent you a PM


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

Just a minor point if I may
I did mention 'gulf stream' earlier in the thread, Joe said 'jet stream' - are they the same thing?
Or is a gulf stream a current in the ocean? Even the B-29 couldn't swim...

You know what I meant though... 

Zniper, I don't think anyone was in any doubt that the B-29 was American in origin


----------



## Njaco (Jan 30, 2010)

Gunner Smith: "Captain, I can't see out my window! Theres bubbles!"
Captain: "I'll send Navigator Jones to check it out."
Gunner Smith: "Captain, Jones changed the window and I have no more bubbles. Great!"
Captain: "Captain to crew - we are now flying a B-29C OU812!"


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 30, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Kurfürst
> Quote:"I consider your point irrevelant - the He 177 could carry higher bombloads to either short range and long range missions than the Lancaster."
> 
> IMHO it's just opposite, in war and in fact in real life generally



Well we agree that is your opinion, and you are welcome to be entitled to it. I believe this was already discussed several times, and the evidence was decisevely against your theory.

If you believe that the specifications for the He 177 and the Lancester form some sort of "advertisement" conspiracy, you should be prepeared to offer some evidence for it.

Until then, I think most of us will simply believe the specs, which show the He 177 being capable of delivering a larger bombload to further distance, flying higher and considerably faster than the Lancaster, as well as better equipped to fend of enemy fighter attacks.

For example the figures given by reinrich shows a range with standard fuel and 10000 (ca. 4500kg) pound bomb load-1040 miles (ca. 1600 km). Most economical cruising speed was 216 mph (347 km/h). 

In comparison, the He 177A-1 specification (taken from primary source) shows that with 15 860 lbs (7200 kg) bombload, a range of 2200 km (1370 miles) could be attained, while cruising at 415 km/h (258 mph).

In short the Heinkel 177 could deliver 50% larger bomb load to 30% longer distance, and being 40 mph faster while doing so.


----------



## Hop (Jan 30, 2010)

> Until then, I think most of us will simply believe the specs


According to specifications, the Lancaster carried 14,000 lbs, the B-17 17,600 lbs. In reality the Lancaster dropped an average of just over 10,000 lbs per mission, the B-17 just over 5,000 lbs. So specifications really aren't always an accurate reflection of real-world capabilities.

As to the Lancaster vs B-29, there's one key advantage the Lancaster had:

Avro Lancaster - $144,000
Boeing B-29 - $605,000


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Just a minor point if I may
> *I did mention 'gulf stream' earlier in the thread, Joe said 'jet stream' - are they the same thing?
> Or is a gulf stream a current in the ocean? Even the B-29 couldn't swim...*
> 
> ...



The Gulf Stream is a water current off the east coast of the US. The Jet Stream is a powerful current of air found at high altitudes. The B-29 was one of the first aircraft to encounter the jet stream.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

Hop said:


> As to the Lancaster vs B-29, there's one key advantage the Lancaster had:
> 
> Avro Lancaster - $144,000
> Boeing B-29 - $605,000


Hmm...

_______________*Lancaster_____________B-29*
Cost_______________tick__________________x
Range______________x__________________tick
Payload_____________x__________________tick
Altitude_____________x__________________tick
Speed______________x__________________tick
Damage*____________x__________________tick


...some might call that the cost of progress


*Ability to absorb battle damage


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

Hop said:


> According to specifications, the Lancaster carried 14,000 lbs, the B-17 17,600 lbs. In reality the Lancaster dropped an average of just over 10,000 lbs per mission, the B-17 just over 5,000 lbs. So specifications really aren't always an accurate reflection of real-world capabilities.
> 
> As to the Lancaster vs B-29, there's one key advantage the Lancaster had:
> 
> ...


Actually the B-29 program was the most costly weapons program in WW2, but in the end the cost was worth it. When you consider what was brought to the table with th big bomber and for how long it was around after WW2, into the 1950s as a tanker, it was a wise investment.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 30, 2010)

Hop said:


> According to specifications, the Lancaster carried 14,000 lbs, the B-17 17,600 lbs. In reality the Lancaster dropped an average of just over 10,000 lbs per mission, the B-17 just over 5,000 lbs.



Never seen such figures for the B-17 though.. according to the US manual, bomb load was 6000 lbs internally, and 8000 externally (if two 4000 lbs bombs under the wingroot were carried), thats 14 000. Of course fuel had to be reduced in this condition, to just 1732 US gallons.

Of course this was a somewhat special case, as is we compare the maximum internal loads (14 000 on Lancaster, 6000 lbs on the B-17), it reflects the same ratio as in the case of real word ops.



Hop said:


> So specifications really aren't always an accurate reflection of real-world capabilities.



Of course they are representative of capabilities, otherwise why British fans of the Lancaster would never cease pointing out that the Lancaster could carry far more bombs than the B-17 (ignoring the fact that the two planes were designed for different purposes, the B-17 being essentially a very long ranged maritime bomber)

There is no silly witchcraft involved, the specification represent what planes could do or could not do. Your logically fellacy is that they are not representative of real-world capabilities - they are. What they are not representative is everyday operational practice, which was not only determined by the plane's capabilities, but also of tactical, operational, and strategic considerations. 

Its also fairly ease to see why in practice Lancasters carried so much bombs on avarage - with Bomber Command under Harris being fixated on leveling cities, regardless of importance, they picked targets to which they could unload the maximum amount of bombs (ie. the usually closer target), regardless of their importance, rather than target where they would do most inconvinience to the Germans, as opposed to the USAAF practice of trying to hit targets they believed would paralyze the German war economy the most.


----------



## Glider (Jan 30, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> In short the Heinkel 177 could deliver 50% larger bomb load to 30% longer distance, and being 40 mph faster while doing so.



Simple question : Then why didn't they?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2010)

Juha said:


> IMHO it's just opposite, in war and in fact in real life generally ,what matters is what can be done not what might be theoritically possible. Odd that 177 seems to have carried well under its theoretical max bomb loads in every case I have info on the exact loading. Difficult to understand why in early summer 44 Germans sent 87 He 177s to bomb Velikiye Luki with 4 SC250 per plane. If they could have carried say 12 SC 250s each it would have been much more fuel economical to sent only 30 He 177s with that load, same tonnege with much less fuel consumed or the all 87 with that load and much more tonnage dropped. Difficult to see the logic of German actions if 177 really could easily carry loads advertaised.



You lucky to have so info (if i understand all the loading used in mission to He 177)
To ask at luftwaffe officer that ordered that mission, many action in war were illogical, some maybe were logical with that info, hard know


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The B-29 would have had a very tough time in Europe, except for the fact that by the time it was really operationally ready, the battle had already been won.



Can you honestly 100% prove that? How do you know that? How are you sure that it would have been bad in the ETO. You are only speculating and basing it off of no facts what so ever.

I would wager that it would have performed better than the Lanc. It had better performance and better defensive armament. 

If you can prove otherwise, I am all ears.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2010)

Hop said:


> According to specifications, the Lancaster carried 14,000 lbs, the B-17 17,600 lbs. In reality the Lancaster dropped an average of just over 10,000 lbs per mission, the B-17 just over 5,000 lbs. So specifications really aren't always an accurate reflection of real-world capabilities.
> 
> As to the Lancaster vs B-29, there's one key advantage the Lancaster had:
> 
> ...



max internal load were 14000 for lancaster and 9600 for B-17, 17600 were with 2 underwings 4000 bombs, so the radius was very short, if you compare so configuration for B-17 you need take external load also for lancaster, i think no standard but theorically possible or take on consideratio nthat modified lanc carried the grand slam of 22000


----------



## Njaco (Jan 30, 2010)

Kurfurst, thats the first time that I've heard the B-17 was developed intially as a long-range *maritime *bomber?


----------



## Coors9 (Jan 30, 2010)

The B-25 was one hell of a bomber...


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Can you honestly 100% prove that? How do you know that? How are you sure that it would have been bad in the ETO. You are only speculating and basing it off of no facts what so ever.
> 
> I would wager that it would have performed better than the Lanc. It had better performance and better defensive armament.
> 
> If you can prove otherwise, I am all ears.



I have already given you information showing that it's defensive armament was useless until late 1944 due to canopy frosting, according to the General commanding the B-29 BG, and that after that date its RC firecontrol system was still unsatisfactory. Again, we have their record over Japan, which was only ~7000 tons dropped by March 09 1945. Both the General's account and the USSBS comment on the weakness of Japanese air defences.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 30, 2010)

Coors9 said:


> The B-25 was one hell of a bomber...



So is your avatar!


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Again, we have their record over Japan, which was only ~7000 tons dropped by March 09 1945.
> 
> Both the General's account and the USSBS comment on the weakness of Japanese air defences


You have a certain knack for disregarding facts that don't corroborate your beliefs:

How do you think the Lancaster would have handled the Jet Stream over those distances? Assuming the Lancaster could reach altitudes where the Jet Stream was prevalent?

The weakness of Japanese air defences only proves that the Japanese air defences weren't all that good, please explain your logical progression from that to the B-29 not being the best overall bomber of WWII.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> If you believe that the specifications for the He 177 and the Lancester form some sort of "advertisement" conspiracy, you should be prepeared to offer some evidence for it.
> 
> Until then, I think most of us will simply believe the specs, which show the He 177 being capable of delivering a larger bombload to further distance, flying higher and considerably faster than the Lancaster, as well as better equipped to fend of enemy fighter attacks.
> 
> ...



I have already given you the Lancaster range figures:

Lancaster range with bomb load
Range
2530 miles with 7000 pound bomb load
1730 miles with 12,000 pound bomb load
1550 miles with 22,000 pound bomb load

But here's the results of one mission:

_20/21 Mar 45 Bohlen. 1 x 4000 lb, 14 x 500 lb. Pilot F/O L.W.Baker.* Flight time 8 hours
19 minutes. This was a 1,560 mile round trip* to attack an oil works where
defences were moderate. One 500 lb returned to base._

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/...ft_histories/74-A-12 Avro Lancaster R5868.pdf

Here's some more:

_

21/22 Dec 44 Politz. 1 x 4000 lb, 5 x 1000 lb. Pilot F/O G.A.Stewart. Landed at
Leuchars. Flight time 10 hours 51 minutes. The target was a synthetic oil
plant near Stetin in Poland.. This was Sugars longest flight of the war. The
target was the largest synthetic oil plant still in operation.

05 Jan 45 Although not recorded in the Squadron ORB, the logbook of mid upper
gunner Albert F Wallace records him flying in Sugar in an early morning
flight captained by F/O Laurie W Baker ,taking off at 01.12 on a six hour
round trip to Royan Port where 12,400 Lbws of bombs were dropped onto
troop concentrations in the area, encountering moderate flak.
(122)

13/14 Jan 45 Politz. 1 x 4000 lb, 11 x 500 lb. Pilot S/L E.L.Langlais. Flight time 10
hours 10 minutes. This was more successful than the previous attack on this
oil plant. Light flak and searchlights were encountered over the target. (123)

14/15 Jan 45 Merseberg. 1 x 4000 lb, 9 x 500 lb. Pilot F/O J.J.Cross. Landed at East Moor.
Flight time 9 hours 11 minutes. This was another synthetic oil plant. (123)

16/17 Jan 45 Brux, Czechoslovakia. 1 x 4000 lb, 12 x 500 lb. Pilot F/L F.Lawrence;
Engineer Sgt Dennis Baldry Logbook copy with DoRIS –X004-2456/001) .
Hit by light flak. ‘Defences all the way’ (Baldry LB)
Bomb aimer slightly injured. Flight time 9 hours 43 minutes_

S for Sugar was an original Mk 1 built in early 1942.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> So is your avatar!


I have to disagree

Range in those shoes would be dismal
Bombload looks poor, even with external stores
Inability to absorb battle damage characteristic of the type, broken fingernail often enough to get the mission scrubbed
The type in question gets cold on a balmy summer's evening, altitude performance would be a joke


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> You have a certain knack for disregarding facts that don't corroborate your beliefs:
> 
> How do you think the Lancaster would have handled the Jet Stream over those distances? Assuming the Lancaster could reach altitudes where the Jet Stream was prevalent?
> 
> The weakness of Japanese air defences only proves that the Japanese air defences weren't all that good, please explain your logical progression from that to the B-29 not being the best overall bomber of WWII.



No, I think you need to prove that the B-29's record against a very weak opponent proves that it would succed in Europe. The B29s were suffering almost no losses, yet could still only muster 111 aircraft in late November 1944:

_On November 24, 111 B-29s of the 73d Bombardment Wing, XXI Bomber Command, took off on the trip toward Japan. They represented over 90 percent of the B-29s on Saipan. Some of the crews had arrived less than a week before, and their first takeoff was for Tokyo._

You already answered your jetstream question, as they would have flown under it, and so achieved much better bombing results, again, LeMay ordered low-level area bombing for a reason.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 30, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I have to disagree
> 
> Range in those shoes would be dismal
> Bombload looks poor, even with external stores
> ...



But she looks fast and I bet she hits the target every time!!


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> But she looks fast and I bet she hits the target every time!!


Yep
racy - and she sure hit mine


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 5]
_On November 24, 111 B-29s of the 73d Bombardment Wing, XXI Bomber Command, took off on the trip toward Japan. They represented over 90 percent of the B-29s on Saipan. Some of the crews had arrived less than a week before, and their first takeoff was for Tokyo. Each lift-off was an ordeal. As noted earlier, the B-29 was originally designed for a gross weight of 120,000 pounds. By urging and pleading, we had convinced the engineers at Wright Field to raise the allowable gross takeoff weight of the B-29s to 132,000 pounds. Now, to carry every gallon of gas that could be pumped aboard, they were taking off at 140,000 pounds! A faltering engine would spell the end for any aircraft.

Primary target for the B-29s on San Antonio I was the Musashino aircraft plant of the Nakajima Aircraft Company on the outskirts of Tokyo. The secondary targets and "last resort" areas were the docking facilities and urban areas of Tokyo. A total of 277.5 tons of bombs was delivered. Seventeen bombers turned back because of fuel problems, and 6 missed their bombing runs due to mechanical troubles. Flying between 27,000 and 33,000 feet, the bombers picked up a 120-knot wind over Japan, giving them a ground speed of 445 miles per hour. Twenty-four planes bombed the Nakajima plant on the outskirts of Tokyo, and 64 unloaded on the Tokyo dock areas. Only 1 B-29 was lost in combat. U.S. gunners claimed 7 enemy fighters destroyed and 18 probables. Final count for the XXI Bomber Command listed 2 B-29s destroyed, 8 damaged by enemy action, 1 man killed, 1 missing, and 4 injured. After the war, records indicated that 48 bombs had hit the factory area: 1 percent of the buildings and 2.4 percent of the machinery were damaged; 57 persons were killed and 75 injured.

The weather at the target had been far from favorable, and the bombing results left much to be desired. But losses were small, and the operation was completed despite the hazards and obstacles. Not the least of the hazards was the return flight to base. The mission lasted twelve to fourteen hours. _

So we have 88 B-29s with absolute max fuel, flying a " 12 to 14 hour" mission, delivering 277.5 tons of bombs. That works out to 3.15 tons/plane or 7060 lbs/plane.

Sortie loss rate = ~2.3%, damage rate = ~9%, *abort rate = 26%* . Now tell that same group to attack the same target the next day, and the day after that, and then a "maximum effort" on the following day...and then imagine what the serviceability rate and abort rates will be. Then factor in the incredibly dense German defences compared to the pathetically weak defences over Japan, and it is easy to see that the B-29 would have been able to operate with any degree of efficiency over Europe. It is also easy to see that their average bomb loads would not have been much, if any better. than a Lancaster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Sortie loss rate = ~2.3%, damage rate = ~9%, *abort rate = 26%* . Now tell that same group to attack the same target the next day, and the day after that, and then a "maximum effort" on the following day...and then imagine what the serviceability rate and abort rates will be. Then factor in the incredibly dense German defences compared to the pathetically weak defences over Japan, and* it is easy to see that the B-29 would have been able to operate with any degree of efficiency over Europe. * It is also easy to see that their average bomb loads would not have been much, if any better. than a Lancaster.



Utter BS - you're taking one mission and trying to paint this as the norm for all operational B-29 missions. Why don you use this one....

_
Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 335 B-29s took off[1] to raid on the night of 9–10 March, with 279 of them[1] dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost.[1] Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs.[2][3] The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million. These casualty and damage figures could be low: Mark Selden wrote in Japan Focus:

The figure of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to me arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors' accounts. With an average of 103,000 inhabitants per square mile and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile, the highest density of any industrial city in the world, and with firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of Tokyo were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas.[4]
The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace.

Over 50% of Tokyo was destroyed by the end of World War II._

And although the Japanese air defense network was less capable than that found over Germany, to call Japanese defenses weak is just ignorant.

7,366 Lancasters built - 3249 lost in combat

5026 B-29s built - 500 aircraft lost in combat

*Again - why did the RAF use B-29s (Boeing Washingtons) after the war if the Lancaster was so formidable???*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I have already given you information showing that it's defensive armament was useless until late 1944 due to canopy frosting, according to the General commanding the B-29 BG, and that after that date its RC firecontrol system was still unsatisfactory. Again, we have their record over Japan, which was only ~7000 tons dropped by March 09 1945. Both the General's account and the USSBS comment on the weakness of Japanese air defences.


All you have don was given NEGATIVE information about the bomber and try to justify the negative by saying the Japanese defenses were greatly inferior to those found over Germany. WE have shown the superiority of the B-29 in every aspect of operation and even into the post war years. Again I ask you...



*why did the RAF use B-29s (Boeing Washingtons) after the war if the Lancaster was so formidable??? *


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 30, 2010)

Flyboy,

I broadly agree with most of your arguments (per my earlier threads) but I don't think your statements about damage caused to Japanese cities is a valid justification of the efficacy of the B-29. Rather than an attribute of the aircraft's capability, it's more a reflection of the build materials in use for most domestic dwellings in Japanese cities. This may seem callous but they were ideal targets for incendiaries which is why LeMay switched to low-level delivery of these munitions as the means of causing the most damage as quickly as possible. It's also worth remembering that the B-29s were able to concentrate their effectiveness than was the case in the ETO because there were relatively fewer Japanese cities of industrial/military significance, ergo B-29s were more effective load for load and aircraft for aircraft but the key driver was operating environment not the aircraft.

Now, I entirely agree with your other statements - range, payload (although the B-29 would have struggled to carry the Tallboy or Grand Slam simply due to bomb-bay design), speed etc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Flyboy,
> 
> I broadly agree with most of your arguments (per my earlier threads) but I don't think your statements about damage caused to Japanese cities is a valid justification of the efficacy of the B-29. Rather than an attribute of the aircraft's capability, it's more a reflection of the build materials in use for most domestic dwellings in Japanese cities. This may seem callous but they were ideal targets for incendiaries which is why LeMay switched to low-level delivery of these munitions as the means of causing the most damage as quickly as possible. It's also worth remembering that the B-29s were able to concentrate their effectiveness than was the case in the ETO because there were relatively fewer Japanese cities of industrial/military significance, ergo B-29s were more effective load for load and aircraft for aircraft but the key driver was operating environment not the aircraft.
> 
> Now, I entirely agree with your other statements - range, payload (although the B-29 would have struggled to carry the Tallboy or Grand Slam simply due to bomb-bay design), speed etc.



Point taken but at the same time the night firebombing of Tokyo proved the versatility of the aircraft (the quick removal of the defensive armament)

As far as B-29s carrying tallboys? They did - one under each wing. And they were tested with the Grand Slam, and like the Lancaster, the bomb bay doors were modified.

I think we have a photo the the Tall boy being carried by the B-29 somewhere on the photo sections


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

The Extra-Super Blockbuster

_*"Toward the end of the war a B-29 had been converted to carry two 22,000-lb bombs, one under each wing, for use against Japan. The two atomic bombs, the Fat Man and Little Boy, made use of this special B-29 unnecessary"*_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I have already given you information showing that it's defensive armament was useless until late 1944 due to canopy frosting, according to the General commanding the B-29 BG, and that after that date its RC firecontrol system was still unsatisfactory. Again, we have their record over Japan, which was only ~7000 tons dropped by March 09 1945. Both the General's account and the USSBS comment on the weakness of Japanese air defences.



1. Whether the B-29 would perform well in the ETO or not is pure speculation, that can not be proven. 

2. The amount of tons of bombs dropped, has nothing to do with what bomber was the best or not. I will state again, this thread is about what was the *best bomber* not what was the bomber that contributed the most.

So please answer these questions again...

1. What bomber could carry a heavier bomb load a further distance? B-29 or Lancaster?

2. What bomber had better performance? B-29 or Lancaster?

3. What bomber had a better defensive armament? B-29 or Lancaster?

4. If the Lancaster was better than the B-29, then why did the British keep using the B-29 and not the Lancaster after the war? Think about it...

*I am not trying to take away anything from the Lancaster. I think it is a fine aircraft and in my opinion the 2nd best bomber of the war (which is not something to be ashamed of), but the B-29 was the next generation. It could do everything the Lancaster could do, and more. It was the better bomber. Facts are facts.*


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 30, 2010)

Flyboy,

Ok, time for me to shut my big mouth 

Wonder what the op radius of the converted B-29 would have been. Landing the aircraft if one of the weapons hung might have been sporting!

I still say that the Lancaster was the best bomber until the advent of the B-29 but the latter was a generation later in design philosophy and paved the way for future heavy bomber design in the jet age. Operating in wartime conditions for 3 years with little fundamental change to the design indicates how able the Lancaster was and, given its varied roles, how flexible it was as an overall design. Its performance remains remarkable but, like all things (even the B-29), it ultimately became obsolete.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 30, 2010)

One statement and a question 
Comparing armament on the 2 aircraft is just wrong for all intense puposes the Lanc was an unarmed aircraft with those 303"s . 
And my qusestion what was the average loss rate for Bomber Command not just aircraft lost over target but those that crashed on return and those that were deemed unrepairable . 
I read and I'm trying to find the article about how the Lanc was lightened by removing armour and the such to inrease bombload


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Flyboy,
> 
> Ok, time for me to shut my big mouth


No worries...


buffnut453 said:


> Wonder what the op radius of the converted B-29 would have been. Landing the aircraft if one of the weapons hung might have been sporting!


Hard to say - the weapons were tested on their aircraft but nothing was said about the range with an external load.


buffnut453 said:


> I still say that the Lancaster was the best bomber until the advent of the B-29 but the latter was a generation later in design philosophy and paved the way for future heavy bomber design in the jet age. Operating in wartime conditions for 3 years with little fundamental change to the design indicates how able the Lancaster was and, given its varied roles, how flexible it was as an overall design. Its performance remains remarkable but, like all things (even the B-29), it ultimately became obsolete.



Agree 100%


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. Whether the B-29 would perform well in the ETO or not is pure speculation, that can not be proven.
> 
> 2. The amount of tons of bombs dropped, has nothing to do with what bomber was the best or not. I will state again, this thread is about what was the *best bomber* not what was the bomber that contributed the most.
> 
> ...







_
So please answer these questions again..._

1) " Whether the B-29 would perform well in the ETO or not is pure speculation, that can not be proven", you've already answered the question and in facing strong German defences the B-29 might well have carried a lower payload over Europe than the Lancaster. Here's data on the most successful B-29 precision bombing attack to that date: _"The mission of January 19, 1945, against the Akashi works..*.56 B-29s* Bombing altitude was dropped to 25,000/27,400 feet, about 5,000 feet below previous levels...This decision was made to improve bombing accuracy.* A total of 610 500-pound bombs were dispensed*..." _ = *an amazing 5450lb/aircraft*. 

2) This depends on how you define performance, as the B-29 abort rate was so high that average mission performance suffered greatly, and it is the average performance of the aircraft in combat that counts. not paper performance stats.

3) The stripped B-29s that performed most of the combat missions and dropped the largest % of bombs carried 2 x.5" and 1 20mm cannon or 3 x .5". The average B29 mission probably saw the B29 carry a lower armament than the average Lancaster mission.

4) The British didn't keep using it, they began using an improved variant of the B-29, 4 years after the war ended. This is completely irrelevant to this thread despite some people trying to insist that it is.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> One statement and a question
> Comparing armament on the 2 aircraft is just wrong for all intense puposes the Lanc was an unarmed aircraft with those 303"s .
> And my qusestion what was the average loss rate for Bomber Command not just aircraft lost over target but those that crashed on return and those that were deemed unrepairable .
> I read and I'm trying to find the article about how the Lanc was lightened by removing armour and the such to inrease bombload



Ask a Luftwaffe night fighter pilot if he thought the Lancaster was "unarmed".

I know that the Lancaster was rated the safest of bomber commands aircraft.

The Lancaster was lightened to carry the 22000lb Grandslam and only the tail turret was carried, and the B-29s that carried out the bulk of their sorties also had the armament reduced to increase payload. Lancaster armament was reduced from 10 x .303mgs to 8 after H2S was introduced by removal of the lower turret.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _
> So please answer these questions again..._
> 
> 1) " Whether the B-29 would perform well in the ETO or not is pure speculation, that can not be proven", you've already answered the question and in facing strong German defences the B-29 might well have carried a lower payload over Europe than the Lancaster. Here's data on the most successful B-29 precision bombing attack to that date: _"The mission of January 19, 1945, against the Akashi works..*.56 B-29s* Bombing altitude was dropped to 25,000/27,400 feet, about 5,000 feet below previous levels...This decision was made to improve bombing accuracy.* A total of 610 500-pound bombs were dispensed*..." _ = *an amazing 5450lb/aircraft*.
> ...



1. That was due to the Jet Stream of the Pacific. The B-29 would not have had these problems in the ETO.

2. The B-29 is faster, can fly higher, can fly further and has better all around Performance. Stop trying to skirt around the question.

3. You keep skirting around the question again. The B-29 had better defensive armament all around. Fact is fact..

4. It is not irrelevant to this thread. When the B-29 was put into operation it rendered aircraft such as the Lancaster, B-17 and B-24 obsolete. Fact is fact.

Oh well, I am moving on from this thread. It is no different than the other ones. Fact still remains the B-29 was the best bomber of the war. It was the most capable bomber of the war. Now if you want to debate what bomber contributed enough to the war, that might be a different story (depending on how people look at it), but the B-29 was the most advanced and best bomber built during World War 2.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. That was due to the Jet Stream of the Pacific. The B-29 would not have had these problems in the ETO.
> 
> 2. The B-29 is faster, can fly higher, can fly further and has better all around Performance. Stop trying to skirt around the question.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but you want to quote paper stats and not operational data. Your're the one skirting around the issue by pretending that the B-29 was more than what it actually was.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 7,366 Lancasters built - 3249 lost in combat
> 
> 5026 B-29s built - 500 aircraft lost in combat



How many of those B29s were built during WW2?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Sorry, but you want to quote paper stats and not operational data. Your're the one skirting around the issue by pretending that the B-29 was more than what it actually was.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Ask a Luftwaffe night fighter pilot if he thought the Lancaster was "unarmed".


Ask an RAF gunner what the answer was to Schrage Musik. 
The Lancaster's best defence against German nightfighters was British nightfighters. Towards the end of the conflict RAF losses to night operations were becoming as heavy as the US daylight raids, once in the bomber stream it wasn't unusual for nachtjaegers to bag 4 aircraft per mission; the only real limit was their ammunition supply.

What was it that the RAF lost in night ops for 1942? 1,300 aircraft or something?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 4) The British didn't keep using it, they began using an improved variant of the B-29, 4 years after the war ended. This is completely irrelevant to this thread despite some people trying to insist that it is.



*100% BS *- the 88 "Washingtons" were stock B-29s and there was nothing "improved on them." There was equipment installed on the aircraft that was specific for RAF operations, but again you show your lack of knowledge on this by keep bringing up "improved" B-29s. They were the same basic airframes as those rolling off the assembly lines in 1944.

This IS relevant - it* CLEARLY *demonstrates the B-29 was the better of the two aircraft, during and after the war.

*"After retirement of Avro Lincoln bombers*, the Royal Air Force urgently needed interim aircraft for their bomber squadrons. Formal agreement with the USA was signed on January 27th, 1950 and the USAF loaned the RAF seventy B-29 bombers serialed WF434-WF448, WF490-WF-514 and WF545-WF574. Later another 18 were delivered under serials WW342-WW356 and WZ966-WZ968[2]. All aircraft served as the Boeing Washington B.1 with RAF Bomber Command from 1950 as a longer-range nuclear-capable bomber, pending the introduction of the English Electric Canberra in quantity.

The first 4 aircraft were delivered to the Washington Conversion Unit at RAF Marham on March 22nd, 1950. All B-29s for the RAF were ferried by the crews of the 307th Bomb Wing USAF. The first unit converted to Washingtons was No. 115 Squadron RAF which flown from USA in June 1950[2].

Squadrons based at RAF Coningsby were converted to English Electric Canberra bombers in 1953. Squadrons from RAF Marham were converted a year later[2]. Most Washingtons had been returned by 1955 although some (two or three?) remained in the UK as gunnery targets. Two RAF Washingtons took part in the SAC bombing competition in 1951 alongside USAF B-29s.

Royal Air Force 
RAF Marham 
No. 35 Squadron RAF 
No. 90 Squadron RAF 
No. 115 Squadron RAF 
No. 207 Squadron RAF 
RAF Coningsby 
No. 15 Squadron RAF 
No. 44 Squadron RAF 
No. 57 Squadron RAF (moved from RAF Waddington in April 1952)[2] 
No. 149 Squadron RAF 
RAF Watton 
No. 192 Squadron RAF operated Washingtons between April 1952 and February 1958 [2]."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> How many of those B29s were built during WW2?



About 3000 give or take....


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Ask an RAF gunner what the answer was to Schrage Musik.
> The Lancaster's best defence against German nightfighters was British nightfighters. Towards the end of the conflict RAF losses to night operations were becoming as heavy as the US daylight raids, once in the bomber stream it wasn't unusual for nachtjaegers to bag 4 aircraft per mission; the only real limit was their ammunition supply.
> 
> What was it that the RAF lost in night ops for 1942? 1,300 aircraft or something?



Thanks for pointing out how formidable the German defences were and how pathetically weak Japanese defences were. The USSBS survey makes a point to state that the low-level B-29 attacks, by stripped B-29s, that dropped something like 80% of their tonnage were only possible because of the weak Japanese defences. 

Yes, Luftwaffe night fighters scored many kills using their advanced radar and integrated defence system, but then read their wartime biographies and note how many were killed or injured by bomber defensive fire.


----------



## Glider (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _
> So please answer these questions again..._
> 
> 1) " Whether the B-29 would perform well in the ETO or not is pure speculation, that can not be proven", you've already answered the question and in facing strong German defences the B-29 might well have carried a lower payload over Europe than the Lancaster. Here's data on the most successful B-29 precision bombing attack to that date: _"The mission of January 19, 1945, against the Akashi works..*.56 B-29s* Bombing altitude was dropped to 25,000/27,400 feet, about 5,000 feet below previous levels...This decision was made to improve bombing accuracy.* A total of 610 500-pound bombs were dispensed*..." _ = *an amazing 5450lb/aircraft*.
> ...



I will have a go at replying to these questions. However its only fair that you reply to a couple that I ask at the end.

Replies
1a) I am confident that the range the B29's operated from was beyond that of the Lancaster
1b) The US dropped the bombing altitude to 25,000 ft from 30,000 ft, still considerably higher than the Lancaster which operated at 20,000 ft
2) I don't know the facts on this but a higher than normal abort rate should be expected due to amount of new technology in the B29. The Lanacster didn't have new technology and it could be argued was a second attempt at a design as the Manchester was fatally flawed. 
3) B29's could be stripped as the defence was weak. As a result it is better to carry bombs instead of guns and ammo you don't need.
4) Why is it irrelevant?

Question1
The Lancaster was replaced with the Lincoln in the RAF so we can assume the Lincoln was a better aircraft. So why did the RAF buy the B29 instead of the Lincoln, if the Lancaster was better.

Question 2
The B29 was faster, flew higher, flew further, had a heavier payload and was better defended, was in service in large numbers and would have shortened the war even without the A Bomb, so it certainly had a major impact on the war.
Can you in one sentance tell us again why the Lancaster was better?


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *100% BS *- the 88 "Washingtons" were stock B-29s and there was nothing "improved on them." There was equipment installed on the aircraft that was specific for RAF operations, but again you show your lack of knowledge on this by keep bringing up "improved" B-29s. They were the same basic airframes as those rolling off the assembly lines in 1944.
> 
> [2]."



_B-29A

Section source: Baugher[8] and National Museum[9]

Boeing B-29A-70-BN (S/N 44-62305). Note the streamlined top turret added on block 40 A models and later.

*The B-29A was an improved version of the original B-29 production model.* All 1,119 B-29A's were built exclusively at the Boeing plant in Renton, Washington, formerly used by the United States Navy.

Enhancements made in the B-29A included a better wing design and defensive modifications. Due to a demonstrated weakness to head-on fighter attacks, the number of machine guns in the forward dorsal turrets was doubled to four. Where the wings of previous models had been made by the sub-assembly of two sections, the B-29A began the trend of using three. This made construction easier, and increased the strength of the airframe. The B-29A was produced until May 1946, when the last aircraft was completed. It was much used during the Korean War, but was quickly phased out when the jet bomber became operational.

Washington B Mk 1 - This was the service name given to 88 B-29As supplied to the Royal Air Force._

B-29 Superfortress variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Ask an RAF gunner what the answer was to Schrage Musik.
> The Lancaster's best defence against German nightfighters was British nightfighters. Towards the end of the conflict RAF losses to night operations were becoming as heavy as the US daylight raids, once in the bomber stream it wasn't unusual for nachtjaegers to bag 4 aircraft per mission; the only real limit was their ammunition supply.
> 
> What was it that the RAF lost in night ops for 1942? 1,300 aircraft or something?



"In one night raid in March 30/31 of 1944 to Nuremberg 96 bombers (*64 Lancasters*,32 Halifaxes were shot down - plus another 6 a/c "written off" after returning to England. )"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Thanks for pointing out how formidable the German defences were and how pathetically weak Japanese defences were. The USSBS survey makes a point to state that the low-level B-29 attacks, by stripped B-29s, that dropped something like 80% of their tonnage were only possible because of the weak Japanese defences.
> 
> Yes, Luftwaffe night fighters scored many kills using their advanced radar and integrated defence system, but then read their wartime biographies and note how many were killed or injured by bomber defensive fire.



How would the Lancaster have served in the Pacific then doing the B-29s role there?

How does anything you have said prove that the B-29 would have been less? You have not stated anything yet?

I keep asking you these questions, because you are the one that has to prove it. You keep failing to do so.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _B-29A
> 
> Section source: Baugher[8] and National Museum[9]
> 
> Boeing B-29A-70-BN (S/N 44-62305). Note the streamlined top turret added on block 40 A models and later._


_ an improved turret? 




RCAFson said:



*The B-29A was an improved version of the original B-29 production model.* All 1,119 B-29A's were built exclusively at the Boeing plant in Renton, Washington, formerly used by the United States Navy.

Enhancements made in the B-29A included a better wing design and defensive modifications. Due to a demonstrated weakness to head-on fighter attacks, the number of machine guns in the forward dorsal turrets was doubled to four. Where the wings of previous models had been made by the sub-assembly of two sections, the B-29A began the trend of using three. This made construction easier, and increased the strength of the airframe. The B-29A was produced until May 1946, when the last aircraft was completed. It was much used during the Korean War, but was quickly phased out when the jet bomber became operational.

Washington B Mk 1 - This was the service name given to 88 B-29As supplied to the Royal Air Force.

Click to expand...

_


RCAFson said:


> B-29 Superfortress variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



*And this was still the basic airframe, (produced during the war) basic engine so your point is mute*

*"The B-29A was essentially the same as the B-29, differing from the B-29 primarily in the wing center structure." *

Boeing B-29A Superfortress


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Thanks for pointing out how formidable the German defences were and how pathetically weak Japanese defences were. The USSBS survey makes a point to state that the low-level B-29 attacks, by stripped B-29s, that dropped something like 80% of their tonnage were only possible because of the weak Japanese defences


Strange
the way I've read it, the fact that the B-29s came in at 7,000ft instead of their usual 30,000ft is what baffled the Japanese defences, not any inherent weakness. The Musashi raid was thwarted by air power's first encounter with the Jet Stream but there were several raids against engine plants in Nagoya, these lost an average of 5 aircraft per mission.

Missions over the Japanese mainland cooled whilst the B-29 was prioritised for Iwo Jima but Le May summarised performance so far with the jet stream, cloud cover and high operating altitudes being to blame for the lack of success so far. *The high operating altitudes were to keep the bombers out of range of anti-aircraft fire and effective altitude of defending fighters*.

Le May on resumption ordered the B-29s stripped of armament and the weight translated into incendiaries, which would be dropped from 5-6,000ft. *Flak losses were expected to be substantial*.

March 9-10th raid: 14 B-29s lost
March 11-12th raid: 20 B-29s lost
April 13th raid: 7 B-29s lost
May 23 25th raid: 42 B-29s lost across both raids

Still look to you like the Japanese weren't fighting back?

*Alarmed at the increasing B-29 losses*, a change of tactics was ordered. In an attempt to confuse the enemy defenses and to lure Japanese fighters into an air battle in which many of them would be destroyed, high-altitude daylight attacks were temporarily resumed. On May 29, 454 B-29s appeared over Yokohama, but this time they were escorted by P-51 Mustangs from Iwo Jima. In the resulting dogfight, 26 Japanese fighters were destroyed as against the lost of four B-29s and three P-51s.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

Glider said:


> Question1
> The Lancaster was replaced with the Lincoln in the RAF so we can assume the Lincoln was a better aircraft. So why did the RAF buy the B29 instead of the Lincoln, if the Lancaster was better.
> 
> Question 2
> ...



1) They bought both and the performance of the B-29 as a post war bomber under peacetime conditions tells us nothing. For all we know the Lincoln might have done better in real combat.

2) Given the German air defence system, your statement would probably be wrong. B29s in the Pacific could take off with overload fuel and fly low for hours before reaching their target. This would be suicide over Europe where fuel capacity would have to be reduced and max t/o weight kept down. Fighting over Europe and Japan are two entirely different scenarios. The B29s over Japan are exposed to the air defence system (or lack there of) for maybe an hour per mission:

_6/17 Jan 45 Brux, Czechoslovakia. 1 x 4000 lb, 12 x 500 lb. Pilot F/L F.Lawrence;
Engineer Sgt Dennis Baldry Logbook copy with DoRIS –X004-2456/001) .
Hit by light flak.* ‘Defences all the way*’ (Baldry LB)
Bomb aimer slightly injured.* Flight time 9 hours 43 minutes*
_

From S for Sugar. 9 hours and 43 minutes exposed to the German air defence system.

The Lancaster was better because it could deliver more bombs to the target, per mission, at 1/4 the cost.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2010)

The veterans at the B29 website who actually flew and maintained the planes, have never mentioned anything bad about the CFC system and turrets. They said it worked well after the bugs were fixed and maintenance crews knew what to do to keep it running. 

As for the B29's being stripped for night time raids; well General LeMay said one thing, and the aircrews did the contrary. And more than one Sr. Staff officer at the 20th HQ said "oh that must not ever happen again", with a wink of an eye. My source is the veterans who scoffed and laughed at the notion that the planes went off minus guns and crews.

As for the R3350 engine problems? Again, as problems were fixed and as the supply/repair system improved, engine availability improved. And ultimately, the ground crews discovered that with so many new engines being made available, it was easier to replace the engines (with moderate repair needs) rather than fix them in place, and let the rebuilders deal with them.

B29 were used in both daytime and night time operations. In 1945, the daytime ops went something like this; Takeoff and flight to Japan in an extremely loose "non-formation". As fuel is burned, each B29 slowly gains altitude. Eventually on approach to Japan, they navigate to a rally point (which at that time, they should be at or near attack altitude) and the formation builds up by squadron, group, wing. Then vector off to target at high altitude, bomb it, then navigate back to home individually.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2010)

Someone keeps reaching more and more. Same thing happens every time this topic comes up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 1) They bought both and the performance of the B-29 as a post war bomber under peacetime conditions tells us nothing. For all we know the Lincoln might have done better in real combat.


Do you have evidence of that???


RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster was better because it could deliver more bombs to the target, per mission, at 1/4 the cost.


FALSE - you're basing your argument on missions you pick and choose from and not from the operational capability of the aircraft.

Give it up, you're still grasping at straws


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> The veterans at the B29 website who actually flew and maintained the planes, have never mentioned anything bad about the CFC system and turrets. They said it worked well after the bugs were fixed and maintenance crews knew what to do to keep it running.


Do you have the link to that site - I lost it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> From S for Sugar. 9 hours and 43 minutes exposed to the German air defence system.



*"The 58th Bombardment Wing carried out 72 missions from India and China. Amongst them was the longest B-29 mission of the war, a 3,900 mile round trip to attack the crucial oil refineries at Palembang, Sumatra"*


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How would the Lancaster have served in the Pacific then doing the B-29s role there?
> 
> How does anything you have said prove that the B-29 would have been less? You have not stated anything yet?
> 
> I keep asking you these questions, because you are the one that has to prove it. You keep failing to do so.



We've already gone over this. For a fraction of the cost the USAAF could have been deploying Lancasters much sooner and kept the same range by using with air to air refueling. Lancaster runways are shorter, and hence easier to build, so Lancaster bases are in operation sooner and the aerial offensive against Japan begins sooner. The aircraft is debugged and ready for combat, unlike the B-29.

The max range of the Lancaster is 2530 miles with 7000lb bombs. Saipan to Japan is ~3000 miles. It is quite possible that a long range Lancaster could have used extra tankage to make with trip w/o air to air refueling, especially if the USAAF had spent even a fraction of the money spent to design and build the B-29:

_The Avro Lancaster heavy bomber which dominates the service aircraft display at the Aviation Heritage Museum at BullCreek in Perth, Western Australia is one of only 17 of these famous aircraft which survive intact throughout the world.

A MarkVII, it was amongt the last of 7,377Lancasters built between October 1941 and December 1945. Their exploits included the sinking of the German super-battleship Tirpitz and the classic low-level raid on the Mohne and Eder dams, as well as the attack on the Bielefeld Viaduct with what was then the world's biggest and most destructive bomb, the 10,000 kg Grand Slam. Ten members of Lancaster aircrews were awarded the British Commonwealth's highest decoration for valour. the Victoria Cross.

The BullCreek Lancaster was not completed until May 1945, the month in which Germany surrendered to the Allied Forces in World War 11. The aircraft was to be one of 150 Mark VIIs specially equipped for Tiger Force, the Royal Air Force's Intended heavy bomber force against Japan.

A total of 30 Lancaster squadrons were to be flown from Europe to the Far East between August and November 1945, to raid the Japanese mainland from bases in Eastern India and Okinawa.

Their aircraft, designated F.E. (Far East) Lancasters. had modifications which Included more powerful Rolls Royce Merlin 24 engines of 1640 h.p.; Nash and Thompson rear turrets with two 0.5 Inch Browning machine guns instead of the earlier four .303 Brownings; a Martin dorsal turret with two more 0.5's and an additional 1800 litre fuel tank in the rear of the bomb bay.

*With a typical 3,200 kg bomb load, this extended the aircraft's range from 4,200 to 5,300 kilometres. *Special lifeboat-dropping Lancasters would be available for rescue operations on long oversea raids. Other Tiger Force Lancasters were designated to carry Grand Slam and the almost equally destructive 5,300 kg Tallboy bombs over shorter ranges against special targets, or to operate in tactical close-support roles with the British / Indian Army In Burma.

An overall contract for 180 Mark VIIs, which included the BullCreek aircraft, was fulfilled by Austin Motors of Longbridge, Birmingham, England, Allocated the serial number NX 622, the aircraft was delivered on completion to No.38 Maintenance Unit RAF at Llandow in Wales. After the sudden surrender of Japan In August 1945 it was sent back to its builders for modifications before being returned to 38 MU for storage.

With World War II over, NX 622 was among thousands of military aircraft which now languished unwanted. It flew only seven hours in RAF service in the following five years. Then in June 1951, it was sent to its designers, AV. Roe and Co. for conversion from a bomber to a maritime reconnaissance aircraft as one of 54 Lancasters to be sold to the French Naval Air Service. I:Aeronautique Navale.

The sale was under an agreement entitled Western Union, a forerunner of NATO, which involved co-operationbetween Aeronavale and the Royal Air Force in patrolling Atlantic and Mediterranean shipping lanes. NX622 was re-numbered WU16 after modifications by AV. Roe and Co. which included the removal of the dorsal turret, provision for ASV radar equipment and lugs for an airborne lifeboat like those carried by some Tiger Force Lancasters.

*Auxiliary fuel tanks were also fitted in the bomb bay which extended the aircraft's operating range to over 6.500km. *The standard RAF camouflage was replaced by an overall blue livery._
History of Our Lancaster

Of course, once Okinawa falls then the Lancaster is within easy range to any target in Japan.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> They bought both and the performance of the B-29 as a post-war bomber under peacetime conditions tells us nothing. For all we know the Lincoln might have done better in real combat


I doubt it
sounds like they were getting rid of it to make room for the B-29

_16 OTU moved into the airfield with Mosquitoes and carried out its training role along with several other conversion units, 109 and 139 Squadrons. In March 1950 both squadrons moved to Hemswell to prepare to receive Canberras. The piston-engined *Lincoln was being phased out *and Conningsby received the Boeing Superfortress (Washington) with 149 Squadron who arrived in October 1950. XV Squadron, 44 Squadron and 57 Squadron also arrived making a four-squadron Washington airfield._

Dambusters

(second main paragraph)


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> As for the B29's being stripped for night time raids; well General LeLay said one thing, and the aircrews did the contrary. And more than one Sr. Staff officer at the 20th HQ said "oh that must not ever happen again", with a wink of an eye. My source is the veterans who scoffed and laughed at the notion that the planes went off minus guns and crews.



_B-29B
Boeing B-29B-60-BA (S/N 44-84061) "Pacusan Dreamboat."

Section source: Baugher[10] and National Museum[11]

The B-29B was a modification used for low-level raids, designed with the intent of firebombing Japan. Since fighter opposition was minimal over Japan in late 1944, many of the Army Air Force leadership — most notably Curtis LeMay, commander of the XXI Bomber Command — felt that a (lighter) faster bomber would better evade Japanese flak.

In the B-29B, all defensive armament was removed except for that in the tail turret. Initially the armament was two .50 in M2/AN machine guns and one 20 mm M2 cannon which was soon changed to three .50 in M2/ANs. The weight saved by removing the gun system increased the top speed from 357 mph to 364 mph (574 km/h to 586 km/h).

Also incorporated on this version was an improved APQ-7 "Eagle" bombing-through-overcast radar fitted in an airfoil shaped radome under the fuselage.[12]

All 311 B-29Bs were built at the Bell plant in Marietta, Georgia ("Bell-Atlanta").

_
B-29 Superfortress variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, as has been mentioned guns were removed during field mods as well.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> ...the USAAF could have been deploying Lancasters much sooner and kept the same range by using with air to air refueling


How many Lancasters do you envisage doing the Tokyo trip average per mission?
So how many in-flight refuellers?
Where are these in-flight refuellers staging from?
Could you get an entire aerial armada through the process before the guys at the back of the queue run out of fuel?
What would be considered an acceptable accident rate because I can't see it being low.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> ...many of the Army Air Force leadership — most notably Curtis LeMay, commander of the XXI Bomber Command — felt that a (lighter) faster bomber would better evade Japanese flak


Would this be the same flak that the Japanese didn't have?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> We've already gone over this. For a fraction of the cost the USAAF could have been deploying Lancasters much sooner and kept the same range by using with air to air refueling. Lancaster runways are shorter, and hence easier to build, so Lancaster bases are in operation sooner and the aerial offensive against Japan begins sooner. The aircraft is debugged and ready for combat, unlike the B-29.


And it was a dated airframe, taildragger and within 2 years of being obsolete. The B-29 carried a greater bombload higher and faster...

Its performance would not have made it a nuclear bomber unless you send the crew on a one way mission.



RCAFson said:


> The max range of the Lancaster is 2530 miles with 7000lb bombs. Saipan to Japan is ~3000 miles. It is quite possible that a long range Lancaster could have used extra tankage to make with trip w/o air to air refueling, especially if the USAAF had spent even a fraction of the money spent to design and build the B-29


You just don't get it?!? *It would have been 2 or 3 years before air to air refueling could have been deployed and perfected. You keep ignoring this!!! You just don't pull up to a tanker (even using a drogue system) and take on fuel. There's probably an extra 40 to 50 hours of training to learn to refuel and this was all figured out in the post war years....*


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

Colin1, i know B-29s originated in america, but the fisrt thread on page one said that both the lancaster and the B-29 were british. I was just noteing to him that the B-29 was american and that america had sold 88 of them to britian. I know it is out of the question that the B-29 was american, and i was just informng the guy who started this thread that it is. 

Who started the conversation about the B-17 anyway, we were talking about the B-29, not the B-17 to who ever that was.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

I agree with Flyboy, colin1. Air to Air refueling was not used in the second world war, or at least very, very littlely and was probaly just in the testing process.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> Colin1, I know B-29s originated in America, but the first thread on page one said that both the Lancaster and the B-29 were British...


Just had a quick flick back
I'm pretty sure he was saying he and his friend were Brits, not the two bombers in question


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> How many Lancasters do you envisage doing the Tokyo trip average per mission?
> So how many in-flight refuellers?
> Where are these in-flight refuellers staging from?
> Could you get an entire aerial armada through the process before the guys at the back of the queue run out of fuel?
> What would be considered an acceptable accident rate because I can't see it being low.



You didn't read the rest of my post:

The Lancaster Mk VII: _With a typical 3,200 kg bomb load, this extended the aircraft's range from 4,200 to 5,300 kilometres_ = 3290 miles. So far we've been comparing the Lancaster 1 to the all versions of the B-29...

As we've discussed earlier the RAF was influenced by the USAAF experiments with air to air refuelling in 1942-43, so it's not like the idea was unknown to the USAAF. but here's some more info:

Pioneer experiments: 

Aerial refueling: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

air to air refuelling was hardly new technology, even in 1943.

and:
_
By 1934, Alan Cobham of Britain had established the firm Flight Refuelling Limited (FRL) to develop the small but important fittings and hose connections that enabled aerial refuelling to be performed routinely. Cobham thought that aerial refuelling would have great advantages for commercial aviation. He was wrong though, for commercial aircraft never did use his techniques, but he was later knighted for his contributions to this field.

World War II brought about a hiatus in aerial refuelling technology development as combatants sought to develop extremely long-range aircraft with large internal fuel capacity. *In 1942, representatives of FRL visited the United States to fit their equipment to a B-24 Liberator tanker and a B-17 Flying Fortress receiver. The Army Air Forces planned to develop fleets of tanker and receiver aircraft.* However, aircraft with large internal fuel capacity, such as the B-29 Superfortress, alleviated the need for aerial refuelling._ http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/evolution of technology/Aerial Refueling.htm

If the USAAF used the Lancaster they would have been flying initially from the Mariannas island, and the range to Japan was about ~3000 miles, although a few targets were as close as ~2900 miles.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Would this be the same flak that the Japanese didn't have?



Yeah, but try evading it for 9 hours...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Pioneer experiments:



*YES - "EXPERIMENTS"*

Aerial refueling: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article


RCAFson said:


> air to air refuelling was hardly new technology, even in 1943.


It wasn't - it also wasn't proven operationally. There was no standard set up for a drogue system and how it would be deployed to to the receiving aircraft. All that came abut the in the post war EXPERIMENTS (if you want I'll provide a definition of the word) that led to the wide deployment - Oh yes, ON B-29s!!!


RCAFson said:


> If the USAAF used the Lancaster they would have been flying intially from the Mariannas island, and the range to Japan was about ~3000 miles, although a few targets were as close as ~2900 miles.


And the Lancaster had a range of 2700 miles, the B-29 3,200 miles. Do the math....

How many more Lancasters and tankers aqnd aircrews were needed for the same tasks?!?!

Now you want to talk about cost effectivness? All to support an obsolete airframe
Keep grasping!


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And it was a dated airframe, taildragger and within 2 years of being obsolete. The B-29 carried a greater bombload higher and faster...
> 
> Its performance would not have made it a nuclear bomber unless you send the crew on a one way mission.
> 
> ...



_The aircraft targets could not be found, hit, and destroyed with the radar bombing equipment and the meager information we had. So the units of the XXI Bomber Command required crash retraining to do high-altitude, daylight precision bombing and to fly in formations not yet selected. We had to plan on reconnaissance after we had created a base on Saipan. The airplane and engine factory targets were at the extreme limit of the B-29 radius of action as it was then understood. *Formations flying always reduces range, and it made completion of our missions (marginal at best) even more of a problem. In fact, it took several months of actual operation to master the techniques of fuel control that would give the B-29 its design capability... *_ HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]

_I requested that the units of the XXI Bomber Command be flown in squadron formation to Saipan under Air Transport Command control. This would let them get needed experience flying in formation over considerable distances. *The request was denied on the ground that the B-29 had not the range to fly in formation the 2,400 miles from Sacramento to Hawaii. The flight would have been without a bombload, in the face of no opposition, and with excellent communications, weather reporting, and base facilities.* These same units, on arrival in Saipan, were faced with a round trip of about 3,000 miles, with bombloads, in the face of expected enemy opposition, and with no weather data or communications. _

HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]

The Lancaster could have used Okinawa as a base for an atomic attack. The USAAF had 2 years to develop air to air refuelling after they began to consider the idea.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

I agree with flyboy. there were just a few experiments on air to air refueling during WWII.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And the Lancaster had a range of 2700 miles, the B-29 3,200 miles. Do the math....
> 
> :



Lancaster Mk VII : _With a typical 3,200 kg bomb load, this extended the aircraft's range from 4,200 to 5,300 kilometres. _= 3290 miles.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

to RCAFson, 90 miles isn't a big difference when it comes down to heavy bomber range. I just thought i'd let u know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _The aircraft targets could not be found, hit, and destroyed with the radar bombing equipment and the meager information we had. So the units of the XXI Bomber Command required crash retraining to do high-altitude, daylight precision bombing and to fly in formations not yet selected. We had to plan on reconnaissance after we had created a base on Saipan. The airplane and engine factory targets were at the extreme limit of the B-29 radius of action as it was then understood. *Formations flying always reduces range, and it made completion of our missions (marginal at best) even more of a problem. In fact, it took several months of actual operation to master the techniques of fuel control that would give the B-29 its design capability... *_ HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]


Your point?



RCAFson said:


> _I requested that the units of the XXI Bomber Command be flown in squadron formation to Saipan under Air Transport Command control. This would let them get needed experience flying in formation over considerable distances. *The request was denied on the ground that the B-29 had not the range to fly in formation the 2,400 miles from Sacramento to Hawaii. The flight would have been without a bombload, in the face of no opposition, and with excellent communications, weather reporting, and base facilities.*
> 
> *These same units, on arrival in Saipan, were faced with a round trip of about 3,000 miles, with bombloads, in the face of expected enemy opposition, and with no weather data or communications. *_
> 
> HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]



That was a decision of the operating command, nothing to do with the aircraft - the next line speaks for it self!!!!



RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster could have used Okinawa as a base for an atomic attack.


Could have would have - it still didn't have the altitude and speed to deal with the blast and there was a good possibility the aircraft would have been lost after releasing the bomb.



RCAFson said:


> The USAAF had 2 years to develop air to air refuelling after they began to consider the idea.


And another 2 years to deploy the system (Including modding all the planes and training aircrews. As stated, had this been done they could have been around for the Korean War!!!!


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

Flyboy is right RCAFson, just face it that the B-29 was and still is better overall.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> In fact, it took several months of actual operation to master the techniques of fuel control that would give the B-29 its design capability... [/B][/I] HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]



I went back and re-read this and it sounds like BS. 

"master the techniques of fuel control?" 

There's nothing to master on a pressure carburetor equipped engine. You either set the fuel control to auto and let it do the work, or you do this manually and lean until you have a rise in CHT. After "frying" and engine or two and dealing with the crewchief, the pilots and flight engineer would get it figured out.

keep grasping!


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

to RCAFson: Agian, B-29 is better, obvosly because people keep finding faults in what you say. get over it.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2010)

Back off, zniper. Unless you have facts to add to this, just keep quiet and learn.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point is that they would have had to fly formation for 2400 miles, IOW, just like they would over Fortress Europa, so once we add in bombs, the range falls to less than the Lancaster. Against Japan, the B-29 could use a leisurely climb (and so use overload fuel) to altitude and was free from interception or flack for 5 to 6 hours, and they only had to assume formation flying when close to the target.

I've already posted the speed data for a Mk VI, which was 345mph, and the typical service ceiling with an a-bomb would have been above 25000 ft, and probably higher with a stripped aircraft. Dr Ramsey who selected the Lancaster as a possible a-bomb aircfraft was well acquainted with the Lancaster's flight profile. 

You are saying that the USA could not have deployed aerial refuelling, using proven technology and a proven airframe. Sorry, but that's not very credible, given the enormous resources poured into the B-29 program.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I went back and re-read this and it sounds like BS.
> 
> "master the techniques of fuel control?"
> 
> ...



_MAJOR GENERAL HAYWOOD S. HANSELL, JR., USAF... In 1942 he became Commanding General, Third Bombardment Wing (B-26s), Eighth Air Force, in the European Theater. Subsequently General Hansell commanded the First Bombardment Division (B-17s), Eighth Air Force, and in 1944-45 the XXI Bomber Command (B-29s), Twentieth Air Force, in the Pacific. The latter command was one of only two long-range B-29 commands conducting strategic air warfare against Japan. 
_ HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Forward]
Yeah what does he know anyway?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

> The point is that they would have had to fly formation for 2400 miles, IOW, just like they would over Fortress Europa, so once we add in bombs, the range falls to less than the Lancaster.


So how did some of the long range missions the B-29s completed get accomplished???? Saipan to Tokyo is about 2400 miles! Tinian to Tokyo, almost 3000 miles!

Here's a list of B-29 missions. You now know the bases, do the math!


Date 
Target Number of Planes over target/Lost 
04 Mar Musashino Aircraft factory, Tokyo plus one alternate target [Last daylight raid] 159/1 
10 Mar Tokyo 279/14 
11-12 Mar Nagoya [6 hit secondary target] 285/1 
13-14 Mar Osaka [5 hit secondary target] 274/2 
16-17 MAR Kobe [3 hit secondary target] 307/3 
18-19 Mar Nagoya 290/1 
24-25 Mar Nagoya- Mitsubishi aircraft plant 223/5 
27-28 Mar Omura- Oita Tachiari Airbase, Kyushu 151/0 
27-28 Mar Shimonoseki Strait - mines 92/3 
30 Mar Nagoya- Mitsubishi plant 12/0 
30 Mar Shimonoseki Strait - mines 85/1 
31 Mar Omura Airfield- preparation for Okinawa invasion 137/1 
19 May Hamamatsu 272/4 
23-24 May Tokyo 520/17 
25-26 May Tokyo [largest single mission loss of planes] 464/26 
26 May Shimonoseki, Fukuoka, Fushiki Karatsu 29/0 
27 May Shimonoseki, Moji 9/1 
01 June Osaka [148 P-51 escorts, 27 lost to weather] 458/10 
05 June Kobe + other nearby targets 473/11 
07 June Osaka [138 P-51 escorts, one lost] 409/2 
11 June Shimonoseki Tsuruga - mines 26/0 
15-16 June Shimonoseki, Fukuoka, Fushiki Karatsu -mines 30/0 
22 June Himeji 52/0 
26 June Osaka + target on Kyushu [one P-51 lost] 510/1 
3-4 July Takamatsu 116/2 
3-4 July Himeji 106/0 
12 July Tsuruga 92/0 
19-20 July Fukui 127/0 
24 July Osaka - 2 separate raids 82/1 158/0 




> Against Japan, the B-29 could use a leisurely climb (and so use overload fuel) to altitude and was free from interception or flack for 5 to 6 hours, and they only had to assume formation flying when close to the target.


Which makes it so much better than the Lancaster!




> I've already posted the speed data for a Mk VI, which was 345mph, and the typical service ceiling with an a-bomb would have been above 25000 ft, and probably higher with a stripped aircraft. Dr Ramsey who selected the Lancaster as a possible a-bomb aircfraft was well acquainted with the Lancaster's flight profile.


And the Mk VI was never produced, because of the Lincoln, which was not around after ww2 either... 


> You are saying that the USA could not have deployed aerial refuelling, using proven technology and a proven airframe. Sorry, but that's not very credible, given the enormous resources poured into the B-29 program.


YES - and again its evident you know little about flying. It's the TRAINING that would have been the issue. I bet if we went with your "theory" about tankers and Lancasters, you would have lost 25% training and operational loss rate. Training and a deployment process needed to be developed and had it been don during WW2, the end results would have been disasterous!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _MAJOR GENERAL HAYWOOD S. HANSELL, JR., USAF... In 1942 he became Commanding General, Third Bombardment Wing (B-26s), Eighth Air Force, in the European Theater. Subsequently General Hansell commanded the First Bombardment Division (B-17s), Eighth Air Force, and in 1944-45 the XXI Bomber Command (B-29s), Twentieth Air Force, in the Pacific. The latter command was one of only two long-range B-29 commands conducting strategic air warfare against Japan.
> _ HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Forward]
> Yeah what does he know anyway?



And I'm telling you that comment is BS - I fly airplanes and I welcome comments by the other pilots on this board as well.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 30, 2010)

To evangilder, is this enough facts?
Statistics

Avro Lancaster
Number Built:7,377
Cost:$80,500
Powerplant:4 Rolls-Royce V12 Merlins, 1280 hp each, or 5120 hp total
Max Speed:280 mph
Ceiling:23,500 ft.
Payload:14,000 normal, 22,000 if "Grand Slam"mods added
Range:3,000 miles
Overall score out of eight Factors: 2/8 normal,3/8 if "Grand Slam" modified

B-29 Superfortress
Number Built:3,970
Cost:$639,188
Powerplant:4 Wright R-3350-23 supercharged radial engines, 2200 hp each, or 8800 hp total
Max Speed:357mph
Ceiling:33,600ft.
Payload:20,000 normal
Range:3,250 miles
Overall score out of eight Factors: 6/8 agianst normal lancaster, 5/8 if agianst modified lancaster

Here our the facts and I rest my case.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 30, 2010)

Hope you don't mind gents, love the debate going on, learning quite a bit  

Just curious, since we have first and second place nearly settled, what about 3?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> Hope you don't mind gents, love the debate going on, learning quite a bit
> 
> Just curious, since we have first and second place nearly settled, what about 3?



In my opinion, for an all-out bomb carrying aircraft - the B-24.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I've already posted the speed data for a Mk VI, which was 345mph, .


Are you aware that 345mph is faster then the Mosquito cruised . Look no one is knocking the Lanc but you gotta have rocks in your head to believe its a superior aircraft over the B29 . I believe a fact check is also in order the Lancs suffered a very heavy loss rate if aircraft damaged and crashes on return were counted in the numbers
Eg . The battle of the Ruhr there were 18056 sorties by Bomber Command 872 aircraft did not return and 2125 were damaged many to the point where they were written off 
I also know many ex Bomber crew and many of them preffered the Halifax over tha Lancaster


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "master the techniques of fuel control?"



There is some truth to that. The B29 flight engineers had their hands full in working out mixture, cowl settings and host of other variables in order to squeeze out the most efficiency of the engines.

I believe some of the veterans at the B29 website said that due to the demands of the flight engineer, they tended to be officers.

Physics Today August 2001

"The flight engineer's computer"

After flying by military transport via Australia and the Philippines, I reported a week later to the operations analysis unit on Guam, headed by the physicist Donald Loughridge. Before taking on a new technical assignment, I visited other B-29 bases in the Mariannas and studied the operational procedures of the 21st Bomber Command. By contrast with the 20th, the missions of the 21st involved long flights over water and short penetrations over Japan. It became clear to me that most of their B-29 operations were highly technical, requiring specialized calculations for which they were using ordinary slide rules and data compilations in tabular or graphical form.

The two-dimensional slide rule I had devised for computing ship lengths made me think of replacing the laborious methods of the 21st Bomber Command with specialized new slide rules that we could fabricate. To simplify construction, my new slide rules would have three components: a computing chart specialized to the particular problem, an aluminum frame with bent edges to hold the chart in place and serve as a guide for the third component, a transparent plastic slider with a vertical hairline that could be slid along the computing chart. And, of course, there had to be a sharp pencil with an eraser at the ready.

When I returned to Guam, I received a request for a special slide rule from Fred Fennema, an aeronautical engineer with the 21st Bomber Command's operations analysis unit. The staff flight engineers, he told me, wanted a slide rule that could accurately estimate fuel requirements for forthcoming missions. Flight-control data from an extensive test program with an instrumented B-29 had been compiled into an unwieldy two-inch-thick data book.

Figure 3
After discussions with the staff flight engineers, we developed a slide-rule computer that encapsulated this massive body of data onto two 15-by-4-inch charts that were inserted in back-to-back metal frames with edges bent to hold the plastic sheets and sliders. One chart had a number of two-dimensional contour graphs that gave the optimal miles-per-gallon flight-control settings for the B-29's current weight and altitude. The other side, shown in figure 3, had a computational chart that used two-dimensional arrays of logarithmic curves and scales. These were used to calculate (by a kind of perturbation-theoretic approach) the fuel that would be consumed with the actual less-than-optimal settings required by the combat mission.

The staff engineers recommended that we equip all B-29s with this computer. Indeed, by the end of the war, almost every flight engineer in the 21st Bomber Command had one. Charts for operation with only two or three of the plane's engines, printed on the back side of the four-engine B-29 charts, could be quickly substituted if one or two engines were lost. "


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> To evangilder, is this enough facts?
> Statistics
> 
> Avro Lancaster
> ...



And the source of those facts are???

That's the best you can do? Look, smartass, I said facts in this discussion. You are only throwing in things like "_B-29 is better, obvosly because people keep finding faults in what you say. get over it_" and "_just face it that the B-29 was and still is better overall_"

Why don't you rest your mouth, instead of your case, read and learn.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> There is some truth to that. The B29 flight engineers had their hands full in working out mixture, cowl settings and host of other variables in order to squeeze out the most efficiency of the engines.
> 
> I believe some of the veterans at the B29 website said that due to the demands of the flight engineer, they tended to be officers.
> 
> ...



Great information Sys but this is more of an operation based on a flight computer or in later years a "wiz wheel." These guys developed a slide rule that took the guess work out of setting mixture based on ambient temperatures, altitude, fuel flow CHT and EGT. This gave them the theoretical perfect fuel air mixture known as "stoichiometric." This is something that isn't necessarily mastered but achieved if the engine is set up correctly. Additionally an FE that knew his engine well knew his engine well would know when his mixture was set properly, and in later years the best FEs were guys who at one time turned wrenches. Maybe the problem was having officers as flight engineers!!!


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> Are you aware that 345mph is faster then the Mosquito cruised . Look no one is knocking the Lanc but you gotta have rocks in your head to believe its a superior aircraft over the B29 . I believe a fact check is also in order the Lancs suffered a very heavy loss rate if aircraft damaged and crashes on return were counted in the numbers
> Eg . The battle of the Ruhr there were 18056 sorties by Bomber Command 872 aircraft did not return and 2125 were damaged many to the point where they were written off
> I also know many ex Bomber crew and many of them preffered the Halifax over tha Lancaster



We are talking unloaded weight, by an aircraft with four 1650 hp engines, and only the quad gun tail turret Sorry, but it is very clear, that the Lancaster was the "best overall bomber", once you look at the B-29's actual performance versus it's claimed performance. 

Many of those aircraft, like S for Sugar, were heavily damaged but returned to battle. Thanks for once again pointing out the potency of Germany's air defence system. 

The Lancaster had a lower loss rate than the Halifax.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 30, 2010)

Just curious was the Lancaster adaptable so to speak. How would it have fared in the PTO? Some of the aircraft that served there looked especially worn from the sand, sea salt, etc etc....


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 30, 2010)

> Avro Lancaster
> Number Built:7,377
> Cost:$80,500
> 
> ...



Gee, that's 8 to one in favour of the Lancaster...the USAAF could have had 24000 Lancasters instead of 4000 B-29s!

This really sums it up, and there's absolutely no doubt that the Lancaster was the better plane. overall.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> We are talking unloaded weight, by an aircraft with four 1650 hp engines, and only the quad gun tail turret Sorry, but it is very clear, that the Lancaster was the "best overall bomber", once you look at the B-29's actual performance versus it's claimed performance.


If you say so - I think the concensus here greatly disagrees with you as you have not presented one shread of evidence to support that claim...


RCAFson said:


> Many of those aircraft, like S for Sugar, were heavily damaged but returned to battle.


And over 3000 others weren't so lucky.


RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster had a lower loss rate than the Halifax.


It also came on board later as well - that argument sounds familiar!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Gee, that's 8 to one in favour of the Lancaster...the USAAF could have had 24000 Lancasters instead of 4000 B-29s!
> 
> This really sums it up, and there's absolutely no doubt that the Lancaster was the better plane. overall.



But you get what you pay for. It would have taken 24000 Lancasters to do the Job of 4000 B-29s


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Gee, that's 8 to one in favour of the Lancaster...the USAAF could have had 24000 Lancasters instead of 4000 B-29s!
> 
> This really sums it up, and there's absolutely no doubt that the Lancaster was the better plane. overall.



The US had so much industrial capacity and riches, the cost of those B29's meant little.

BTW, by the time the Lancs could have been operating out of Okinawa, the B29's had already burnt out the heart of the Japanese urban area AND mined the inland seas to the point even coastal traffic couldnt sail.

And there is the question on just how many Lancs can you fit on Okinawa. Only the Mariana's had the real estate available to handle all of the B29's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

There's a poll posted - vote accordingly.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2010)

Some of the numbers in those "facts" don't jibe with numbers from the USAF and Boeing. There were plans to use Lancasters from Okinawa to bomb Japan as the Tiger Force that was the commonwealth part of Operation Downfall. But the B-29s put an end to the war before that could happen. 

There may be "absolutely no doubt that the Lancaster was better" in your mind, but others see it differently. The fact is that the B-29 was a generation ahead of the Lancaster and was more technologically advanced.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 31, 2010)

B-29...since it was THAT more advanced it took one B-29 to do the same as 4 Lancasters. 


But why would it be better to have 24,000 planes instead of 4,000? 

That'd just begin the mentality of using 1,000 plane formations to level a city (Like the B-17)....this has been said in a REALLY old thread by Chris before..."You put 4 crews up, you risk loosing 4 crews.....your put 1 crew up you risk loosing 1 crew."


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> The US had so much industrial capacity and riches, the cost of those B29's meant little.
> 
> BTW, by the time the Lancs could have been operating out of Okinawa, the B29's had already burnt out the heart of the Japanese urban area AND mined the inland seas to the point even coastal traffic couldnt sail.
> 
> And there is the question on just how many Lancs can you fit on Okinawa. Only the Mariana's had the real estate available to handle all of the B29's.



The Mk VII could have operated against Japan from the Marianas using internal fuel. The fully equipped Mk VII had a range of 3290 miles with a 7000lb bomb load. Strip out the nose and top turret and you've got even more range. perfect for those low level night attacks, or a nuclear strike...

History of Our Lancaster


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2010)

With 1,500 miles between the Marianas and Tokyo, that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. You stated yourself that formation flying decreases the range of an aircraft. If that was possible, why would Tiger Force position the Lancasters on Okinawa?


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jan 31, 2010)

The B-29 carried a 20,000 lb. bomb load.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

evangilder said:


> With 1,500 miles between the Marianas and Tokyo, that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. You stated yourself that formation flying decreases the range of an aircraft. If that was possible, why would Tiger Force position the Lancasters on Okinawa?



The Long range Lancaster force was originally conceived as operating from Burma, India and Ceylon, and they originally planned to bomb Japan from Burma.* The use of Okinawa was an unknown when original plans were drawn up but when it became available, it would have allowed the use of standard Lancasters to bomb Japan but other targets such as Malaya still required extended range aircraft. I don't know if the USAAF would have allowed Commonwealth Operations from the Marianas, but if they did the range of the Mk VII could have been extended further by using a lighter bomb load and/or reduced armament and/or additional fuel. External drop tanks could have been developed as well, but I don't know if that was considered. 

The long overwater flights allowed the B-29s to extend their range by climbing slowly and avoiding formation flying until near the target and Lancasters would have done the same. 

* Tiger Force air-to-air refuelling [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

I'm really sorry to burst everyone's bubble regarding the B-29 but here it is:

_Endgame in the Pacific, Complexity, Strategy and the B29. by G Scott Gorman, Major, USAF:

Chapter 5

*Uncertainty and Unintended Consequences*

A veil of uncertainty is the one invarying factor in war.

--Erich van Manstein

The B-29 was best known for its technological advances in engines, pressurization, and remotely controlled defensive armament. It was these technological advances mat gave the B-29 the capabilities to accomplish the doctrinally designated role of unescorted strategic bombardment at high altitude. It was, however, precisely these advances that gave both engineers and crew members the greatest difficulty. The hasty development of the B-29 (it went from conceptual designs to operational missions in five years resulted in numerous "bugs"; extensive technological adaptations were required to overcome them.

The Wnght R-3350 was renowned not only for its power, but also for the high incidence of engine fires.(1) In fact, an in-flight fire that originated in the engines had caused the loss of one of the two XB-29 prototypes and its entire crew.(2) One-fifth of all B-29 accidents between February 1943 and July 1945 were caused by engine fires Once a fire started in an engine, it was very difficult to put out; the carbon dioxide fire extinguisher system was inefficient, and several engine components were made of highly flammable magnesium. Engine fires were the biggest fear of B-29 crews. (3)

The need for pressurization to perform high-altitude missions competed with doctrinal demands for robust, remotely controlled defensive armaments—and both were technologically challenging requirements. Arnold noted that pressurization was "one of the biggest early headaches."(4) Early problems with pressurization forced practice bombing to be carted out from 15,000 feet instead of the prescribed altitude of 30,000 feet.(5) *Problems included rapid depressurization if there was a rupture of the pressurized compartments (a gunner's worst fear: he might be swept from the aircraft should his sighting blister fai)l and window frosting at high altitudes. Despite several modifications, which included such items as cockpit fans, gas heaters, and flexible clucks, these problems would persist throughout the war.*

The remotely controlled defensive systems, which were extremely heavy used non-retracting gun turrets that increased drag while decreasing the speed, range, and endurance of the Aircraft. One adaptation required by the nonretractable turrets was the addition of a tailskid to keep pilots from grinding off the aft lower turret when making high-angle takeoffs.(7) *Airmen at Eglin Air Proving Ground complained that maintaining the remotely controlled system was a difficult process. They also said the system was vulnerable and inherently inaccurate. The final report of the Eglin staff concluded, 'the defensive armament of the B-29 airplane is not suitable for a series of unescorted combat operations in theaters where the airplane will be subjected to more than brief, desultory fighter attacks."*

Despite the vulnerability and inaccuracy of the system, and despite aircrew preference for locally controlled gun turrets, the General Electric remotely controlled defensive system was selected for the B-29 because it made the problem of pressurization easier for Boeing designers to resolve.(9) *Concerns about the inadequacies of the defensive system eventually drove decision makers toward night missions instead of daylight raider Bombing was less accurate, but few Japanese fighters could effectively operate at night; precision bombing could be more effective gluing daylight hours, but the B-29s were then vulnerable to Japanese fighters.*(10)

These robust defensive systems had another important unintended consequence. Flying in relatively tight formations, the B-29s were highly susceptible to incidents of friendly fire This vulnerability encouraged the removal (at least for a time) of defensive armaments and the change on tactics from formation bombing to single aircraft flying sequentially over the target.(11)

Although frequently intended to be labor-saving measures, new systems often demand more training time and manpower to physically and intellectually process the added technological complexity. The B-29 experience serves as a case in point.

_pages 27-28

The B-29 could not survive in Europe and it was the USAAF that determined that this was the case.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 31, 2010)

That was alot mate, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Njaco (Jan 31, 2010)

> Although frequently intended to be labor-saving measures, new systems often demand more training time and manpower to physically and intellectually process the added technological complexity.



like air-to-air refueling.

and if ya wanna compare missions.....

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan45.html

http://www.usaaf.net/chron/45/jan45.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I'm really sorry to burst everyone's bubble regarding the B-29 but here it is:
> 
> _Endgame in the Pacific, Complexity, Strategy and the B29. by G Scott Gorman, Major, USAF:
> 
> ...



Again more tidbits taken out of context from someone who seems to know little about aircraft.

The problems you mention out of Eglin AFB were recorded by AAF "evaluators". These guys did not take the aircraft into combat and deal with the problem on the operational basis - why don't you post some of the comments about the aircraft that crews who actually flew her into combat had to say!

Let's see - that Eglin Report was written in 1944, but the bomber was still successfully deployed - why is that?

Fact remains that the B-29, despite its initial problems, brought the war to a close and again I repeat, just about accomplished what Bomber Harris only dreamed about. Not only did the B-29 deliver the final blow to end the war, it served on the front lines for another 8 years after the war, where the Lancaster was either SCRAPPED or relegated to secondary duties where it served well (SAR and ASW).

So far the poll isn't looking to good for you!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2010)

I am sure that we could find equally damning statements about the Lancaster during it's development process. Things gets rushed into service because of combat expediency. Does it mean the hardware is bad? No. 

The Lancaster ended up with Merlins because the Vulture engines were having issues too. The Lancaster was born out of the Manchester, which was rife with problems.

If the B-29 was that bad, why did it continue to be used in service after the war, and well into the 1950s, and being updated to the B-50?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The Long range Lancaster force was originally conceived as operating from Burma, India and Ceylon, and they originally planned to bomb Japan from Burma.* The use of Okinawa was an unknown when original plans were drawn up but when it became available, it would have allowed the use of standard Lancasters to bomb Japan but other targets such as Malaya still required extended range aircraft. *I don't know if the USAAF would have allowed Commonwealth Operations from the Marianas, but if they did the range of the Mk VII could have been extended further by using a lighter bomb load and/or reduced armament and/or additional fuel.* External drop tanks could have been developed as well, but I don't know if that was considered.
> 
> The long overwater flights allowed the B-29s to extend their range by climbing slowly and avoiding formation flying until near the target and Lancasters would have done the same.
> 
> * Tiger Force air-to-air refuelling [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums



So there goes all your bomb load and range comparisons out the window! 

And you keep bringing up the Mk VII - to be replaced by the Lincoln!

And I like this

*"External drop tanks could have been developed as well, but I don't know if that was considered." *



"Could have, would have should have." Do you have any technical data revealing that was planned or even feasible?!? I think you're trying to re-write history pal!

Face it, you're grasping at straws - despite all the problems with the -29 it got the job done. All the proposals you're coming up with would have not only mandated additional time, equipment and manpower, but would have prolonged the war, all based around the obsolescence of the Lancaster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

evangilder said:


> I am sure that we could find equally damning statements about the Lancaster during it's development process. Things gets rushed into service because of combat expediency. Does it mean the hardware is bad? No.
> 
> The Lancaster ended up with Merlins because the Vulture engines were having issues too. The Lancaster was born out of the Manchester, which was rife with problems.
> 
> If the B-29 was that bad, why did it continue to be used in service after the war, and well into the 1950s, and being updated to the B-50?



Just the Manchester debacle says it all - 200 airplanes drawn out of service in less than two years of service! 

Yes - the Lancaster got it right, but it took the failure of the Manchester to ensure that, and in the end that was probably a greater waste than the money spent to get the B-29 fixed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2010)

I have nothing further to add to this discussion because Joe is handling it pretty well, but RCAFson is pretty much grasping for anything he can, and it is not working.

You can not take the best things of one aircraft and compare the worst things of another as RCAFson is trying to do. You can prove any point you want by doing so. In the end however, fact remains:


B-29 was more capable.

B-29 was more advanced.

B-29 was the best. 

You can not prove otherwise...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 31, 2010)

I dont think even the successor to the lancaster, the Shackleton, was as good as the B-29. Perhaps the Vulcan or the Victor Bombers were better, but only maybe.

The B-29 outclassed every heavy bomber of any nation in the war. It could be argued that the b-29 was not as multirole as some other aircraft like the Ju-88 or the Mosquito, but no aircraft was as advanced or as capable in its designed function as the b-29


----------



## Hop (Jan 31, 2010)

> Hmm...
> 
> _______________Lancaster_____________B-29
> Cost_______________tick__________________x
> ...



Yes, and the B-29 was far more technologically advanced than the Lancaster.

And yet for all the speed, altitude defensive armament, the B-29 was most successful in mid level, night operations dropping a comparable bomb load to the Lancaster.



> Your logically fellacy is that they are not representative of real-world capabilities - they are. What they are not representative is everyday operational practice, which was not only determined by the plane's capabilities



No, the difference in tonnage dropped per sortie between the B-17 and Lancaster was very much down to the plane's capabilities. They frequently flew the same missions, yet the Lancaster carried more. That's because the B-17s bomb bay was not capable of carrying enough of the right types of bombs.

On paper the B-17 carried more than the Lancaster, in practice it didn't.



> max internal load were 14000 for lancaster and 9600 for B-17, 17600 were with 2 underwings 4000 bombs,



The maximum internal bomb load for the B-17 was 12,800 lbs, but the only way to reach that was by using 8 1,600 bombs, and the 1,600 lb bomb wasn't suitable for most targets.

With more common bomb types, the design of the bomb bay limited the loads that could be carried. 12 x 500 lbs, 6 x 1000 lbs, 2 x 2000 lbs.



> 1b) The US dropped the bombing altitude to 25,000 ft from 30,000 ft, still considerably higher than the Lancaster which operated at 20,000 ft



The altitude for the successful area bombing attacks on Japan was generally much lower than that. From the official history by Craven and Cate: 



> Except for the use of multiple targets the mission of 17 June was
> run off pretty much like those against the major cities. The planes
> were loaded with the familiar combination of M47 and M69 incendiaries
> and attacked by radar at altitudes between *7,000 and 9,200
> ...





> There were relatively few aborts and strays, and 520 B-29’s got
> over target to drop 3,646 tons from altitudes ranging from *7,800 to
> 15,100 feet*. The planned axis of attack had been designed to avoid
> the heaviest ground defenses but flak was intense; fighters were less
> ...





> The 285 that reached Nagoya went in at altitudes from *5,100 to 8,500
> feet* and unloaded I ,790 tons, I 25 more than had been dumped on
> Tokyo.



20,000 was the mean altitude for daylight attacks, night attacks went in much, much lower.



> The B29 was faster, flew higher, flew further, had a heavier payload and was better defended, was in service in large numbers and would have shortened the war even without the A Bomb, so it certainly had a major impact on the war.
> Can you in one sentance tell us again why the Lancaster was better?



I wouldn't argue the Lancaster was _better_, but the cited advantages of the B-29 didn't really turn out to be advantages in practice. The high altitude precision attacks were described by official history as a failure. The B-29 succeeded when the armament was reduced and the aircraft operated at low to medium altitude. It's hard to claim as an advantage features you remove or don't use.

The only real advantage of the B-29 _in practice_ in WW2 was payload. It was a much larger aircraft that carried more weight, either fuel or bombs. That came at a much greater cost.

Even with hindsight, if I was choosing an aircraft to bomb Germany in WW2, it would still be the Lancaster, rather than the B-29. If the target was Japan it would be the B-29, but only because of range, not because of altitude/speed/armament, which in practice just added to the cost, not the effectiveness.


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I dont think even the successor to the lancaster, the Shackleton, was as good as the B-29. Perhaps the Vulcan or the Victor Bombers were better, but only maybe.
> 
> The B-29 outclassed every heavy bomber of any nation in the war. It could be argued that the b-29 was not as multirole as some other aircraft like the Ju-88 or the Mosquito, but no aircraft was as advanced or as capable in its designed function as the b-29



The Shackleton didn't try to be a bomber it was a specialised maritime patrol aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 1) They bought both and the performance of the B-29 as a post war bomber under peacetime conditions tells us nothing. For all we know the Lincoln might have done better in real combat.


You seem to forget the why part of the question. Using this logic the Wellington had a fighting chance of being better than the B29. Lets keep it simple and rephrase it
Lancaster replaced by Lincoln, Lincoln replaced by B29. Your case is that the B29 is worse than the Lancaster. The question is why would the RAF have made such an illogical decision?



> 2) Given the German air defence system, your statement would probably be wrong. B29s in the Pacific could take off with overload fuel and fly low for hours before reaching their target. This would be suicide over Europe where fuel capacity would have to be reduced and max t/o weight kept down. Fighting over Europe and Japan are two entirely different scenarios. The B29s over Japan are exposed to the air defence system (or lack there of) for maybe an hour per mission:


I certainly could be having a stupid moment but can you explain how does
a) A B29 flying higher than the Lancaster (reducing the effectiveness of AA fire) 
b) Better defended than a Lancaster (improving its defence against nightfighters)
c) Going considerably faster than a Lancaster (significantly reducing its time in the danger zone)
make a B29 more vulnerable than a Lancaster


> From S for Sugar. 9 hours and 43 minutes exposed to the German air defence system.


And how long would he have been exposed to the Air Defence had he been say 50mph faster. A not here I know the ecc cruise wasn't that different but as you know the ranges in Europe were shorter and with the fuel load the B29 had options re the cruise speed


> The Lancaster was better because it could deliver more bombs to the target, per mission, at 1/4 the cost.


Cost an interesting observation as nearly all US equipment was more expensive but an irrelevent one in war. As the B29 had a better payload range that one is too hard to swallow.

PS an aside, do you have a brother who likes the 109, your approach reminds me of someone.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson, please do not quote the B-29 problems that were well documented in the early part of 1944. Every single one of them was resolved to the AAF's satisfaction. And none of those problems was considered a show stopper.

Its disingenuous to make reliability claims while disregarding the fact they had long been fixed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Glider said:


> PS an aside, do you have a brother who likes the 109, your approach reminds me of someone.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Hop said:


> Even with hindsight, if I was choosing an aircraft to bomb Germany in WW2, it would still be the Lancaster, rather than the B-29. If the target was Japan it would be the B-29, but only because of range, not because of altitude/speed/armament, which in practice just added to the cost, not the effectiveness.



Very well put.

Our friend seems to forget or never realized that the B-29 was never really destined for Europe. Had the war in Europe continued, the B-32 would have replaced both B-17 and B-24.


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson
Apologies for the 109 comment it was a bit of a cheap shot but your approach is similar


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Just some aerial refueling facts....

The first Cobham drogue units and hoses were purchased by the USAF in March of 1948. Two refueling squadrons were formed that summer and basically began training and experimenting with the new technology. The first "real serious" display of the capability of aerial refueling was demonstrated at the end of Feb. 1949 when Lucky Lady II (A B-50) flew around the world. The first "official" combat refueling was accomplished in 1952 - KB-29s to F-84s although there is evidence that at least one refueling mission was done in late 1951.

It took a year to get this technology plugged in and it was another 2 years before it was tried in combat. And the first planes to use this technology as a cohesive combat unit? B-29s and B-50s.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

Glider said:


> Lancaster replaced by Lincoln, Lincoln replaced by B29. Your case is that the B29 is worse than the Lancaster. The question is why would the RAF have made such an illogical decision?
> 
> 
> I certainly could be having a stupid moment but can you explain how does
> ...



The B29 (Washington) did not "replace" the Lincoln. It was provided free to the RAF and they phased the B29 (Washington) out long before the Lincoln. Doesn't anybody on this board know how to use Google!!!?

a) The B29 couldn't bomb accurately at high altitude, and I have already provided reams of data to prove this.

b) I have provided definitive data from USAF sources to prove that the B29 armament was ineffective.

c) The mission profile of a B29 over Europe and the speeds possible will not be same as over Japan, the bomber will have be over Europe while fully loaded, and this will reduce its speed, however, if you reduce the bomb load to less than a Lancaster, you could get higher speeds, but ultimately you will be using a bomber that is 8 x more expensive to deliver less payload per sortie.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

evangilder said:


> I am sure that we could find equally damning statements about the Lancaster during it's development process. Things gets rushed into service because of combat expediency. Does it mean the hardware is bad? No.
> 
> The Lancaster ended up with Merlins because the Vulture engines were having issues too. The Lancaster was born out of the Manchester, which was rife with problems.
> 
> If the B-29 was that bad, why did it continue to be used in service after the war, and well into the 1950s, and being updated to the B-50?



Actually if things are rushed into service before they are ready, then yes it does mean that the hardware is bad.

The Lancaster was created out of the Manchester in 1941, went into full production in 1942 and even the Mk1 Lancaster compares well to the B29, but the Lancaster was continuously developed during the war and the later long-range variants could have performed the B29's missions.

The problems with the B29 were eventually sorted out, although the engines were always unreliable.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

Glider said:


> RCAFson
> Apologies for the 109 comment it was a bit of a cheap shot but your approach is similar



I'm using USAF sources and data from official testing and combat reports. I don't understand how this can be considered below board. The simple fact is that Japan had a virtually worthless air-defence system and it was only over Japan that the B-29 could survive, this isn't a cheap shot, as it was the official position of the USAAF during WW2.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The problems with the B29 were eventually sorted out, although the engines were always unreliable.



guessing by your screen name your Canadian if the engines were so unreliable why did the RCAF use them until mid 80's


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2010)

> Actually if things are rushed into service before they are ready, then yes it does mean that the hardware is bad.


Not even close. Not being ready and bad are very different.



> later long-range variants could have performed the B29's missions.



Could have, but didn't. Could'a should'a would'a...

The engine problems did get sorted out late in the war.

High altitude bombing over Japan was not accurate for any aircraft because the jet stream was a phenomenon not understood at the time. 

From the Air Force Times (Oct 2008)


> Over Japan, the B-29s encountered the jet stream, fierce winds above 25,000 feet that added as much as 250 mph to an aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. The jet stream pushed the bombers over the target too fast for the Norden bombsight to compensate.



Sounds more like the bombsight was at issue here, not the aircraft delivering the bombs. When dropping non-guided munitions, "precision" is subjective.

If the B-29 defensive armament was ineffective, I can only imagine how the little .303 pea-shooters would fare...


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Yeah, but try evading it for 9 hours...


What do you mean?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

A few more things...

With the RAF accepting the Washington, its quite evident that even the primary operator was well aware of the Lancaster's AND Lincoln's obsolescence. I'm sure bomber command was well aware of the initial problems encountered with the B-29, but yet they fore go their own Lancaster for the Boeing bomber. It was evident that...

The B-29 was way technically advanced

*Single pilot operations on multi engine aircraft was an operational hazard, especially during Instrument Meterotical Conditions*

*The Lancaster or Lincoln could not deliver nuclear weapons. And I'd be real apprehensive seeing a large tail dragger aircraft taking off in a strong crosswind carrying a nuclear bomb!!!*

The B-29 in the "silverplate" configuration was the perfect and most cost effective way to go until the Canberra and Victor came on line.

The Lancaster, just by it's configuration immediately doomed it in the post war years. For the bombing of Germany it was perfect but the deployment of the B-29 upped the ante and showed that the Lancaster was from a by-gone error.

Other flawed facts by RCAFson;

Even "IF" the USAAF had decided to go with a license built copy of the Lancaster, at least 3 other factories would have had to be constructed to keep up with the demand. Taking aircraft from Canadian production lines might have been a solution, but aircraft were still needed in Europe. The tooling and production facilities for the B-29 were established an in place. In 1943 only 97 B-29 were built. There were post production mods that had to be incorporated to make the aircraft combat ready, but by the end of the war 3700 B-29s were produced. In a little over 1 1/2 years B-29 production equaled more than half of the Lancaster production which first started in 1941!!!!

There is no doubt there were major problems with this aircraft, but as pointed out by Syscom, those problems were addressed by the time the bomber offensive over Japan got into full swing, LeMay would not have allowed a "substandard" bomber to lead his aerial assault . By the end of the war there were over 1,000 B-29s fully operational and deployed in the Pacific. In fact it took over two years to really get Lancaster production going as evident by the Hercules-powered Lancasters due to shortages with the Merlin engines. I'm not even including the time wasted with the Manchester.
*
Bringing up "Aerial Refueling" is just making excuses for the baselessness of your arguement.*

This was not "cut and paste" information and references for this information can be supplied. Bottom line, the B-29 was the best over all bomber of WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The B29 (Washington) did not "replace" the Lincoln. It was provided free to the RAF and they *phased the B29 (Washington) out long before the Lincoln*. Doesn't anybody on this board know how to use Google!!!?



The last B-29 left the RAF in December 1957

The last Lincolns left Bomber command in 1955.

Here I Googled it for you as it seems this is the only way you're educating yourself on the subject. 

Avro Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of the Washington


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> What do you mean?



_ The XX Bomber Command

The initial operations of the XX Bomber Command in India and China did not go well. Logistic problems had been expected, but the operational tactics were not yielding results even when the B-29s had sufficient gas and bombs to attack their targets. Brig. Gen. Kenneth B. Wolfe was using night operations exclusively. The coke oven targets (prescribed as first priority) did not present good radar images and were not easily seen at night. In consequence, the bombs were not being placed on their targets. As Chief of Staff of the Twentieth Air Force, I prodded General Wolfe to improve bombing results. I requested daylight bombing of the coke ovens in the Mukden area in Manchuria, where Japanese fighter defenses were not very effective. The available B-29 force was deemed by some to be too small to penetrate the air defenses of the Japanese islands themselves. Others of us believed it could be done. As a matter of fact, the XXI did pierce the air defenses of Tokyo in raids from the Marianas later in the year, with only one wing of B-29s -- the same strength available to the XX.* General Wolfe vigorously denied that his B-29s could fly in formations in daylight to these targets. He also categorically said B-29s could not reach their targets in daylight in formation from the Marianas.* This assessment dealt a real body blow to the operational plans of the XXI. *Wolfe was the only air commander having actual experience with the airplane, and he was the real expert and final authority on the technical aspects of the B-29 itself.*

* I directed Colonel Combs, Chief of Combat Operations for the Twentieth, to conduct practice tests to confirm or refute this contention that the B-29 had insufficient range to operate in formation as required. He went to Eglin Field, Florida, and set up a test run over the Gulf of Mexico simulating the flight from the 
Marianas to Tokyo and back. Simulated bombloads of 8,000 pounds were carried as well as full loads of ammunition. Combs could muster but 3 B-29s for the test, but it was run with wartime combat tactics imitated as closely as possible, including the nature of the formation itself. That is to say, the test entailed initial assembly, loose formation en route, climb to 30,000 feet for the bomb run, tight defensive formation in the areas of potential fighter interception, and retention of that formation until beyond the range of enemy fighters, then return to base in loose formation.*

*The aircraft all returned successfully to the original base, Eglin Field, but gasoline reserves were admittedly too low. Though the operation was feasible, much remained to be learned about fuel consumption and daylight tactics if large formations were to be flown over those distances. Upon receiving the report of the test, General Wolfe still did not move from the stand he had taken. The B-29 was a magnificent engineering achievement, but it was new and different and it had new engines that we did not fully understand.*_ HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]

Now over Europe, the B29 has to be in tight formation right from the very start of the mission, and it has to climb to 30k ft right away and stay there for the whole mission. The aircraft, day or night are subject to attack for almost the entire mission by day and the entire mission by night. Over Japan, they are only within reach of the air defences for less than an hour per mission.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I'm using USAF sources and data from official testing and combat reports. I don't understand how this can be considered below board. The simple fact is that Japan had a virtually worthless air-defence system and it was only over Japan that the B-29 could survive, this isn't a cheap shot, as it was the official position of the USAAF during WW2.



Because you have *GOOGLED* and posted information for YOUR benefit. You fail to mention the failures of the Manchester, the initial production problems with the Lancaster - the inability of the manufacturer to keep up with production, and the fact that as complex and troublesome the B-29 was, it out produced the Lancaster almost 3 to 1.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> He also categorically said B-29s could not reach their targets in daylight in formation from the Marianas.[/B] This assessment dealt a real body blow to the operational plans of the XXI. *Wolfe was the only air commander having actual experience with the airplane, and he was the real expert and final authority on the technical aspects of the B-29 itself.*



*You keep posting this but the fact IS the B-29 DID reach its targets from the Marianas*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Now over Europe, the B29 has to be in tight formation right from the very start of the mission, *and it has to climb to 30k ft *right away and stay there for the whole mission. The aircraft, day or night are subject to attack for almost the entire mission by day and the entire mission by night. Over Japan, they are only within reach of the air defences for less than an hour per mission.


Yep - a credit to the design of the aircraft.

Now let's see - the Lancaster could fly how high?!?!


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

evangilder said:


> If the B-29 defensive armament was ineffective, I can only imagine how the little .303 pea-shooters would fare...




_The remotely controlled defensive systems, which were extremely heavy used non-retracting gun turrets that increased drag while decreasing the speed, range, and endurance of the Aircraft. One adaptation required by the nonretractable turrets was the addition of a tailskid to keep pilots from grinding off the aft lower turret when making high-angle takeoffs.(7) Airmen at Eglin Air Proving Ground complained that maintaining the remotely controlled system was a difficult process. They also said the system was vulnerable and inherently inaccurate. The final report of the Eglin staff concluded, 'the defensive armament of the B-29 airplane is not suitable for a series of unescorted combat operations in theaters where the airplane will be subjected to more than brief, desultory fighter attacks."
_

Again, the Lancaster was 1/8 as expensive as a B-29, yet it's survivability was no better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _The remotely controlled defensive systems, which were extremely heavy used non-retracting gun turrets that increased drag while decreasing the speed, range, and endurance of the Aircraft. One adaptation required by the nonretractable turrets was the addition of a tailskid to keep pilots from grinding off the aft lower turret when making high-angle takeoffs.(7) Airmen at Eglin Air Proving Ground complained that maintaining the remotely controlled system was a difficult process. They also said the system was vulnerable and inherently inaccurate. The final report of the Eglin staff concluded, 'the defensive armament of the B-29 airplane is not suitable for a series of unescorted combat operations in theaters where the airplane will be subjected to more than brief, desultory fighter attacks."
> _



And by July 1945 that was totally discounted as B-29 gunners had over 100 Japanese fighters to their credit.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *You keep posting this but the fact IS the B-29 DID reach its targets from the Marianas*



Effective bombing only began after they dropped all pretence of precision bombing and adopted low level area attacks which were possible by stripping the aircraft and conducting the whole mission at low altitude. The B-29 could not effectively carry out precision bombing from the Marianas, this is a simple fact and General Hansell was removed from command for insisting on high level precision bombing.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _ The XX Bomber Command
> 
> The initial operations of the XX Bomber Command in India and China did not go well. Logistic problems had been expected, but the operational tactics were not yielding results even when the B-29s had sufficient gas and bombs to attack their targets. Brig. Gen. Kenneth B. Wolfe was using night operations exclusively. The coke oven targets (prescribed as first priority) did not present good radar images and were not easily seen at night. In consequence, the bombs were not being placed on their targets. As Chief of Staff of the Twentieth Air Force, I prodded General Wolfe to improve bombing results. I requested daylight bombing of the coke ovens in the Mukden area in Manchuria, where Japanese fighter defenses were not very effective. The available B-29 force was deemed by some to be too small to penetrate the air defenses of the Japanese islands themselves. Others of us believed it could be done. As a matter of fact, the XXI did pierce the air defenses of Tokyo in raids from the Marianas later in the year, with only one wing of B-29s -- the same strength available to the XX.* General Wolfe vigorously denied that his B-29s could fly in formations in daylight to these targets. He also categorically said B-29s could not reach their targets in daylight in formation from the Marianas.* This assessment dealt a real body blow to the operational plans of the XXI. *Wolfe was the only air commander having actual experience with the airplane, and he was the real expert and final authority on the technical aspects of the B-29 itself.*
> 
> ...



So what you are saying is that the study showed that flying from the Marianas to Tokyo and back with a formation was "dangerously low on reserves" at the end of it. Yet there were many, many missions from the Marianas to Japan and back. So what is your point?



> Though the operation was feasible, much remained to be learned about fuel consumption and daylight tactics if large formations were to be flown over those distances.



Apparently, that much to be learned was learned...


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The last B-29 left the RAF in December 1957
> 
> The last Lincolns left Bomber command in 1955.
> 
> ...




_The Lincolns of Bomber Command were phased out from the mid-1950s, and were completely replaced by jet bombers by 1963. The last Lincolns in RAF service were five operated by No. 151 Squadron, Signals Command, at RAF Watton, Norfolk, which were finally retired on 12 March 1963.[3]

The final RAAF Lincolns were retired in 1961_

from the wikipedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Effective bombing only began after they dropped all pretence of precision bombing and adopted low level area attacks which were possible by stripping the aircraft and conducting the whole mission at low altitude. The B-29 could not effectively carry out precision bombing from the Marianas, this is a simple fact and General Hansell was removed from command for insisting on high level precision bombing.


Now don't weasel out of this - you tried to say that USAAF staff claimed that the B-29 COULD NOT operate from the Marianas, this was proven to be NOT TRUE!!!

http://www.rafwatton.info/History/TheWashington/tabid/90/Default.aspx


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The final RAAF Lincolns were retired in 1961[/I]
> 
> from the wikipedia



Were they in Bomber Command? NO!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Effective bombing only began after they dropped all pretence of precision bombing and adopted low level area attacks which were possible by stripping the aircraft and conducting the whole mission at low altitude. The B-29 could not effectively carry out precision bombing from the Marianas, this is a simple fact and General Hansell was removed from command for insisting on high level precision bombing.



And again, as stated before, high altitude bombing over Japan would not have been possible with ANY aircraft of the day because of the lack of understanding of the jet stream over Japan. That was not the fault of the B-29, but an ignorance of meteorological conditions. The Lancaster would have fared no better at high altitude bombing over Japan either.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

evangilder said:


> And again, as stated before, high altitude bombing over Japan would not have been possible with ANY aircraft of the day because of the lack of understanding of the jet stream over Japan.* That was not the fault of the B-29, but an ignorance of meteorological conditions. The Lancaster would have fared no better at high altitude bombing over Japan either*.



And the Lancaster "would have" (to coin a very common term by our friend" been smack in the middle of it due to its altitude limitations


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

So far RCAFson you have only showed the negative portion of these and operational reports reports compiled in 1944 Why aren't you posting the end results and corrective actions taken that reversed almost everything negatively written in those reports? That's factual information, not speculative stuff like aerial refueling and drop tanks.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 31, 2010)

I think that the B-29 and the Lancaster is an odd comparison at times, since they were designed for two completely different theatres in the war, B-29 would be unsuitable in ETO and other way around, the Lancaster couldn't do the job that the B-29 did and I think that the losses of the same would have been greater had it been used in ETO against the Luftwaffe. With the distances in the PTO were by far greater than in the ETO, how far is it between the UK and the major targets in Germany and between the B-29 bases and Tokyo etc.? 

As I see it, B-29 and Lancaster are both are heavy bombers, four engines, 11 v 7 in crew, Range: 3,250 miles/5,230 km v 3,000 miles/4,600 km and that with minimal bomb load for the Lancaster, the B-29 ceiling is roughly 2000 meters above that of the Lancaster, just to mention a few things.

Seeing that I picked this on Wiki, which don't always trust, the Lancaster and B-29 aren't even on each others 'Comparable Aircraft' list...

Interesting thread though, as I like both aircrafts!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2010)

Both Boeing and the USAF give the range of the B-29 at 5,830 miles.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 31, 2010)

The B-29 began a new class of it's own class when introduced, "Super Heavy Bomber"


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> The B-29 began a new class of it's own class when introduced, "Super Heavy Bomber"



It was "Very Heavy Bomber"


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The history of the Washington



Thanks for the link.





evangilder said:


> The engine problems did get sorted out late in the war.



I beg to differ:

_I suppose a word or two about the engines would not be amiss at this juncture. They are big and
powerful; they are also mean b........s. Temperamental as a bear with a sore head, they need a lot of
looking after, both in the air and on the ground. The two row, 18 cylinder, collection of intermittently
moving parts will, if all goes well, produce some 2200 galloping horses. Getting them all pulling in the
same direction is the real trick. In an attempt to achieve this, the fuel is fed via two injector carbs
which are interconnected and must be synchronized; a delicate and time-consuming job carried out by
the engine mechs. Once the fuel is burned it exhausts via a pair of turbines which, in turn, drive the
superchargers; hence the term Turbo-Supercharged. These two features can be, and more often than
not are, the cause of much gnashing of the flight engineer's teeth and asymmetric approaches.
Reliability is not a word recognized by the manufacturers of this engine. *Witness the first aircraft
delivered to the RAF on 22nd March 1950. WF437 (alias USAF 44-69680) arrived before the
ceremonially assembled group of VIPs with No. 3 engine feathered, its cowlings drenched in oil;
surely an omen of things to come!*_
(issue 15 above)

B29A (Washington) Specifications:

Range 6598km = 4090 miles
Payload 6000lb
or 1610km (1000 miles) with a 17500lb payload.
So we have:
4090 miles with a 6000lb payload
1000 miles with 17500lb payload
(issue 14 above)

We also have the B29 flying a ~3000 mile mission with an 8000lb bomb load and returning with dangerously low fuel reserves.

Lancaster I range with bomb load:

2530 miles with 7000 pound bomb load
1730 miles with 12,000 pound bomb load
1550 miles with 22,000 pound bomb load 

Lancaster VII = 3290 miles with a 7000lb payload.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I beg to differ:
> 
> _I suppose a word or two about the engines would not be amiss at this juncture. They are big and
> powerful; they are also mean b........s. Temperamental as a bear with a sore head, they need a lot of
> ...


And that was typical for any large radial engine of the day...I suggest you study other large radials of the day that exhibited similar problems but admittedly the 3350 was very troublesome. It still did not detract from the B-29 from completing its mission





RCAFson said:


> B29A (Washington) Specifications:
> 
> Range 6598km = 4090 miles
> Payload 6000lb
> ...


*Define "dangerously low?????*




RCAFson said:


> Lancaster VII = 3290 miles with a 7000lb payload.



Please provide your sources - you keep saying "Lancaster VII when in actuality you're talking "LINCOLN"

From Wiki but several other books say the same...

"The Avro Lincoln was Roy Chadwick's development of the Lancaster, built to the Air Ministry Specification B.14/43, having a longer span, a higher aspect ratio (10.30 compared with 8.02) wings with two-stage supercharged Rolls-Royce Merlin 85 engines, and a bigger fuselage with increased fuel and bomb loads. As a result, the Lincoln had a higher operational ceiling and longer range than the Lancaster. The prototype Lincoln was assembled by Avro's experimental flight department at Manchester's Ringway Airport and made its maiden flight from there on 9 June 1944.[1]

*It was known initially as the Lancaster IV and V (the V having the Merlin 68A engines), but these were renamed Lincoln I and II*."

Range, 1470 miles with max. bomb load and *2930 miles with max. fuel.*

No matter what you're under 3000 miles (1500 mile radius) with the Lincoln.

"Maximum internal short-range, low-altitude bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude."

Boeing B-29A Superfortress


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

*Since you're bringing in the Lincoln, let's compare it to the B-50!!!!*

From Wiki

Specifications (Lincoln I)
Data from Aircraft of the Royal Air Force 1918-57 [15]

General characteristics

Crew: 7 (pilot, flight engineer/co-pilot, navigator, wireless operator, front gunner/bomb aimer, dorsal and rear gunners)
Length: 78 ft 3½ in (23.86 m)
Wingspan: 120 ft (36.58 m)
Height: 17 ft 3½ in (5.27 m)
Wing area: 1,421 ft² (132.01 m²)
Empty weight: 43,400 lb (19,686 kg)
Loaded weight: 75,000 lb (34,100 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 82,000 lb [16] (37,273 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin 85 V piston engine, 1,750 hp (1,305 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 319 mph (475 km/h) at 18,800 (5,640 m)
Cruise speed: 215 mph (346 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m)
Range: 2,930 mi (4,720 km) with maximum bomb-load 1,470 miles (2,370 km)
Service ceiling: 30,500 ft (9,295 m)
Rate of climb: 800 ft/min (245 m/min)
Armament


Guns: 2 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in nose and tail turrets, and dorsal turret with either twin .50 in machine guns or twin 20 mm Hispano cannon.
Bombs: Up to 14,000 lb (6,400 kg) of bombs [17] (normal maximum). Exceptionally one 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) DP bomb.[18]

Boeing B-50

General characteristics

Crew: 8: Pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, radio/electronic countermeasures operator, two side gunners, top gunner and tail gunner
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
Height: 32 ft 8 in (10.0 m)
Wing area: 1736 ft² (161.3 m²)
Empty weight: 80,610 lb (36,560 kg)
Loaded weight: 121,850 lb (55,270 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 173,000 lb (78,470 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Pratt Whitney R-4360 radial engines, 3,500 hp (2,600 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 395 mph (343 kn, 636 km/h)
Cruise speed: 244 mph (212 kn, 393 km/h)
Combat radius: 2,100 NM (2,400 mi, 3,860 km)
Ferry range: 5,000 NM (5,760 mi, 9,270 km)
Service ceiling: 36,650 ft (11,170 m)
Rate of climb: 2,225 ft/min (11.3 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.19 lb/ft² (343 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.115 hp/lb (193 W/kg)
Armament


Guns:

12× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in remote controlled turrets
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon in tail
Bombs:

20,000 lb (9,100 kg) internally
8,000 lb (3,600 kg) on external hardpoints

*OH - and the B-50 could be air to air refueled.*
*
Oh - another thing - had the war continued in the Pacific this aircraft "would have" (to coin your term) been arriving in the Pacific by late 1945!*
*
So tell us - what could we have done to make the Lancaster VII, no wait "Lincoln" compete???? *


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 31, 2010)

No basis of evidence for my views
but I think the B-29 would have been alot more survivable over Europe than seems to be believed.
For a start, it's at 30,000ft and travelling considerably faster than any of the previous generation bombers. That gives the intercepting Luftwaffe a very short window to get up there and tackle them and while we're on the subject of interceptors, just how many of the types more familiar with intercepting B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters can actually reach the B-29s? 

There are also numerous P-51 and P-47 FGs based in the UK and Europe and the Luftwaffe could conceivably find itself having to deal with a two-tier escort system; the P-51s at 25,000ft and the P-47s alongside the bombers.

So Maj Gorman USAF thinks the B-29 would not have survived in Europe, well, I think the USAAF had already learned that lesson for strategic bombing with the B-17 and B-24; the key to strategic carpet bombing is escort. It's not the first time a type has had someone from its own side that wasn't enamoured with it:

Roland Beamont wasn't a massive fan of the Spitfire
Don Blakeslee dismissed the P-47 out of hand over the P-51 as a fighting aircraft

I think taking a couple of sub-system issues in a ground-breaking design and re-writing them as an entire platform failure is a laughable, I hope to God you're not a program manager somewhere.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *Define "dangerously low?????*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



General Hansell: "_... a test run over the Gulf of Mexico simulating the flight from the Marianas to Tokyo and back. Simulated bombloads of 8,000 pounds were carried as well as full loads of ammunition...The aircraft all returned successfully to the original base, Eglin Field, but gasoline reserves were admittedly too low._"
HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]

The Lancaster VII was a Lancaster... The MK IV and V were not Lancasters but prototype Lincolns.

http://www.raafawa.org.au/museum/avro-lancaster.aspx

_The B VII was the final production version of the Lancaster. The Martin 250CE mid-upper turret was re-positioned slightly further forward than on previous Marks, and the Nash Thomson FN-82 tail turret with twin Browning 0.5 in machine guns replaced the four-gun 0.303 Browning machine guns-armed FN.20 turret. _

The Lancaster VII:

_ With a typical 3,200 kg bomb load, this extended the aircraft's range from 4,200 to 5,300 kilometres. Special lifeboat-dropping Lancasters would be available for rescue operations on long oversea raids. Other Tiger Force Lancasters were designated to carry Grand Slam and the almost equally destructive 5,300 kg Tallboy bombs over shorter ranges against special targets, or to operate in tactical close-support roles with the British / Indian Army In Burma._

History of Our Lancaster


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> General Hansell: "_... a test run over the Gulf of Mexico simulating the flight from the Marianas to Tokyo and back. Simulated bombloads of 8,000 pounds were carried as well as full loads of ammunition...The aircraft all returned successfully to the original base, Eglin Field, but gasoline reserves were admittedly too low._"
> HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]



So you really can't tell us what "too low" is can you? And you keep referring to the tests at Eglin AFB test that were later disproved - so you don't have an answer to that do you? And I guess it means your statement was wrong as well!

BTW - there is a minimum fuel requirement that must be planned into every flight. This existed during the Eglin test, maybe you could tell us what that was?!? 



RCAFson said:


> The Lancaster VII was a Lancaster... The MK IV and V were not Lancasters but prototype Lincolns.
> 
> http://www.raafawa.org.au/museum/avro-lancaster.aspx
> 
> ...



Sorry pal - your information is from a restoration site and that itself is almost laughable. What's even more laughable is you seem to ignore the fact that the Lincoln had more powerful engines but you post a site that says this aircraft is faster. I could almost believe the range however with the extended fuel tanks in the rear but at the same time the B-29 was capable of the installation of an auxiliary tank that gave it an additional 2500 gallons and it could still carry a larger bombload. Do the math, it still has the VII beat.

Good try, keep digging....

*So with that said, do you want to compare this aircraft (or the Lincoln) to the B-50?!?!?*


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2010)

Clearly not all B29 missions were ineffective or the B29's guns usless
_The January 19 mission was a magnificent success. The bombs were dropped between 1450 and 1524 in clear weather. A total of 610 500-pound bombs were dispensed on the primary targets; 275 (45 percent) hit within the plant areas, measuring roughly 1,200 feet by 4,000 feet for the engine facility and 900 feet by 2,400 feet for the airframe one. Every important building in the engine and airframe complex was hit. Nearly two-thirds of the bombs struck within the engine works. Production in both facilities dropped 90 percent and never recovered. Eleven Japanese fighters attacked, the bombers claiming 4 shot down. No B-29s were lost. The mission has been depicted as one of the most perfect examples of selective bombing in the entire war. It was among the best of which I had personal knowledge. An important side effect of the mission was to accelerate the dispersion of the aircraft industry -- a drastic move from which it failed to recoup. _


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

Glider said:


> Clearly not all B29 missions were ineffective or the B29's guns usless
> _The January 19 mission was a magnificent success. The bombs were dropped between 1450 and 1524 in clear weather. A total of 610 500-pound bombs were dispensed on the primary targets; 275 (45 percent) hit within the plant areas, measuring roughly 1,200 feet by 4,000 feet for the engine facility and 900 feet by 2,400 feet for the airframe one. Every important building in the engine and airframe complex was hit. Nearly two-thirds of the bombs struck within the engine works. Production in both facilities dropped 90 percent and never recovered. Eleven Japanese fighters attacked, the bombers claiming 4 shot down. No B-29s were lost. The mission has been depicted as one of the most perfect examples of selective bombing in the entire war. It was among the best of which I had personal knowledge. An important side effect of the mission was to accelerate the dispersion of the aircraft industry -- a drastic move from which it failed to recoup. _



You need to keep reading, this is on the next page and refers to the same mission:

_*A damage report prepared by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey after the war* painted a less favorable picture. Forty-five percent of the bombs landed in the principal target area, which exceeded 1,000 feet in radius.

As a broad approximation, the target area was closely equivalent to that within a circle of 1,490 feet radius, and 45 percent hits within a circle of that area gives a CEP of about 1,600 feet. *This is not a demonstration of good bombing accuracy from 26,000 feet by the 73d Wing.* Still, it was a marked improvement when compared with earlier strikes, and the bombing pattern showed a sufficient close concentration to destroy all elements of the target. Further training produced an average circular error probable of 1,250 feet, based on all bombers that did not abort for mechanical reasons. 

_ 

Again, look at the bomb load:

"...56 B-29s..." dropped..." A total of 610 500-pound bombs..." = 5450lb/aircraft. 

So a ~3000 mile range mission and a 5500lb bomb load/plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Hmmmm......... Just came across somthing a little funny

Thanks to the efforts of our members and Micdrow for building up an extensive technical library, a search revelaed that we have Pilot's and Flight Engineer Notes for a VII Lancaster, April 1945 revision. This document also includes Lancaster's I, III and X. On Pages 30-33 are the range performance charts. Well according to those charts the best you're going to get out of any of the aircraft listed is 2709 miles @ 157 mph, burning 124 GPH, and this is running at negative manifold pressure which is not that good for the engine.

This is with out including any aux. tanks...


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So you really can't tell us what "too low" is can you? And you keep referring to the tests at Eglin AFB test that were later disproved - so you don't have an answer to that do you? And I guess it means your statement was wrong as well!
> 
> BTW - there is a minimum fuel requirement that must be planned into every flight. This existed during the Eglin test, maybe you could tell us what that was?!?
> 
> ...



General Hansell stated the fuel reserves were too low General Wolfe refused to change his position after the test. Both Generals in command of the only B-29 groups in existence felt the fuel was insufficient at the end of the mission, and low fuel on any aircraft = danger.

Max speed on a Lincoln with 4 x 1750 hp engines = 319 mph. The Lancaster VI has 6% less power ( 4 x 1650hp) Merlin 85/87 engines, but has an empty weight 22% less (35457lb) versus 43,400lb for the Lincoln. The Mk VI also has a shorter wing span ( 102ft versus 120ft) for less frontal area, so it is no surprise that the Mk VI is faster. Aircraft of WW2, Chant, p36.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> You need to keep reading, this is on the next page and refers to the same mission:
> 
> _*A damage report prepared by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey after the war* painted a less favorable picture. Forty-five percent of the bombs landed in the principal target area, which exceeded 1,000 feet in radius.
> 
> ...


And as mentioned earlier - any other heavy bomber of the day would not have done any better


RCAFson said:


> Again, look at the bomb load:
> 
> "...56 B-29s..." dropped..." A total of 610 500-pound bombs..." = 5450lb/aircraft.
> 
> So a ~3000 mile range mission and a 5500lb bomb load/plane.



And that means nothing - do you realize that bomb loadouts were also determined by forecasted weather conditions, routes and having at least 30 minutes of reserve fuel?!?

Keep digging....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> General Hansell stated the fuel reserves were too low General Wolfe refused to change his position after the test. Both Generals in command of the only B-29 groups in existence felt the fuel was insufficient at the end of the mission, and low fuel on any aircraft = danger.


Again all you could do is quote that report and not give specifics, so I'll throw you a bone. You're supposed to have 30 minutes of reserve fuel left over upon landing. That's nerve racking for a large heavy bomber. So with that said you have no way of really knowing "how critical" their fuel was??? I could tell you this - if they were not in combat and this rule was violated, it would have been in the report. Combat was a different story.

And again - this "test" was disproved as B-29s CONTINUALLY operated from the Marianas, something that they were trying to disprove to begin with.


RCAFson said:


> Max speed on a Lincoln with 4 x 1750 hp engines = 319 mph. The Lancaster VI has 6% less power ( 4 x 1650hp) Merlin 85/87 engines, but has an empty weight 22% less (35457lb) versus 43,400lb for the Lincoln. The Mk VI also has a shorter wing span ( 102ft versus 120ft) for less frontal area, so it is no surprise that the Mk VI is faster. Aircraft of WW2, Chant, p36.



That's not what the pilot's notes say!! 

*So tell me - do you want to compare the VII or the Lincoln to the B-50??? BTW you never commented on the fact that the B-50 "WOULD HAVE" been avaiable by the end of 1945.*


----------



## Waynos (Jan 31, 2010)

This thread pains me to be honest, though I cannot tear myself away from it.

The Lancaster was a marvellous aeroplane. The best heavy bomber available to the allies for most of the war. It flew marvellously, it carried everything it was asked to and at a stroke it made (in the eyes of Harris) every other heavy bomber in the RAF obsolete when it appeared (yes, including the Halifax).

It was also extremely rugged and survivable (and the many posts I have seen across orther threads which seem to say the opposite mystify me).

Legion are the tales of Lancasters returning with significant chunks missing, rear turrets or even noses blown, or sometines knocked, off, huge holes in the wing, even a Lanc returning to base on one engine!

However, the B-29 is *quite obviously* an aircraft of the next technological generation. Its performance and capabilities were superior in every way, it is contemporary with a generation of heavy bombers that the British industry designed, but could not build owing to the fact that there was not enough capacity to build the Lancs we urgently needed AND produce a replacement, hence the decision to built the Lancaster IV, or Lincoln, as a minimum change development whilst designs like the Avro 680, complete with tricycle landing gears and all the other mod cons, had to remain as brochures.This was why, when we needed a bigger, faster, better bomber to bridge the gap until the V bombers came along we bought the B-29.

Every post giving rightful justification to the superiority of the B-29 looks like a boot in the reputation of the Lancaster. I am certain this is not the intended effect, but the intransigence being demonstrated on the other side of the argument makes such an approach from the B-29 side unavoidable, and this is what pains me.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hmmmm......... Just came across somthing a little funny
> 
> Thanks to the efforts of our members and Micdrow for building up an extensive technical library, a search revelaed that we have Pilot's and Flight Engineer Notes for a VII Lancaster, April 1945 revision. This document also includes Lancaster's I, III and X. On Pages 30-33 are the range performance charts. Well according to those charts the best you're going to get out of any of the aircraft listed is 2709 miles @ 157 mph, burning 124 GPH, and this is running at negative manifold pressure which is not that good for the engine.
> 
> This is with out including any aux. tanks...



Have you ever heard of Indicated Air Speed?

Here's the fuel consumption chart:







157 IAS = 220 mph TAS. 

The Mk VII has an additional 400 gallons.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Every post giving rightful justification to the superiority of the B-29 looks like a boot in the reputation of the Lancaster. I am certain this is not the intended effect, but the intransigence being demonstrated on the other side of the argument makes such an approach from the B-29 side unavoidable, and this is what pains me.



I couldn't agree more Waynos. Our friend tries to display the B-29 as a heap to justify the superiority of the Lancaster when in reality the B-29, despite it's problems, was a generation ahead.

I would defend the Lanc with the same amount of zeal if we were comparing it to the B-17 or B-24.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 31, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I dont think even the successor to the lancaster, the Shackleton, was as good as the B-29. Perhaps the Vulcan or the Victor Bombers were better, but only maybe.
> 
> The B-29 outclassed every heavy bomber of any nation in the war. It could be argued that the b-29 was not as multirole as some other aircraft like the Ju-88 or the Mosquito, but no aircraft was as advanced or as capable in its designed function as the b-29



The Shackleton was not a heavy bomber, it was a maritime patrol aircraft, but I agree the tech used was of an older generation to that of the B-29.

Would you also say the B-47 was only 'maybe better than the B-29?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Have you ever heard of Indicated Air Speed?



I'm a pilot - I should hope so


RCAFson said:


> Here's the fuel consumption chart:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*How could you come up with a TAS when you don't know altitude and outside air temperature?????*


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAF, seriously
time to call it in - you're embarrassing yourself


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

Waynos said:


> This thread pains me to be honest, though I cannot tear myself away from it.
> 
> The Lancaster was a marvellous aeroplane. The best heavy bomber available to the allies for most of the war. It flew marvellously, it carried everything it was asked to and at a stroke it made (in the eyes of Harris) every other heavy bomber in the RAF obsolete when it appeared (yes, including the Halifax).
> 
> ...



I have stated, and I have no hesitation in stating again that the B-29 was more technologically advanced, but given it's state of development in 1944/45 it was not a "better bomber overall" than the Lancaster. It simply wasn't able to do in combat what has been claimed for it, and at the same time the Lancaster was fighting a vastly superior opponent than the B-29.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm a pilot - I should hope so
> 
> 
> *How could you come up with a TAS when you don't know altitude and outside air temperature?????*



Air miles per gallon at 20,000 ft, can you not read that on the chart?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I have stated, and I have no hesitation in stating again that the B-29 was more technologically advanced, but given it's state of development in 1944/45 it was not a "better bomber overall" than the Lancaster. *It simply wasn't able to do in combat what has been claimed for it*, and at the same time the Lancaster was fighting a vastly superior opponent than the B-29.



You have yet give any overwhelming evidence to prove that. Gee look at the survey!


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 31, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> RCAF, seriously
> time to call it in - you're embarrassing yourself



I am ashamed of you. I have presented reams of data from the USAAF itself to reveal the truth about the B-29 and it's actual operational capability and you haven't the courage to admit that I'm correct. The B-29 was an inferior combat aircraft to the Lancaster during WW2, and that is the plain truth.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Air miles per gallon at 20,000 ft, can you not read that on the chart?



Getting a little testy are we?

At what RPM???? I think you need to look at page 32 as well


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I am ashamed of you. I have presented reams of data from the USAAF itself to reveal the truth about the B-29 and it's actual operational capability and you haven't the courage to admit that I'm correct. The B-29 was an inferior combat aircraft to the Lancaster during WW2, and that is the plain truth.



Are you also ashamed of all the other people who have yet to side with you because your argument is weak?

*SO WHEN ARE WE GOING TO COMPARE THE B-50 TO THE VII? OR THE LINCOLN????*


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I am ashamed of you. I have presented reams of data from the USAAF itself to reveal the truth about the B-29 and it's actual operational capability and you haven't the courage to admit that I'm correct. The B-29 was an inferior combat aircraft to the Lancaster during WW2, and that is the plain truth.



Just going to jump in here and say, was the Lancaster good? Yes of course it was, it was the BEST bomber of World War Two until the B-29 came. If these aircraft stayed in service for a longer period of time (Hypothetically) the B-29 would last longer than the Lancaster would. It just was more up to date, it's like this.... would you rather have a P-51 or a Me-262? IMHO the Me-262, it was more advanced and could be applied better to combat.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 31, 2010)

A good airforce would have both the B-29 and the Lancaster....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> A good airforce would have both the B-29 and the Lancaster....


The Lancaster would have been the tanker!!!


----------



## Waynos (Jan 31, 2010)

Hmmm, now I want to see a Vulcan v B-47 thread on the postwar forum. Who will start it for us?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Hmmm, now I want to see a Vulcan v B-47 thread on the postwar forum. Who will start it for us?



Actually I'd go with the Vulcan!


----------



## Waynos (Jan 31, 2010)

Yes, maybe the Valiant might be a fairer match, but I wanted a Brit win


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I am ashamed of you


I don't know where to look...



RCAFson said:


> I have presented reams of data from the USAAF itself to reveal the truth about the B-29 and it's actual operational capability and you haven't the courage to admit that I'm correct


You've danced from unsubstantial point to unsubstantial point
without allowing yourself to be nailed down on any one of them, I've had the impression that you've reeled off data, extracts and links without having fully comprehended them or even read them properly.



RCAFson said:


> The B-29 was an inferior combat aircraft to the Lancaster during WW2, and that is the plain truth


It most certainly was not and don't ask me to outline why, it's been done already at several points throughout the thread; the burden of proof is upon yourself to explain why it was. Anecdotal evidence from an admirable group of former Lancaster aircrew will not explain why the B-29 wasn't better. To write the B-29 off because it encountered new phenomena not experienced by previous generations of bombers and took time to fully understand them is just narrow-mindedness.

You've had a very blinkered view to this debate with very little desire to take anything on board that might counter your argument, whilst coming up with little of any substance to support your argument.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Yes, maybe the Valiant might be a fairer match, but I wanted a Brit win



Then I'll have to go with the B-47!!!!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Lancaster would have been the tanker!!!



  Shame on you Joe!  

Another question out of curiosity, as full loaded bomber heading for your target, I'll take it fly straight dead on to where you're going, right? In doing so so, how long does it take for the B-29 and the Lancaster to reach their operational height in miles/km and time? If they had been based in the UK (B-29), would the B-29 still be climbing over the channel and Belgium/Holland and France....?

Grabbing a golden opportunity to learn more about these two birds....8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I don't know where to look...
> 
> 
> You've danced from unsubstantial point to unsubstantial point
> ...




BOOM HEADSHOT! 8)


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 31, 2010)

I'll admit I do not know a lot about the Lancaster beyond the basics. However, I was surprised while looking at a number of the Lancaster builds that it appears there was only one set of flight controls in the cockpit, and not the side by side of the American bombers. Is this right or am I missing something? Was their a co-pilot that would take over the controls if something happened to the pilot?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> Shame on you Joe!



I JUST COULDN'T HELP IT!!!



Lucky13 said:


> :
> Another question out of curiosity, as full loaded bomber heading for your target, I'll take it fly straight dead on to where you're going, right? In doing so so, how long does it take for the B-29 and the Lancaster to reach their operational height in miles/km and time? If they had been based in the UK (B-29), would the B-29 still be climbing over the channel and Belgium/Holland and France....?
> 
> Grabbing a golden opportunity to learn more about these two birds....8)



Good question and also complicated.

For the most part I'd doubt any bomber would just fly straight to the target. They would follow check points if they were navigating with "dead reckoning" or follow nav points if they were following a LF "beam." I do know that at times whole streams changed course dozens of times to throw off air defenses.

As far as operational heights - that depends on the mission, predetermined altitude and what was being carried. Out side of normal cruise calculations there are calculations for fuel burn during climb, and even during descent. the FE would help out with this but generally this is all planned before the flight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> I'll admit I do not know a lot about the Lancaster beyond the basics. However, I was surprised while looking at a number of the Lancaster builds that it appears there was only one set of flight controls in the cockpit, and not the side by side of the American bombers. Is this right or am I missing something? Was their a co-pilot that would take over the controls if something happened to the pilot?



This was done because of pilot shortages and also presented risk by removing another set of eyes in the cockpit, especially when shooting instrument approaches. I give Lanc pilots all the credit in the world as this was not an easy situation, but at the same time I wonder how many more Lancs would have returned by having that extra set of eyes in the cockpit.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 31, 2010)

Cheers Joe! Just trying to get in the know here, not being a pilot etc. Being that the B-29 flew up 33.600 feet/10.200meters one would, or at least me, assume that they'd fly at maximum height to avoid fighters, in this case Luftwaffe, had they operated in ETO. Just thinking here that the Ta 152H being the only operating at that height 48.550 feet/14.800 meters...with GM-1 boost though, and in only a short period.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 31, 2010)

Holy Fricken Gees......

Thanks for the education Joe!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> Cheers Joe! Just trying to get in the know here, not being a pilot etc. Being that the B-29 flew up 33.600 feet/10.200meters one would, or at least me, assume that they'd fly at maximum height to avoid fighters, in this case Luftwaffe, had they operated in ETO. Just thinking here that the Ta 152H being the only operating at that height 48.550 feet/14.800 meters...with GM-1 boost though, and in only a short period.



There is no doubt the B-29, if deployed in Europe would have had a rough road. I could agree the German air defenses were a lot more dangerous than what the Japanese fielded but the missions would have been half the range enabling the -29 to carry larger bomb loads than what they did in the Pacific. Of course this is a "would have, could have" situation and realistically it "would have" been the B-32 facing the luftwaffe.



vikingBerserker said:


> Holy Fricken Gees......
> 
> Thanks for the education Joe!



I've met many pilots who flew in combat but the vast majority have told me some of their scariest times were through weather. Imagine a 21 year old Sergent Pilot flying through soup attempting to shoot an old "tone" approach!


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 31, 2010)

Sorry, evangilder, I'm not trying to be a smartass, and so I am truely sorry about that.

But, to argue my point, the B-29 is better because it was designed off previous great bombers like the Lancaster and the B-17. Its designers took everything that was good about these previous bombers and improved everything else. It makes sense because the B-29 entered service two years after the Lancaster.

Both were great planes, but the successor is almost always better than previous models. That is why I believe the B-29 is better, Because it came after the Lancaster.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There is no doubt the B-29, if deployed in Europe would have had a rough road


That's fair do's
but it surprised me


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 31, 2010)

Thanks again Joe, for the education, well.....that goes for everybody on this forum! 

Another question, this time about the A-Bombs that the B-29 carried? Why were they forced to make them that large as the 'Fat Man' and 'Little Boy' were, couldn't they have made them in the size of 'Tall Boy' and 'Grand Slam' and that way make them possilbe to be carried by the Lancaster, should it have been necessary?


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 31, 2010)

probaly because the B-29 was to have a longer future in the USAF after the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> Thanks again Joe, for the education, well.....that goes for everybody on this forum!
> 
> Another question, this time about the A-Bombs that the B-29 carried? Why were they forced to make them that large as the 'Fat Man' and 'Little Boy' were, couldn't they have made them in the size of 'Tall Boy' and 'Grand Slam' and that way make them possilbe to be carried by the Lancaster, should it have been necessary?



From what I understand the function of each bomb dictated its shape, and that was actually one of the reasons why the Lancaster was first thought of for carrying the bombs. I think "Little Boy" would have fit in a Lancaster, but as stated earlier, I would have hated to see a 4 engine tail dragger that couldn't fly over 30K carrying a nuke!


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 31, 2010)

[/QUOTE=FLYBOYJ;630363]This was done because of pilot shortages and also presented risk by removing another set of eyes in the cockpit, especially when shooting instrument approaches. I give Lanc pilots all the credit in the world as this was not an easy situation, but at the same time I wonder how many more Lancs would have returned by having that extra set of eyes in the cockpit.[/QUOTE]It I believe more of a weight issue they lightened the Lanc up for payload but I'm still trying to find ref to back that up but really working hard at it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> I believe more of a weight issue they lightened the Lanc up for payload but I'm still trying to find ref to back that up but really working hard at it


I doubt it - 180 pounds would not have made that much of a difference


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 31, 2010)

I think Flyboy has the right reasons for only one pilot in the Lanc. That said, crews often cross-trained to ensure no single points of failure - IIRC it was not uncommon for navigators or bombardiers to be trained to fly and land the Lanc in case of emergency. However, this was no substitute for an extra pair of eyes in the cockpit. 

Which leads to another (minor) advantage of the Lanc over the B-29...pilot visibility. This doesn't change anything else I said in my previous posts - the B-29 was superior - but it is one area where there was an advantage for the Lanc.

I'll stop waving the UJ now and duck back down behind the parapet!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> I'll stop waving the UJ now and duck back down behind the parapet!


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> You need to keep reading, this is on the next page and refers to the same mission:
> 
> _*A damage report prepared by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey after the war* painted a less favorable picture. Forty-five percent of the bombs landed in the principal target area, which exceeded 1,000 feet in radius.
> 
> ...



I suggest you find a british bombing raid where they managed to get 45 percent of the bombs in an area of that size first time and without practice. This may have been less accurate than first thought but is still a good result.

I notice you didn't comment about the defensive fire which is one of the main planks in your arguement. I notice that one B29 was lost to enemy action while gunners claimed 7 fighters destroyed and 18 damaged. Do you seriously believe that unescorted Lancasters flying at a lower altitude at a slower speed spending longer in the danger zone would only lose one bomber


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 31, 2010)

From the RAF official history
OH (Webstee&Frankland) op .cit,ii, 201`-2
and as for a shortage of aircrew there was substanial abundance of aircrew and trades as early as May 41


----------



## Juha (Feb 1, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:” Well we agree that is your opinion, and you are welcome to be entitled to it. I believe this was already discussed several times, and the evidence was decisevely against your theory.”

So if you have info on actual operations, give it out, please. I have gave some info on actual operations, it’s pity that from numerous sources I have found only some info on actual bomb loads carried by He 177s in combat ops. Much easier to find that kind of info on Lancs.

But, on handbook info. Griehl Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274 p.77 On the experiences of I/FKG 50, which task was to combat test He 177. They had first He 177A-1s. “Worse still, 12 long-range flights under operational conditions had established a depth of penetration of only some 1,800km and the average speed of 340km/h was some 50km/h less than that achieved by He 177A-0s flown by E-Staffel 177.” There are also other bits of info in the book later on, for ex how installation of flame dampers dropped speed significantly etc.

So IMHO our knowledge of actual capabilities of He 177A-3 and -5 in operational conditions is still too limited. But the bits of info we had are not too flattering when compared to paper figures.

And if you want detailed info what Lancs dropped on marshalling yards, see the link in the RCAFson’s message #159.

Hello Vincenzo
It’s pity that I have info only on some of He 177 operations. On Velikiye Luki raid, the explanations that first come into mind for why so small bombloads are:
1) bad planning, LW had decided to use a/fs not well suited for 177 operations, there were also good a/fs in East-Prussia, and because of that 177s could not take off even near their with max t/o weight.
2) pilots were still worried on the engines and didn’t want to use max t/o power, so they took off lighter than max allowed.
3) Germans were so worried on Soviet fighters that took of with only ¼ of max possible bomb-load so as to be able to fly higher and faster and so lessen the possibilities of interception.
4) something else.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 1, 2010)

*Messerschmitt Me 264*

*Specifications (with BMW 801 engines)
General characteristics*

*Crew:* 8
*Length:* 69 ft 9 in (21.3 m)
*Wingspan:* 141 ft (43 m)
*Height:* 14 ft (4.3 m)
*Wing area:* 1,376 ft² (127.8 m²)
*Empty weight:* 46,630 lb (21,150 kg)
*Loaded weight:* 100,400 lb (45,540 kg)
*Max takeoff weight:* 123,000 lb (56,000 kg)
*Powerplant:* 4× BMW 801 G/H radial engines, 1,730 hp (1,272 kW) each


*Performance*

*Maximum speed:* 350 mph (560 km/h)
*Cruise speed:* 217 mph (350 km/h)
*Range:* 9,500 mi (15,000 km)
*Service ceiling:* 26,000 ft (8,000 m)
*Rate of climb:* 390 ft/min (120 m/min)
*Wing loading:* 72.9 lb/ft² (356 kg/m²)
*Power/mass:* 0.07 hp/lb (0.11 kW/kg)


*Armament*

*Guns:* 4 × 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131 machine guns
2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons
*Bombs:* 3,000 kg (6,614 lb) bombload in internal bomb bay


*Boeing B-29 Superfortress*

*General characteristics*

*Crew:* 11 (5 officers, 6 enlisted): (A/C)Airplane Commander, Pilot, flight engineer (a rated pilot),[30][31] bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar operator, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner
*Length:* 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
*Wingspan:* 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
*Height:* 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
*Wing area:* 1,736 sqft (161.3 m²)
*Empty weight:* 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
*Loaded weight:* 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
*Max takeoff weight:* 133,500 lb (60,560 kg -- 135,000 lb plus combat load (144,000 lb on record[18]))
*Powerplant:* 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241
*Drag area:* 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²)
*Aspect ratio:* 11.50


*Performance*

*Maximum speed:* 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
*Cruise speed:* 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
*Stall speed:* 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h)
*Combat range:* 3,250 mi (2,820 nmi, 5,230 km)
*Ferry range:* 5,600 mi (4,900 nmi, 9,000 km, (record 5,839 mi, 5,074 nmi, 9,397 km[18]))
*Service ceiling:* 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
*Rate of climb:* 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
*Wing loading:* 69.12 lb/sqft (337 kg/m²)
*Power/mass:* 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg)
*Lift-to-drag ratio:* 16.8


*Armament*

*Guns:* 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service )
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
*Bombs:* 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout

=================================================================

Just for curiousity I checked between the Me 264 and the B-29. Why is that they say that they're comparable aircraft, when the B-29 can carry 6,000 Kg more in bombs than the '264, operate 2000m higher, all together the '29 has 960 more horsepower...? It's some parts where the '29 is a h*ll lot better than the '264, rate of climb etc., where the '264 exceed over the '29 and do so by far (if you believe the list), is the range, so why compare these two?

Again, just curious....


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 1, 2010)

The following picture is from the book Juha cited, Griehl Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274, p.45. 

I can count 28 x SC 250 and 4 x SC 500 (ie. 250 and 500 kg general purpose bombs)

"ut, on handbook info. Griehl Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274 p.77 On the experiences of I/FKG 50, which task was to combat test He 177. They had first He 177A-1s. “Worse still, 12 long-range flights under operational conditions had established a depth of penetration of only some 1,800km and the average speed of 340km/h was some 50km/h less than that achieved by He 177A-0s flown by E-Staffel 177.”

Penetration depth = 1/3 maximal range. To put it in context, "only" 1800 km is equivalent of bombing Helsinki from Bomber Command bases in Britain (ca 1700 km), or bombing Stalingrad from the said Könisgberg bases in Ease Prussia (1800 km)...


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

That looks like a posed photo. Why are the bombs on the floor instead of on a trolley? How does that prove they are carried by the He-177?

There are many photos of aircraft on the ground posing in front of various weapons, but none of them claim they are all carried at the same time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> [=================================================================
> 
> Just for curiousity I checked between the Me 264 and the B-29. Why is that they say that they're comparable aircraft, when the B-29 can carry 6,000 Kg more in bombs than the '264, operate 2000m higher, all together the '29 has 960 more horsepower...? It's some parts where the '29 is a h*ll lot better than the '264, rate of climb etc., where the '264 exceed over the '29 and do so by far (if you believe the list), is the range, so why compare these two?
> 
> Again, just curious....



Agree...


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2010)

Someone mentioned the possibility of sending Lancasters (and Lincolns) to the Pacific and suggested this never happened, and would never happen.

Its true that it never happened, but it was planned to happen, ands some units (not the Lancaster units) were already in the PTO when the "Tiger Force" as it was named, was disbanded October 1945.

This is a straight cut and paste from Wiki...

_At the Quebec Conference of September 1944, the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill proposed to transfer a large part of Bomber Command to the Pacific, comprising from 500 to 1,000 heavy bombers, once Germany was defeated. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt accepted the offer, stating that a "long and costly struggle" still lay ahead of the Allies.[1]

The proposed force was soon scaled back to 22 squadrons in three groups: one British Royal Air Force (RAF), one Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and one from various air forces. By late 1945 this had been scaled back to 10 squadrons in two composite groups, made up of RAF, RCAF, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) squadrons. Tiger Force was to have been based on Okinawa and would have used Avro Lancasters, Avro Lincolns (the latest development of the Lancaster) and Consolidated Liberators.

The bomber force would take its escorts from the fighter units of the U.S. Far East Air Force, the Australian First Tactical Air Force and/or other Commonwealth units.

The colour scheme for Tiger Force aircraft was white upper-surfaces with black undersides; this scheme, despite the cancellation of operations against Japan, was apparent on many post-war Lancasters and Lincolns. To enable the aircraft to operate at the long distances involved, flight refuelling was to have been employed, using equipment developed by Flight Refuelling Ltd.

Tiger Force was officially disbanded on October 31, 1945, by which stage it included only British units.[2]

[edit] Order of battle
[edit] Wings
No. 348 Wing RAF (later renamed 551 Wing) 
No. 349 Wing RAF (552 Wing) 
No. 350 Wing RAF (553 Wing) 
No. 351 Wing RAF (554 Wing) 
No. 555 Wing RAAF 
No. 661 Wing RCAF 
No. 662 Wing RCAF 
No. 663 Wing RCAF 
No. 664 Wing RCAF 
[edit] Squadrons
Bomber squadrons

No. 7 Squadron RAF 
No. 9 Squadron RAF 
No. 35 Squadron RAF 
No. 44 Squadron RAF (replaced by 49 Squadron) 
No. 49 Squadron RAF (replaced 44 Squadron) 
No. 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF 
No. 207 Squadron RAF 
No. 405 Squadron RCAF 
No. 408 Squadron RCAF 
No. 419 Squadron RCAF 
No. 420 Squadron RCAF 
No. 425 Squadron RCAF 
No. 428 Squadron RCAF 
No. 431 Squadron RCAF 
No. 434 Squadron RCAF 
No. 460 Squadron RAAF 
No. 463 Squadron RAAF 
No. 467 Squadron RAAF 
No. 617 Squadron RAF 
No. 627 Squadron RAF 
No. 635 Squadron RAF 
No. 692 Squadron RAF 
Support units

No. 426 Squadron RCAF (Transport) _


----------



## rochie (Feb 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> This thread pains me to be honest, though I cannot tear myself away from it.
> 
> The Lancaster was a marvellous aeroplane. The best heavy bomber available to the allies for most of the war. It flew marvellously, it carried everything it was asked to and at a stroke it made (in the eyes of Harris) every other heavy bomber in the RAF obsolete when it appeared (yes, including the Halifax).
> 
> ...



one of the best post's i've read on this forum.
100% agree Waynos


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 1, 2010)

I hope that it doesn't sound that I'm putting the Lancaster down, if it does, I do sincerely apologise for it. I hold them both in the same high regard for the work that they did during those dark years, without either the Allies whould have fought for possible somewhat longer. Both bombers did an excellent job, a job that they designed to do, even if in different theatres of the war, both were perfectly suited for their respective area of operation....


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2010)

Just some notes on the range and payload capabilities of the Lancaster

The specially modified Lanc carrying the 22000 lb Grand Slam bombs had a range of 745 miles
With a 14000 lb warload the aircraft had a range of 865 miles
With the standard 10000 lb bombloadf, the aircraft had a range of 1040 miles. That was enough to reach the eastern borders of Austria incidentally
With a reduced bombload of 7000lb, and carrying extra fuel, the type had anoperational range of 2680 miles (2680 out, and 2680 back). That would be approaching the capability to bomb New York from bases in England I believe.

The contemporary (in terms of design) to the Lancaster in the German camp, was the He 177 A-1. The A-3 subtype appeared more than 18 months after the Lancaster, whilst the a-5 was more than 2 years younger than the original Lancasters. The He 177 showed greater developmental progress than the Lancaster, since it went from a near disaster in July 1942, to a potentially succesful type in early to mid 1944. It had a lot of promise in my opinion, and is badly maligned in our western accounts. But in my opinion, if you compare apples to apples, then you really have to compare the A-5 subtype to either the Lancastrian or the Lincoln which were more its contemporaies than the 1941-2 design that was the Lancaster.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 1, 2010)

parsifal said:


> But in my opinion, if you compare apples to apples, then you really have to compare the A-5 subtype to either the Lancastrian or the Lincoln which were more its contemporaies than the 1941-2 design that was the Lancaster.



Hi Parsifal,

Slightly confused by your last point. The Lancastrian was the transport version of the Lanc which, presumably, doesn't compare with any of the bombers we're discussing. Agree with the Lincoln (or Lancaster MkVII if you prefer).


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2010)

Youre right, my mistake


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Someone mentioned the possibility of sending Lancasters (and Lincolns) to the Pacific and suggested this never happened, and would never happen.
> 
> Its true that it never happened, but it was planned to happen, ands some units (not the Lancaster units) were already in the PTO when the "Tiger Force" as it was named, was disbanded October 1945.



Yes, this was definitely true as there were still large pieces of real-estate in Japanese hands on August 6, 1945 and if the fire bombings of the mainland would not have brought the Japanese to negations, they would have had to been extracted by force and the Tiger Force would of served accordingly.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 1, 2010)

Just for clear talking of design 177 and Manchester are contemporary, the evolution of two bombers had different time so Manchester became fightning in winter 41 and 177 was in development. the british have changed to a four engined configuration and Lancaster go in fightning in spring 42 and 177 was still in development (need fall '43 (but a early tour in eastern front with the development unit). So it's out of doubt that at pratical purpouse 177 it's newest of Lancaster (but not the design the long development maybe effected to too advanced design for the time (but not too much). so it's right that we compare 177 A3 and A5 with contemporary Lancaster variant, but remember that A5 was fighning in spring '44 and Lincoln go to unit in summer '45 and never fightning in that war


----------



## Juha (Feb 1, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
So it seems that you don’t have any info on bomber loads used in actual combat mission other than what I have already given.

Quote:” Penetration depth = 1/3 maximal range”

Based on what? IIRC that was a USAAF rule of thumb, but not knowing the actual word used in the German report it’s difficult to say what was its meaning. And of course there was no info on load carried if any.

And no comment of the unambiguous fact that for some reason the average speed was 50km/h lower than that achieved by the test organisation.

But if you opinion is correct what is your opinion why Germans bothered to move KG 1 to airfields just west of Köningsberg/Kaliningrad to drop one ton bombs per plane on targets around Velikiye Luki with all the problems mentioned in Griehl Dressel? After all Velikiye Luki was only appr. 700km further east from Köningsberg/Kaliningrad. On the other hand Lancs seem as average have carried 4 ton bombloads to Berlin, appr 900km away from their bases. The problem is of course that we seems to have limited amount of info on the actual bombloads used by 177s other than on some operations during the Steinbock operations and during some maritime strikes. On the other hand those operations consisted a significant part of the combat ops of 177s.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Feb 1, 2010)

Hello Vincenzo
Manchester showed that Germans were not the only ones who suffered from coupled engines. There is conflicting info on who, other than Udet, were responsible to that that it took so long for Germans to switch over to normal 4 engine confriguation.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 1, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Kurfürst
> So it seems that you don’t have any info on bomber loads used in actual combat mission other than what I have already given.



I didn't bother to look up, as I believe its irrelevant. The Heinkel 177 could carry a bit over 7 tons, thats a simple fact. If you have _evidence_ to the contrary, please share it. _Opinions_, well, everyone has them.



Juha said:


> And no comment of the unambiguous fact that for some reason the average speed was 50km/h lower than that achieved by the test organisation.



So why did they achieve lower avarage speeds than what others could achieve?



> But if you opinion is correct what is your opinion why Germans bothered to move KG 1 to airfields just west of Köningsberg/Kaliningrad to drop one ton bombs per plane on targets around Velikiye Luki with all the problems mentioned in Griehl Dressel? After all Velikiye Luki was only appr. 700km further east from Köningsberg/Kaliningrad.



So in your logic, if I drive my car _on one day_ at 50 km/h on a road it also means I can't ever drive it at 200 km/h...? How silly is that?

As you mentioned, the Germans could have a myriad of reasons to that - for example, lighten the plane enough so it could climb to higher altitude where Soviet fighters could not really intercept them (as He 177s did over England a year before, a rather successfull tactic I might add), poor airfields or if the aircraft were configured to long range fuel configuration, carrying fuel tanks in two out of three bomb bays, and they did not have time/possibility to convert them back to max. bombload configuration. Or perhaps, shortage of bombs, or any other reason.

In the end, Velikiye Luki's railroad junction (IIRC that was the target) got 87 tons of bombs and I am not sure if any heavy bomber was lost in the process.



> On the other hand Lancs seem as average have carried 4 ton bombloads to Berlin, appr 900km away from their bases.



Well if they would have used He 177s, they would have been able to deliver 7.2 tons instead... 



> The problem is of course that we seems to have limited amount of info on the actual bombloads used by 177s other than on some operations during the Steinbock operations and during some maritime strikes. On the other hand those operations consisted a significant part of the combat ops of 177s.
> 
> Juha



Its not really a problem, because we know exactly how much the 177 could carry, and how far. We don't have to _guess_ or _estimate_ the capabilities based on a few examples, because we have the exact figures, how many bombs could be delivered, and to how far..


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 1, 2010)

parsifal said:


> The contemporary (in terms of design) to the Lancaster in the German camp, was the He 177 A-1. The A-3 subtype appeared more than 18 months after the Lancaster, whilst the a-5 was more than 2 years younger than the original Lancasters.



Strictly speaking it is correct, but in practical terms, it makes very little difference in the comparison - the He 177A-1 and A-5 differed in little, bombload was the same on all variants, the defensive armament got a little tougher on the A-3 and A-5. Plus they were some 10 km/h faster due to the new engines... overall, marginal. 

The Lancaster AFAIK pretty much remained the same, it just had more electric stuff on board in 1944 than it had in 1942.. primary specs - bombload, speed, range etc. - was very much the same to my knowledge, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Feb 1, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> I didn't bother to look up, as I believe its irrelevant. The Heinkel 177 could carry a bit over 7 tons, thats a simple fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it. Opinions, well, everyone has them.
> ...(as He 177s did over England a year before, a rather successfull tactic I might add)...Well if they would have used He 177s, they would have been able to deliver 7.2 tons instead...



Attacks on Britain by He 177s started January 21; units involved: II./KG40, I./KG100 (less 3 Staffel), III./KG100 (less 8 Staffel) Total serviceable = 31 (20 March 1944) [The Blitz Then and Now Vol 3 p. 324]

For the raid on the night of 21/22 the attack was focused on London;( I./KG 40 and I./KG 100 only):12 He 177s were flown from Chateaudun "*Each of the heavy bombers (He 177) was able to carry two 2500 Kg bombs (11,000 lbs, 4.9 tons) to London"*. [p. 320] Chateaudun - London = 244 miles (393 km)  Chateaudun airports distances to...  London City airport (closest to centre of London)  There are also accounts of operations that show that experienced crews could fly with up to 13,250 lbs of bombs.

Two He 177s lost (one crashed on outward flight 'technical failure', one to RAF Mosquito.[pp.321, 330]. Of the 500 tonnes of bombs dropped during 447 sorties of all German bombers, about 268 tonnes fell on land and 32 tonnes fell on London.[p.321] After this raid the He 177s operated from Rheine, about twice the distance to London from Chateaudun.

Question, assuming that the He 177 _was_ capable of flying an equivalent distance of a raid from England to Berlin and back with 7 tons of bombs are there any recorded instances of such missions being carried out?


----------



## parsifal (Feb 1, 2010)

_Strictly speaking it is correct, but in practical terms, it makes very little difference in the comparison - the He 177A-1 and A-5 differed in little, bombload was the same on all variants, the defensive armament got a little tougher on the A-3 and A-5. Plus they were some 10 km/h faster due to the new engines... overall, marginal. _
The He 177 A-1 had a defensive armament of 1x7.9 mm mg in in the nose, a 20mm MGFF in the ventral gondola, 2x7.9mm Mg 81 in the aft ventral gondola, a 13mm MG in a remote controlled forward dorsal position, and a gimble mounted 13mm MG 131 in the tail. 

In summary thats 3 x 7.9mm, 2 x 13mm and 1 x 20mm

Its max offensive warload was 48x110 lb bombs, or 12x551 lb,or 6x1102 lb bombs or six 2205 lb bombs. Looking at these various loadouts, its carrying capacity could be variously described as 5280, 6612, or 13230, depending on the ordinance carried. The aircraft was initially rated to carry (typically) bombs of up to 2205lb size but this was later modified and increased to bombs up 3968lb capacity . Its range carrying its full warload was 745 miles 

The types medium range (typically described as 1988 miles), it could again carry a mix of loadouts, of 110, 551, 1102 or 2205 lb bombs, ech having a maximum tonnage of 3520, 4408, 4408 or 8820 lbs.

Its long range load out (3480 miles), it could carry 1760, 2204, 2204 or 4410 (again depending on the ordinance). 

Now comparing that to the A-5...It was designed primarily as a maritime strike aircraft with reduced carrying capacity, but greatly increased the endurnace. Cruising speed and max speed actually dropped in the A-5, once deployed on operations. Its crusing speed was 258 mph (A-1 had a cruising speed of 267 mph). Max speed was 303 mph (A-1 had a max speed of 317 mph) . I suspect this was due to the addional armament, and the mounting of launch points outside the fuselage. 

It was designed for primarily carried external warloads, such as the Lt-50 torpedo, the FX 1400 Fritz X and the HS 293 guided bombs 

Because of its specialized roles it actually tended to carry a somewhat lower warload than either the A-1 or A-3 bomber variants. It typically would carry 2 HS 293 missiles, or 2 x Fritz X, simulataneously it could carry 16 x 110 lb bombs, or 4 x 551 lb bombs, or 2 x 1102 lb bombs. The HS 293 weighed 1700 lbs, whilst the Fritz X weighed 2260 lbs. Adding all this up, the A-5 typical warload weighed between 3400 lb to 6734 lb

Defensive armament, 3 x 7.9mm MG, 4 x 13mm MG and 1 x 20mm cannon. The layout was based on the A-1, but with some additional firing positions

With these arrangements the A-5 had a listed endurance (ie one way) of between 3100 and 3417 miles. 


I have to disagree with you therfore...there were major differences between the A-1 and A-5....in terms of mission specs, equipment and ordinance carried

_The Lancaster AFAIK pretty much remained the same, it just had more electric stuff on board in 1944 than it had in 1942.. primary specs - bombload, speed, range etc. - was very much the same to my knowledge, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this_.

Too much of an oversimplification. Whilst the characteristics of the aircraft did not progress as spectaculalry as the He 177, it developed a wide range of electronic aids as you say, but also saw a massive development of differnt and increasingly deadly loadouts. The list is perhaps the greatest mix of ordinance types in the history of WWII bombers. 

I dont consider myself an expert on Lancaster development either, perhaps someone can step in and describe what the major performance developments of the lancaster were


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Feb 1, 2010)

No offense to anyone, but the calibre of the german guns isn't 7.9mm by 57mm, its 7.92mm by 57mm, and agian, no offense to anyone.


----------



## Juha (Feb 2, 2010)

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:"Well if they would have used He 177s, they would have been able to deliver 7.2 tons instead... "

But the question is did 177 ever dropped 7,2 tons bombload in anger? It seems that none of us have any proof of that, on the other hand we know for sure that Lancs dropped 10tons loads in anger and also made hits to pinpoint targets with that load.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Feb 2, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> As you mentioned, the Germans could have a myriad of reasons to that - for example, lighten the plane enough so it could climb to higher altitude where Soviet fighters could not really intercept them (as He 177s did over England a year before, a rather successfull tactic I might add)...



Kurfurst
Can you tell me which book this is quoted in. You have mentioned it in the past I just cannot find your posting.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 2, 2010)

parsifal said:


> _Strictly speaking it is correct, but in practical terms, it makes very little difference in the comparison - the He 177A-1 and A-5 differed in little, bombload was the same on all variants, the defensive armament got a little tougher on the A-3 and A-5. Plus they were some 10 km/h faster due to the new engines... overall, marginal. _
> The He 177 A-1 had a defensive armament of 1x7.9 mm mg in in the nose, a 20mm MGFF in the ventral gondola, 2x7.9mm Mg 81 in the aft ventral gondola, a 13mm MG in a remote controlled forward dorsal position, and a gimble mounted 13mm MG 131 in the tail.
> 
> In summary thats 3 x 7.9mm, 2 x 13mm and 1 x 20mm
> ...



Parsifal i've some doubt on your description (oh i know you take it somewhere) both max speed was wrong, the A-1 load it's sure wrong for 1 ton bombs (idk for the smallest), six are too. i'm near sure that A-5 can be used like a bomber with a load as of the A-3. for board weapons your description it's for A-1/R-1, the R-2 and R-3 change the double 7.92 with a 13, the R-4 a this mod add a 2nd dorsal turret with a 13. 
idk A-5 board weapons but A-3/R-1 had one 7.9 five 13 one 20 and R-2 had one 7.9 four 13 two 20 (now both MG 151)


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

Hi Vincenzo

Well, if youve got a source, we can have a closer look, but simply stating that its wrong doesnt help.

My sources for that submission were 

German Warplanes Of WWII, Chris Chant, Spellmount 1999

Bombers and Recon A/C, William Green, Volume 9, Mcdonalds London, 1972

Axis Aircraft Of World War II, David Mondey, Chancelor Pressm 1996


According to these sources the the internal bombays of the A-5 were partly plated over, I suspect to provide more tankage space, hence the greatly increased range for the type. Perhaps instead of carrying the specilized naval ordinance, it might be possible to carry bombs externally instead, but I dont have any information to confirm this. As far as being short on tonnage for the smaller bombers, I dont think it was a matter of how much weight the aircraft could carry, simply rather a case of how much space and hardpoints it possessed to carry the ordinance. the reference material I looked at stated that one of its warloads was 48 x 110 lb bombs, hence the calculated bombload (approx 4800 lbs) .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> The Lancaster AFAIK pretty much remained the same, it just had more electric stuff on board in 1944 than it had in 1942.. primary specs - bombload, speed, range etc. - was very much the same to my knowledge, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this.


As pointed out in the previous pages, there were variants with some internal structural and engine changes that did indeed increase speed and range a bit. Look at the Lancaster VII.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 2, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Hi Vincenzo
> 
> Well, if youve got a source, we can have a closer look, but simply stating that its wrong doesnt help.
> 
> ...



for board weaponry my source it's manuals in cockpitinstrumente.de same for A-3 max speed, same for A-1 bomb load. for A-1 max speed now i don't remember but i've read it's a little low of A-3. My consideration on A-5 as bomber are my have not a source.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 2, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> No offense to anyone, but the calibre of the german guns isn't 7.9mm by 57mm, its 7.92mm by 57mm, and agian, no offense to anyone.



No offense should be taken, just correcting someone.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 2, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> No offense to anyone, but the calibre of the german guns isn't 7.9mm by 57mm, its 7.92mm by 57mm, and agian, no offense to anyone.



if you love the precison the 7.92 it's only a name the calibre it's over 8 mm, 8.2


----------



## NZTyphoon (Feb 2, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> if you love the precison the 7.92 it's only a name the calibre it's over 8 mm, 8.2



And the source or sources for this is?


----------



## riacrato (Feb 2, 2010)

It's true:


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

Dont worry guys, I was the one who said 7.9 mm. If I was aggravated by the correction I would not hesitate to speak up. I knew the 7.9 eas actually 7.92 (but didnt know it was actually 8.2). I actually appreciate the correction, but am concentrating on getting the HYe-177 capabilities right rather than worry about the details


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2010)

That's OK, 30-06 are really .308 and .303s are really .311-.313 and there are plenty more

As long as we understand what is meant.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Feb 3, 2010)

riacrato said:


> It's true:



Interesting; at first I wondered if this had anything to do with the 8mm Schwartzlose, but the Schwartzlose had a shorter cartridge case (50mm cf 57 mm). An interesting diversion...8)


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 3, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I have to disagree with you therfore...there were major differences between the A-1 and A-5....in terms of mission specs, equipment and ordinance carried



I have the Chant book you are using as a source, but I am using the German primary docs instead. These show there were no major changes between the variants, the A-1 is listed with the same bombload possibilities as the A-3, and what secondary sources show for the A-5. 

The confusion about range possibly stems from the rather complicated fuel/bomb arrangements in the 177. Basically, the type could be operated as a long range, medium range or short range bomber.

In the latter, all three bomb bays were used for carrying bombs, in the former, one or two forward bomb bays were used to store fuel tanks. Actually the fuselage fuel tanks were right above the bomb bay, and they simply replaced the forward ones with larger fuel tanks, that also occupied the first two bomb bays. But this was present possibility the same way on the A-1 as it was on the A-5.. basically the engines have changed (DB 606 to DB 610 on the A-3) and the defensive armament (MG 151s on some A-3 subtypes and all A-5s). Its possible of course that A-5s were more often configured for long range in practice, given that the type was used extensively as an anti shipping platform. 

The German datasheet from June 1942 gives the following:


----------



## parsifal (Feb 3, 2010)

Okay, what you are saying does make sense, although I was unaware of the A-1 (or the A-3) ever being used for anti-shipping strikes. Maybe the A-1 was attritioned off before the type started to be used for anti-shipping duties


----------



## wilscor41 (Feb 6, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> What debate?
> The B-29 could haul a greater bombload further, faster and higher
> It could also absorb more damage
> 
> ...



Colin this is Jack from usa, if your last name is Campbell Oi!
If not my apologies


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 6, 2010)

wilscor41 said:


> Colin this is Jack from the USA, if your last name is Campbell Oi!
> If not my apologies


Hi Jack
no apology required but spookily close! The lad who sat behind me at secondary school (11 - 16yrs) was called Colin Campbell!


----------

